[The prospect of a truce, seen as the first step toward a U.S.-Taliban peace deal that would soon be followed by negotiations between Taliban and Afghan leaders, has also sparked a flurry of political activity and controversy over who would lead and participate in such talks.]
By
Pamela Constable
 |
|
Security
officials check people at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Jalalabad,
Afghanistan,
on Monday. (Ghulamullah Habibi/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)
|
KABUL
— For three miraculous days
in June 2018, the Afghan war came to a halt. Under a brief cease-fire
agreement, Taliban fighters appeared in towns and cities, mingling with
civilians and uniformed troops, praying in community mosques and getting a
taste of peace.
The fighting quickly resumed, and in the 18
months since, thousands more Afghan civilians and security forces have been
killed, as well as over 40 American troops. Peace talks between Taliban and
U.S. officials dragged on for a year and were abruptly canceled in September by
President Trump.
But suddenly, in the past week, rumors of a
possible new truce have flooded the news, striking a rare spark of hope among
the war-weary citizenry. International media outlets have reported that a
cease-fire is imminent, citing unnamed sources after Taliban leaders held
several meetings in Pakistan.
The prospect of a truce, seen as the first
step toward a U.S.-Taliban peace deal that would soon be followed by
negotiations between Taliban and Afghan leaders, has also sparked a flurry of
political activity and controversy over who would lead and participate in such
talks.
Spokesmen for the insurgents have adamantly
denied the reports of a nationwide truce deal. But they have held open the
possibility of accepting a narrower, more vaguely defined period of lessened
conflict, with the time frame and territory still in dispute.
“The Islamic Emirate has no intention of
declaring a cease-fire,” Zabihullah Mujahid, the main Taliban spokesman, said
in a statement, using the group’s name for a religious government. “The United
States has asked for a reduction in the scale and intensity of violence, and
discussions being held by the Islamic Emirate are revolving solely around this
specific issue.”
American officials have said nothing about
the conflicting reports; even the main U.S. negotiator, Zalmai Khalilzad,
usually a fount of upbeat tweets, has fallen silent since returning to
Washington this week after meeting with Taliban and Pakistani officials.
Afghan officials said they have received no
word from either side. The Taliban have refused to recognize Afghan President
Ashraf Ghani’s government, but he appears to have narrowly won reelection in a
September poll and has asserted that the final results will confirm that,
giving him a mandate to lead the peace effort.
“We have not heard anything that raises our
hopes for a truce,” said Javid Faisal, an aide to Ghani. “We want it to happen,
because it will be an important step forward toward negotiations among Afghans.
But it has to be a real truce, a complete truce that is guaranteed and
assured.”
In the absence of facts, a wave of confusion
and commentary has swept media and political circles here. One common theory is
that Taliban leaders in Pakistan agreed to a truce but that some field
commanders still oppose it, believing they can win the 18-year war and return
the country to full-fledged religious rule.
The momentum has also been slowed by the
likelihood that Trump may soon reduce the 13,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to
about 8,600. Previously, U.S. officials insisted that the insurgents had to
sign a peace agreement before any major troop cuts would take place.
Other points of contention include whether
the fighting pause would last one week or longer, whether it would be confined
to certain cities or include rural areas, and whether it would be called a
formal truce or a more subjective reduction in violence.
“The Taliban are under pressure from Pakistan
and the U.S. to sign a deal, and they may be putting on an appeasing face to
buy time, but their past behavior shows they are difficult to trust,” said
Haroun Mir, an analyst in Kabul who helped found Afghanistan’s Center for
Research and Policy Studies. If the insurgents agree to a brief truce during a
cold winter, when fighting always slows, he said, “it will mean nothing.”
On Tuesday, comments from Taliban and Afghan
officials suggested that mistrust and intransigence remain high on all sides.
One Taliban military commander insisted that as long as U.S. troops remain in
Afghanistan, there can be no truce. A member of the government’s High Peace Council
said both Ghani and the insurgents are being too stubborn; the president, in
turn, announced plans to dissolve the entire council.
Since preliminary election results showed
Ghani winning reelection by about 10,000 votes, his opponents have filed
thousands of fraud complaints that may take months to investigate. But Ghani is
racing to form a delegation to negotiate with the Taliban, even as an array of
rivals have objected that they are being left out.
“The whole country is keenly interested in
peace, but the ground is not being prepared for it,” said Ehsanullah Zia,
Afghan director of the nonprofit U.S. Institute of Peace. Even with people
dying every day, he said, some Afghans are demanding “red lines for peace. We
don’t have the luxury of setting red lines. People need to suppress their
personal ambitions for the sake of the country.”
Aides to Ghani insist that the list of peace
delegates, kept secret so far, will represent all sectors of society. In April,
when Kabul tried to choose a group to meet with insurgent leaders in Qatar, it
became so unwieldy that the insurgents canceled the talks.
“These talks will be very inclusive,” said
Faisal. “All sides that matter will be included. If the Taliban don’t accept it
this time, the blame will go to them.”
Read
more:
