Negotiating with moderates in taliban

[S-2]

"I'm pretty sure one day it will turn out that the Americans made us sign all the peace deals."

Yeah, in exchange for PREDATOR and taking the heat.

We've never wanted to do that but you twisted our arms.

You should stop it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Mulla Omar backs Afghan peace talks​

Monday, March 16, 2009

News Desk

KABUL: Taliban chief Mulla Omar has given his approval for talks aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan and allowed his representatives to attend the Saudi-sponsored peace negotiations.

“Mulla Omar has given the green light to talks,” said one of the mediators, Abdullah Anas, a former friend of Osama bin Laden who used to fight in Afghanistan but now lives in London. One of those negotiating for the Afghan government confirmed: “It’s extremely sensitive, but we have been in contact, both with Mulla Omar’s direct representatives and commanders from the front line.”

The breakthrough emerged after President Barack Obama admitted that the US-led forces were not winning the war in Afghanistan and called for negotiations with “moderate Taliban”.“A big, big step has happened,” Anas said. “For the first time, there is a language of... peace on both sides.”

His words were echoed by Qayyum Karzai, the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has been attending talks on his behalf. “I have been meeting with Taliban for the last five days and I can tell you Obama’s words have created enormous optimism,” said Qayyum Karzai.

“There is no other way left but talks. All sides know that more fighting is not the way,” he said. As Britain and the US have increased troop numbers over the past two years, security has worsened, leading many to doubt the wisdom of sending in more.

A Sunday Times poll showed that 64 per cent of respondents favoured talking to the Taliban to achieve a deal. Some 69 per cent said the aim of stabilising Afghanistan was not sufficiently worthwhile to risk the lives of British troops and 64 per cent thought the war could never be won.

Although observers question why the Taliban would agree to talks when they appeared to have the upper hand in the conflict, Anas said its leaders knew they could not retake power without a bloodbath.

“Taliban are in a strong position now, but that doesn’t mean they can control the state,” he said. “They are well aware that it’s a different situation to 1996 when they swept to power because Afghans saw them as bringing peace,” he added.

Britain is also backing talks with the Taliban that could lead to their inclusion in the Afghan government and is pushing for a “reconciliation czar” to coordinate efforts. “Economic development and a workable reconciliation strategy are as crucial as boots on the ground when it comes to dismantling the insurgency,” said British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Mulla Omar backs Afghan peace talks

-----------------
Interesting ....

 

[s90]

Hmm interesting news...Mulla Omar lives in Quetta?

 

[roadrunner]

This is old news, isn't it?

Taliban Leader Mullah Omar Urges Seven Point Plan for Peace - NAM

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And the now expected clarification to the above ...

Optimism over Taliban talks: negotiator​

19 hours ago

KABUL (AFP) — Taliban have shown optimism about holding talks with the Afghan government after calls from Washington to explore contacts with "moderate" militants, a negotiator said Sunday.

A Taliban spokesman nonetheless reiterated that the militant group would not enter negotiations unless international troops propping up the Kabul government pulled out of the country.

Abdul Qayoum Karzai, the elder brother of President Hamid Karzai, who leads efforts on behalf of Kabul to persuade Taliban militants into talks, said President Barack Obama's recent statement had an "enormous effect".

"It has created lots of optimism within the people of Afghanistan and also within the Taliban," he told AFP. "No other way is left but talks," Karzai added.

He would not give details about the talks due to the sensitivity of the process that according to him has been ongoing for the "past two and a half years."

"The (former US president George W.) Bush administration's focus was only on military means and no place was left for talks," Karzai said.

But "the people of Afghanistan, including the Taliban, believe that war is no way out of this situation in Afghanistan and we must talk," he said.

Taliban spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP by telephone however: "We'll not talk to anybody unless the invading foreign forces leave Afghanistan."

He had the same message in a round table discussion on private television late Saturday, in which he took part by phone, with two former members of the Taliban government also on the panel.

Ahmadi also rejected a media report that the Taliban's elusive leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, had given the green light to talks. "Such statements are baseless lies," he said.

The extremist Taliban were in government between 1996 and 2001.

Their insurgency saw a record number of attacks last year with Kabul and its Western allies keen to break a stalemate in a dragging and deadly conflict, with consensus that victory does not lie in a military effort alone.

