Tuesday, June 23, 2020

The US-Taliban Deal: A ray of hope for the battered Afghans

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Aditi Mohta

Article Title

The US-Taliban Deal: A ray of hope for the battered Afghans

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 23, 2020

URL

US Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo participates in a signing ceremony in Doha, Qatar, on February 29, 2020

US Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo participates in a signing ceremony in Doha, Qatar, on February 29, 2020 | Source: U.S. Department of State  via Wikimedia

On 11 September 2001, the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon in America killed over 3000 people for which Osama Bin Laden, the head of Al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility.. Osama Bin Laden was based in Afghanistan during this attack and was protected by the government of the day which was run by the radical Islamist group Taliban. Even after the repeated demands from the USA government, Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the USA. 

George W. Bush, the president of America at that point of time, announced the first airstrikes against Afghanistan on 7 October 2001. As other countries joined in, the Taliban were quickly removed from power and a new pro-western government was installed. The new government, however, was never able to run its writ over the whole country. The Taliban regrouped and started gaining influence in the vast rural areas and continuously attacked the US-led international military coalition as well as Afghan forces. From that point onward, the U.S. and its allies have battled to stop Afghanistan's administration crumbling and to end attacks by the Taliban. 

After more than eighteen years of war in Afghanistan, on 29 February 2020, the United States and Taliban signed a peace deal which was the first step in ending the war. The agreement was signed in the Qatari capital Doha between Talibani political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. The U.S. Defence Secretary Mark Esper said that signing of the accord would be a good step to end the war, the road ahead would not be secure. There would be a full withdrawal of all U.S. and coalition forces from Afghanistan within 14 months since the signing of the deal. The Taliban promised to cut ties with Al Qaeda and keep fighting the militant Islamic State group.  

What is in the peace agreement?

The peace agreement was signed after nine rounds of discussion and it contains four main points: cease-fire, withdrawal of foreign forces, intra-Afghan negotiations, and counter-terrorism assurances. 

  1. Cease-fire: The negotiators agreed to a temporary reduction in violence. They said that a permanent and comprehensive cease-fire will be an item on the agenda of the intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations. 
  2. Withdrawal of foreign forces: Within the first 135 days, the U.S. will reduce its troops in Afghanistan from roughly 12,000 to 8,600, along with the allies of the U.S. also withdrawing their forces proportionately. If the Taliban follows through all the commitments that in the peace deal, all the U.S. troops along with the allies' troops will leave Afghanistan within fourteen months. 
  3. Counter-terrorism assurances: The United States invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, mainly to eliminate the threat of terrorism and halt terrorist activities in the country. As a part of the agreement, the Taliban guaranteed that Afghanistan would not be used by any of its members or terrorist groups to threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies. 
  4. Intra-Afghan negotiations: The reason behind the intra-Afghan talks is to bring together negotiators from the Taliban and Afghan government. The peace deal also calls for an exchange of prisoners before the intra-Afghan negotiations. The intra-Afghan talks which were supposed to take place in March 2020, have been delayed. 

Challenges to the peace deal

While this deal can be seen as a stepping stone towards a more comprehensive agreement, many difficulties may come in the way. 

The United States and the Taliban had consented to the arrival of up to 5000 Taliban prisoners in return for up to one thousand Afghan security forces. However, the Afghan government said that it had not agreed on such an exchange. The process can become difficult due to a weak central government along with ethnic, tribal and sectarian differences. At the same time, many people say that the Taliban has gotten more than it gave up. 

Through the deal, the Taliban got their primary wish: removal of American troops from Afghanistan. Yet, they had failed to be specific about the civil rights that they had repressed when they were in power. The insurgents pledged to keep international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as their base for attacks. 

The United States promised to work towards the gradual removal of Taliban leaders from the sanction blacklists of America and the United Nations. At the same time, the experts say that the Taliban is stronger than ever at this point. It controls many districts throughout the country and continues to launch significant attacks including in Kabul and on Afghan security forces. 

