Daily Times

Will the transition of the Taliban and the Afghan government’s peace agreement made with Hizb-e-Islami in Afghanistan may help reduce the unity government’s frustration? The two-year term of the political agreement brokered by the US Secretary of State John Kerry between Dr Ashraf Ghani and Dr Abdullah Abdullah on September 21, 2014 to settle the dispute of presidential elections, and secondly, their administrative and constitutional matters regarding the Unity government is about to end in September 2016. Nevertheless, the government is still on the brink, and political spectrum is oblique due to internal differences and failure of Afghan peace process, which jeopardises the security situation as well.

President Ghani and Government Chief Executive Abdullah are not on the same page; they do not have agreement on most of the power-sharing formula. Reports suggest that the president and the chief executive has difference of opinion on key decisions since the formation of the unity government as several posts in government are lying empty or run by acting directors and ministers. The National Directorate of Security and ministry of defence, two key security institutions, are run by acting directors and ministers. Moreover, in February this year, two documents were leaked by the Afghan media regarding the appointment of the mayor of the Helmand province; one appointment letter was issued by President Ghani while the other was by Chief Executive Abdullah. Both had suggested different persons for the above-mentioned post, which shows that there is lack of unity between the two offices.

While on the other hand, rumours recently surfaced that the two-year term would be used to force out Abdullah from his post. According to a New York Times article, the presidential palace advisors argued that “while the position of chief executive would expire, the president would still have a mandate based on ‘an election that they saw was cleansed by a United Nations audit’.” In such a case the political chaos may arise once again between the two camps despite Kerry’s remarks during his visit to Kabul on April 10 that the term of unity government is not two years; it is five years. However, Kerry statement’s is not the final word, as the duration of the term will be decided by the Loya Jirga.

Furthermore, the Taliban’s chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour was killed in a drone strike near Quetta on May 21. From the US point of view, the objective of the strike may have to create division among the Taliban on the question of new leadership and to weaken their summer offensive. However, this event for the time being is a good sign for the Afghan government against the Taliban. On one hand, it has significantly pressurised Taliban, while on the other, it may also create differences among the ranks of the Taliban. Nonetheless, in the long run, it will have a negative impact on the peace process, as the Afghan government has been trying for two years to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

The US and Afghanistan have always accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists on its soil in the tribal areas. In the light of these grievances, Pakistan started the Operation Zarb-e-Azb in the North Waziristan Agency near the Pak-Afghan border in June 2014 to eliminate terrorists from the area. This operation has significantly weakened foothold of terrorists in the area; however, lack of cooperation from the Afghan and US side have minimised the effectiveness of this operation, as many terrorists flee to Afghanistan due to lack of border security management.

For the arrangement of a successful Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process, the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) comprised of the United States, China, Afghanistan and Pakistan was created at the end of 2015 after the Heart of Asia conference, hosted by Pakistan in Islamabad was concluded. The group has to make their full-fledged efforts while using its leverage to pave the way for peace process. So far, the group has held five meetings but without much success to bring about a substantial change. Initially, the QCG, and especially Pakistan, had played an encouraging role by scheduling a round of peace talks in March this year. However, the talks were cancelled due to some issues raised by the Taliban supreme council.

Last month, the Afghan government made a peace agreement with the Hizb-e-Islami of Afghanistan, the Hikmatyar faction, which to some extent have reinforced government’s confidence in the peace process. These negotiations are believed to have been started in 2014. According to the agreement, the group will abandoned its anti-government activities and will cease its connections with other militant groups. Besides, the Hizb-e-Islami will abide by the Afghanistan’s constitution. In return, government will have to give public forgiveness to this group’s members and release its members from jail. The group will eventually join mainstream politics.

Now in the current flux of situation when the Taliban chief is killed by the US, the prospects of peace process do not seem positive. The US justified killing of Mansour saying he was against the peace process. However, if we look back a year it was Mansour who authorised the Murree peace talks in the name of Mullah Umar. The Murree round of July 2015 was a unique event as it was a direct contact between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

Taliban’s new chief, Mullah Hebatullah, in his first announcement has vowed to continue to fight. Even so, his message does not mean complete disengagement from the negotiations. In any insurgency, when insurgents hold good position, they normally do not offer peace negotiations. They try to get maximum advantage and secure their objectives against the enemy. Same is the case with the Taliban; they are fighting for the last 15 years against the US and the Afghan forces, and have remained undefeated to a large extent in their guerilla warfare. Now the Taliban wishes to have their maximum demands accepted by the US and Afghanistan. Whenever the Taliban deemed the offer of the US and the Afghan government appropriate, there will be an agreement of peace in Afghanistan, which will prove a bridge to regional peace and stability.

Whenever there was a real chance of peace process, it was sabotaged by someone, which takes us to the question that are there some elements that do not want the peace process to be successful. Or that they do not approve of talks in which Pakistan has a lion’s share. There may be one reason of the failure of Afghanistan’s stability: in the case of instability in Afghanistan, the US will have a long presence in Afghanistan to achieve its long-term economic and strategic objectives in the region. The Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump once said that the nuclear weapons of Pakistan are the main reason of US military presence in Afghanistan.

The US House of Representative has recently passed a bill according to which Pakistan will have to take stern action against the Haqqani network, or otherwise in case of failure, their aid of the coalition support fund will be reduced. The US rather than accusing Pakistan should make a comprehensive plan to clear Afghanistan as well as Pak-Afghan border areas of TTP and other terrorists. That would help create peace and stability not only in Afghanistan but in the region as well. In addition, the unity government should bridge their internal differences to overcome problems to contribute to Afghanistan stability in all respects.

The writer is an Islamabad-based researcher and political analyst. He can be reached at iqbalyousafzai786@gmail.com