Kabul has for years said it was willing to talk to Afghan Taliban who were not linked to Al-Qaeda and agreed to lay down their weapons and accept the democratic constitution.

Washington said last week any move for talks would ultimately be up to the Afghan government but it has said it would not support reconciliation with Mullah Omar who is on a US "most wanted" list.

AFP: Optimism over Taliban talks: negotiator

 

[Ratus Ratus]

How do they get optimism out of this?

1. Taliban spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP by telephone however: "We'll not talk to anybody unless the invading foreign forces leave Afghanistan."

2. Ahmadi also rejected a media report that the Taliban's elusive leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, had given the green light to talks. "Such statements are baseless lies," he said.

That is a straight no talk policy.

So why the obviously wrong headline by some whack head journo?

 

[S-2]

Were facing some of the same reluctance to broach hard realities in the west and Afghanistan as is faced in Pakistan- a reluctance to see that there's very serious fighting required as a pre-condition to serious negotiations.

Omar is clear, again, on this matter. No negotiations until NATO leaves. What's that mean? Simple.

Why negotiate for a portion when all can be had? That's Omar's dilemma now and it doesn't pose much at that. He's certain, as matters currently stand, that patience and determination will see him through.

Think about it- on what basis does Omar, invited into the Afghan political process, campaign? What's his platform or those of his appointed political agents? More of 1996 again? And we can all discuss the merits of such openly?

Nah...these guys won't be hiring poll-takers and conducting nuanced, tailored campaigns shaped by spin-masters from Madison Ave. They know that they don't carry much "camera appeal".

The militants want no part of a political process except that mandated by them after they reach the top.

We may split lieutenants and bring recalcitrant tribes to the fore but there are elements of this fight who are corrosive to the greater good under any form and probably have to be run to ground.

By their actions you'll know who can be approached and has interest in an inclusive process. All patriotic afghan pashtus would certainly be welcomed back to the fold and here is where the potential fissure lies.

Are you taliban or afghan? If your grievances can be resolved by inclusion then there's your answer. How this is handled by the Karzai gov't and their mentors will be key.

Some thoughts...

 

[belarusian]

its a mistake and a hopeless situation to have american troops stabilize/bring democracy to afghanistan.


why? :

a)there is no language culture skill set. you need an imperial bureaucracy to manage this. the afghan government is utterly corrupt and not salvageable.

b) islamists world wide are driven for ideological reasons to interfere. they can buy up afghan fighters by the bushel and destroy anything that's built there. Islamism is the most powerful idea that a nation of illiterates is capable of understanding.

c) afghanistan is linked by geography and economy to pakistan (hence afpak). no afghan gov can sustain itself in the face of pakistani antagonism/subversion.

d) pakistan is a hopeless kleptocracy with no capacity for reform or development. in fact without the imf loan pakistan doesnt even have money for food. the ruling class are parasites hiding behind a smokescreen of religous gobbledygook. they are very vulnerable, very guilty and very frightened.

the ruling class of pakistan will do what it is told, otherwise we will punish them and throw them to the wolves.

that is the proper focus of american policy to achieve what little can be achieved there.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

America floats plan to tempt Taliban into peace process​

* Jason Burke in Kabul
* The Observer, Sunday 22 March 2009
* Article history

America has signalled a radical new initiative to bring the Taliban into the Afghan political process as part of growing efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the war in Afghanistan.

The US ambassador to Kabul told the Observer that America would be prepared to discuss the establishment of a political party, or even election candidates representing the Taliban, as part of a political strategy that would sit alongside reinforced military efforts to end the increasingly intractable conflict.

The move will cause concern among allies struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving US policy.

Other ideas being discussed include changing the Afghan constitution as part of potential negotiations, taking senior Taliban figures off UN blacklists to establish dialogue and possible prisoner releases.

European nations are currently weighing up US requests for more troops and resources for Afghanistan ahead of a series of forthcoming summits. Tough fighting is expected as America sends a surge of 17,000 troops into the country before the August elections. In recent days more than 100, including five Nato soldiers, have died in fighting and bomb attacks across the country. More than 30 insurgents died in a clash in the southern Helmand province, a Nato spokesman said.

William Wood, the outgoing US ambassador to Afghanistan, told the Observer that "insurgencies, like all wars... end when there is an agreement". He said while the US saw "no way there could be power-sharing or an enclave" for the Taliban, "there is room for discussion on the formation of political parties [or] running... for elections. That is very different from shooting your way into power." The key requirement would be respect for the constitution, Wood added.

