The U.S.’s plans to withdraw about 7,000 troops, nearly half of its current strength, from Afghanistan, has invited strong, shocked reactions from Afghans as well as international stakeholders. The decision followed a three-day long meeting of the U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad with Taliban members in Abu Dhabi earlier last week.
While Mr. Khalilzad termed the talks “productive” on Wednesday, there were no indications that the U.S. was going to withdraw troops. However, analysts say this has long been in the offing.
“Diplomats in Kabul have been talking about the ‘tweet of Damocles’ hanging over peace talks, fearing that (U.S. President Donald) Trump would bring home the troops abruptly,” said Graeme Smith, a consultant for the International Crisis Group. While this decision could affect security and political stability in Afghanistan, it could also be a show of good faith for the Taliban to negotiate peace, he added. “This could nudge the political process toward serious discussion of peace. A partial withdrawal could send a useful message to all sides.”
A delegation of the Afghan High Peace Council, an independent body set up to negotiate with the insurgents, was also present at the talks. The Taliban has rejected holding talks with the Afghan government, which it often refers to as a “puppet regime”. “Discussions are taking place with the representatives of the U.S. about ending the occupation, a matter that does not concern the Kabul administration,” Zabihullah Mujahid, Taliban spokesperson, said in a statement.
However, the delegation from the Afghan High Peace Council remained hopeful. “The meetings were very fruitful and took place in a positive environment. We met with several non-political actors and held informal meetings with the Taliban and other parties,” Asadullah Zahiri, deputy spokesperson of the Council , told this correspondent. “We got the sense that the Taliban was very serious about negotiating peace, and even discussed a long-term ceasefire,” he said, adding that there were also some talks on holding the next round in Afghanistan.
‘Afghan-owned, Afghan-led’
Meanwhile, despite the cold shoulder from the Taliban, the Afghan government continued to assert its role in the talks that are characterised as being “Afghan-owned, Afghan-led”. In a statement issued after the conclusion of the Abu Dhabi talks, Afghan National Security Adviser Hamdulllah Mohib said: “As a sovereign country, no other country or individual has the right or the authority to discuss new governance formulas or structures for Afghanistan, including political dispensations, which violate the Afghan Constitution,” he said. “There is no substitute for an elected government.”
“The possibility of a negotiated end to the conflict has never been more real in the past 17 years than it is now,” said Tadamichi Yamamoto, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative for Afghanistan.
Mr. Zahiri also dismissed the Taliban’s denial over meeting Afghan officials, reminding this reporter of similar issues that were present while negotiating peace with Hizb-e-Islami last year.
“We had a lot of challenges at that time too, but in the end, our experience with Hizb-e-Islami was a successful one. Emotions tend to play a big role when peace is being discussed,” he reasoned. “We expect the Taliban to make good use of this opportunity that has arrived for Afghans to find a solution for all these security and political disagreements,” he said, referring to the peace process.
Ruchi Kumar is a freelance journalist based in Kabul