The peace process is also faced by the problem of the illegal drug trade. According to Afghan officials, more than 20 terrorist groups still operate inside the country, which is another threat to the deal. By signing the agreement, the U.S. and the Taliban state their commitment to reduce violence and not attack each other. What remains a worry is how much and how long the Taliban will hold fire on Afghan security forces before the cease-fire is finally reached in Afghan negotiations.

Sources that were used:

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/world/asia/us-taliban-deal.html
  2. http://diplomatist.com/2020/05/16/us-taliban-peace-deal-and-its-implications-for-central-asia/
  3. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2020/02/war-afghanistan-2001-invasion-2020-taliban-deal-200229142658305.html
  4. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51689443
  5. https://www.dawn.com/news/1529415
  6. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-taliban-peace-deal-agreement-afghanistan-war
  7. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/afghanistan-taliban-sign-deal-america-longest-war-200213063412531.html
  8. https://www.dawn.com/news/1537384
  9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/u-s-taliban-peace-deal/7aab0f58-dd5c-430d-9557-1b6672d889c3/?itid=lk_inline_manual_3

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:43 PM

Sweden’s No Lockdown Policy: How That Changed The Outcome

Sweden has gone against conventional wisdom in its response to the COVID-19 situation. While the neighbouring countries like Denmark, Finland and Norway imposed strict lockdown on the places and services frequented by the public, Sweden has chosen to not do so at all during the initial phases when COVID-19 started taking the shape of a worldwide pandemic. The public places like Cafes, restaurants, gyms, malls, playgrounds, ski slopes and some of the schools were kept open all across Sweden.

The country’s fight against the threat of pandemic was handled exclusively by the Public Health Authority, with no political interference. They believed that a lockdown only serves to delay the virus, which is not necessary since the health services are equipped to deal with the cases. They also made it clear that achieving herd immunity is also not their aim. The public authorities in Sweden instead relied on the public's sense of responsibility, and appealed to them to do frequent hand washing, observe social distancing and keep people over 70 years old from going out.

The state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, made multiple statements about the state’s unusual approach, such as 1) “Once you get into a lockdown, it’s difficult to get out of it,”, “How do you reopen?  When?” 2) “There is no evidence whatsoever that doing more at this stage would make

any difference. It’s far better to introduce stringent measures at very specific intervals, and keep them running for as little time as possible” , 3) " As long as the healthcare system reasonably can cope with and give good care to the ones that need care, it's not clear that having the cases later in time is better”.

The assumption of public responsibility did not work for Sweden and there were people out on the streets, in cafes, restaurants and playgrounds. Not wearing a mask was the social norm instead of the reverse. The models for charting the virus spread given by the concerned authorities also turned out to be faulty forcing them to rescind it. Over 2000 Swedish researchers and doctors signed a petition which claimed that there was not enough testing,tracking or isolation in the country. They believed that the authority has clearly not planned their response and that the authority’s claim for herd immunity has very little scientific basis, even though the government has repeatedly claimed that herd immunity is not what they were aiming for.

Sweden’s lax approach to the combating of coronavirus forced its neighbouring Scandinavian countries to close the border for the Swedish citizens. Some of the Swedish officials were worried for the possible harm to the long term relations between Sweden and its neighbours.  Also, the plan of letting life go on as usual to avoid the economic recession occurring due to a lockdown also failed as it didn’t shield  the country from economic slowdown.

Here comes the question; was the lockdown successful or not? There are some comparisons that have been drawn which indicate more deaths per 100,000 people than in nearby countries with homogenous population, even though it is significantly lesser than some of the European countries. While the infections rates are double that of Denmark, the death rates in comparison are much higher. This difference has been attributed to the fact that approximately half of these deaths have occurred in old care homes despite the stated priority of the officials to protect the elderly. This has been in part to the volunteer program, which replaced symptomatic old age home cares with new volunteers, hence increasing exposure. Another factor is the lack of protective equipment in such homes, along with laws preventing administration of medical procedures without the presence of doctors. There were reports of people threatened with lawsuits for banning visitors.

All of this led to Mr.Tegnell claiming that the ideal policy would have been something between what Sweden adopted and what the other countries did, in the light of what they know now. However this claim of Mr.Tegnell will be put to test when the second wave comes, later in time.

Read More