"They have said 'No start of negotiations without prior departure of foreign forces.' That's not serious. Let's get serious."

Taliban and other insurgents are currently flowing into Afghanistan from Pakistan as milder weather allows passage over the mountains.

Last week, the head of Nato forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, admitted to the Observer that his troops "were not winning" in the south and parts of the east of the country, though progress was being made elsewhere. This year will be "critical" and "tough", he said.

In Kabul, the Observer has discovered at least four attempts at exploratory negotiations between insurgents, their representatives and the Afghan government. One involves Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Islamist warlord and former prime minister, whose militants are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of international and Afghan soldiers and civilians in the east of Afghanistan. Two weeks ago Hekmatyar's representatives and government emissaries met in a hotel in Dubai, according to Senator Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban minister who is a key intermediary. Rahmani also claims to have been in touch with Jalaluddin Haqqani, a veteran militant behind a series of bloody attacks in Kabul and eastern Afghanistan.

Other contacts include those between Taliban leaders and President Hamid Karzai's brother, and those brokered by a group of ex-Taliban leaders now living under amnesty in Kabul including Abdul Salam Zaeef, former ambassador to Pakistan. Nato and EU officials have met Zaeef to discuss Taliban demands. A Pakistan-Afghan "jirga", or assembly of elders, has established a "reconciliation committee" to "reach out to extremists".

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is to launch a new British counterterrorism strategy targeting Pakistan. Writing in today's Observer he warns of an "al-Qaida core in northern Pakistan trying to organise attacks in Britain".

Al-Qaida is still active in Afghanistan but the threat has crossed the border, he adds: "Over two thirds of the plots threatening the UK are linked to Pakistan. Together with the US administration we are developing a new strategy for how we tackle the terrorist threat across the region, the underlying causes, the extremist madrasas and the lawless spaces in which terrorists can recruit or train."

Writing after British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary suggested homosexuals be stoned, Brown also urged civic society "to stand up to people who advocate violence and preach hate" and promised a new approach to threats of chemical, biological and nuclear attack.

In Kabul, Wood said the upper ranks of the Afghan insurgency had yet to show any "inclination" for reconciliation. Al-Qaida remained "the enemy of the world", making talks inconceivable.

US floats plan to tempt Taliban into political peace dialogue | World news | The Observer

 

[muse]

This is the Second time Mr. inderfurth has floated the idea
in the IHT this time he has Republican backing

AFGHANISTAN
lUtimate exit strategy
By Karl F. Inderfurth and James Dobbins
Published: March 26, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has described the upcoming high-level conference on Afghanistan at The Hague as a "big-tent meeting, with all the parties who have a stake and an interest in Afghanistan." With the situation in that country growing more precarious by the day, those attending this meeting must also think big.

Henry Kissinger already is. "Afghanistan is almost the archetypal international problem requiring a multilateral solution for the emergence of a political framework," he recently wrote in the International Herald Tribune. "In the 19th century, formal neutrality was sometimes negotiated to impose a standstill on interventions in and from strategically located countries."

"Is it possible," he asked, "to devise a modern equivalent?"

The answer is yes.

Those gathering under the "big tent" should start laying the groundwork for establishing Afghanistan as a permanently neutral state. Harkening back to the Congress of Vienna in 1815, this approach has been successful in neutralizing regional and great power rivalries that have threatened smaller, more vulnerable states. Switzerland and Austria are two examples.

Afghanistan is in this category today. Landlocked and resource-poor, the country is at risk of unwelcome external influences. Predatory neighbors have been a fact of life for the Afghan state throughout most of its history. When its neighbors perceived a common interest in a peaceful Afghanistan, it was at peace. When they did not, it was at war.

Afghanistan may be a hard country to occupy, as the British discovered in the 19th century and the Russians in the 20th, but it is an easy one to destabilize. At present it is being destabilized by multiple insurgencies organized, directed and supplied from sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan.

During its periods of relative tranquility, Afghanistan operated as a buffer state, in the 19th century between the British and Russian empires, and through much of the 20th between the Soviet and U.S. spheres of influence. Sustained peace in Afghanistan will require the recreation of such an equilibrium.

Kissinger proposed that a working group of Afghanistan's neighbors, India and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council be established to begin this process. This is an appropriate grouping, with the addition of Afghanistan, and it should be convened under the auspices of the U.N. secretary general.

The goal would be a multilateral accord that establishes principles and guarantees for Afghanistan's long-term status, to include agreements:

- by all the parties to declare Afghanistan a permanently neutral country;

- by Afghanistan not to permit its territory to again become a haven for terrorist activities or to be used against the interests of any of its neighbors;

- by Afghanistan's neighbors and near-neighbors not to interfere in Afghanistan's internal affairs or to allow their territory to be used against Afghanistan;

- by Afghanistan and Pakistan to recognize their common border (the Durand Line of 1893 is still in dispute);

- by all other parties to guarantee that border, including by a U.N.-sponsored monitoring mission, if requested by the Afghan government;

- by all parties to establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan, and

- by the United States and its NATO allies to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan once these other provisions had been implemented.

Such a package would give all the participants something of value. Pakistan would secure Afghan recognition of its border and assurances that India would not be allowed to use Afghan territory to pressure or destabilize Pakistan's volatile border regions.

India would be free to pursue normal relations with Kabul, including direct trade and commercial ties.

Iran would receive assurances that the international community recognizes its legitimate interests in Afghanistan and that the U.S. military presence on its eastern border is not permanent.

The United States and its allies would be able to depart, leaving behind a society at peace with itself and its neighbors.

Of greatest value would be the benefits for Afghanistan itself. It would gain an end to cross border infiltration and attacks, allowing it to pay full attention to rebuilding the country. Moreover, its hope of emerging as a regional crossroads for trade and commerce — a 21st century "Silk Road" — could be realized.

Diplomacy of this sort is no short term alternative to NATO's prosecuting a more effective counterinsurgency campaign inside Afghanistan.

More Western troops and economic assistance, more sophisticated military tactics and greater civilian capacity will be needed to turn the tide that is currently running against NATO and the democratically based government in Kabul.

In the longer term, however, Afghanistan will be able to secure its territory and population only with the active collaboration of its more powerful neighbors. Beginning now to build such a consensus is the ultimate Western exit strategy and the end state for Afghanistan that we should seek.

Karl F. Inderfurth, professor of international affairs at George Washington University, was the U.S. representative to the U.N.-sponsored "6 plus 2" talks on Afghanistan from 1997-2001. James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand Corp., was the Bush administration's first special envoy for Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

by Afghanistan not to permit its territory to again become a haven for terrorist activities or to be used against the interests of any of its neighbors;

This is going to be a key point for all of Afghanistan's neighbors, but I do not see how a mutually acceptable solution will be found here, that also accommodates 'democratic principles'.

What I mean is this - the routing of the Taliban essentially allowed the anti-Taliban (In many case pro-Indian) warlords to obtain significant power. The Afghan Intelligence Chief is Ahmed Shah Massoud's deputy chief after all. These warlords have magnified their wealth and power through the weapons and drugs trade.

Lets not kid ourselves that Afghanistan is enjoying or has any chance of enjoying (any time soon) a 'democratic government' in the 'free and fair' traditions of the West. Elections will be heavily influenced by those with resources and power. The perceived pro-Indian warlords or their approved surrogates will wield that power come election time and win, and likely result in a government that will largely be perceived as pro-Indian/pro-Iranian.

To achieve this extremely important goal of a 'neutral' Afghanistan, I feel that a power sharing agreement will have to be arrived at in which there is perhaps an interim government comprised of officials/leaders approved by all neighboring nations. I just do not see how 'democracy' will bring about a government that will be perceived as being neutral given Afghanistan's current social and power structure.

 

[DarkStar]

The biggest problem with the Afghan government is one of credibility.

These same warlords that are in power now, were at each others throats after the withdrawal of soviet troops, and their quest for power brought about more destruction in the 90s, than was the case during the Jihad against the Soviets.

Fahim, for example, is notorious for being involved in various terrorist acts in Pakistan, in the 80s and 90s, including the famous hijacking of a schoolbus full of children in Islamabad.

Dostam and the other warlords, are similarly distrusted, and their corrupt practices well known.

The rest are seen as American stooges, exported from Washington, Via Berlin, straight into the Afghan government. Their write does not extend much further than the fortified zone in the capital, Kabul.

The only solution is a credible government, and that can only be formed, when the warlords and drugrunners now in power, are dimissed, and respected, educated people are brought into the mix.