Iqbal Khan
ACCORDING to a recent Foreign Policy South Asia Brief, by Ravi Agrawal, start of intra Afghan talks is once again uncertain as prisoner release has once again stalled. France and Australia have objected to the release of several Taliban prisoners accused of killing French and Australian nationals and soldiers. Afghanistan’s government is withholding the release of the final tranche of 320 Taliban prisoners, going against the decision of Loya Jirga. Moreover, Afghan government has also accused Taliban for not releasing its prisoners. “If we take this bold step, releasing all these guys, all these bad people, why are the Taliban not releasing our captives, which is a very small number?” Government spokesperson Sediq Sediqqi told The Associated Press.
Negotiations between the Taliban and Afghan authorities were expected within days of Loya Jirga’s approval of the release of 400 Taliban prisoners. While Afghan authorities freed 80 Taliban prisoners on 13 August, there have been no further releases since then. President Ashraf Ghani’s spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said “Two countries had shared their concerns and reservations about six or seven prisoners among the 400.”The Afghan government is working with its partners to address the concerns about these prisoners,” he told reporters. France is “firmly opposed to the liberation of individuals sentenced for crimes against French nationals, especially soldiers and humanitarian workers,” the French Foreign Ministry said on August 15.”We have consequently asked Afghan authorities not to proceed with the liberation of these terrorists.” Bettina Goislard, a French employee of the UN’s refugee agency, was murdered by two Taliban militants in 2003, and a former Afghan soldier had killed five French troops and injured 13 others in 2012 in Kapisa province.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison last week said he had lobbied against the release of a former Afghan army soldier who went rogue and killed three Australian partners. President Ashraf Ghani has himself warned that the 400 militants were a “danger to the world”. Their release is part of a prisoner swap agreed in February between the Taliban and Washington as a precondition for peace talks. That deal stipulated that Kabul release 5,000 Taliban prisoners in return for 1,000 Afghan security personnel held by the militants. Afghan authorities say they too have released almost all prisoners, except those remaining from the 400. The Taliban claim to have released all the 1,000 captives, but Sediqqi said the insurgents were still holding some Afghan soldiers. “They should have completed this release by now. This exchange cannot be a one-way road,” Sediqqi said, adding Taliban violence remained “very high”. The Taliban have said they are willing to begin peace talks “within a week” after all 400 prisoners are freed, and blamed Kabul for delaying the negotiations. “The matter is stalled because the other side is not releasing the remaining prisoners despite promises,” Taliban political spokesman Suhail Shaheen told AFP.
Distracted by multiple other happenings and with declining interest in Afghanistan, US President Donald Trump still remains focused on getting American forces out of the country. Under pressure from the US, the traditional Afghan grand Council, Loya Jirga, voted for release of 400 prisoners on August 09, but urged the Taliban to adopt a ceasefire. “In order to remove the hurdles for the start of peace talks, stopping bloodshed, and for the good of the public, the Jirga approves the release of 400 prisoners as demanded by the Taliban,” Jirga member Atefa Tayeb announced on August 09. The Jirga urged the government to give assurances to the population that the released prisoners would be monitored and would not be allowed to return to the battlefield, adding that foreign fighters should be sent back to their respective countries.
The Council’s decision to free the Taliban prisoners did not come as a surprise, as delegates were urged by the US at the start of the Council, or Jirga, on August 07 to take “this difficult action” so that negotiations could begin to bring an end to the war. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had pushed for the release of the detainees, while recognising the decision would be “unpopular”. The prisoners included 44 fighters of particular concern to the US and other countries for their role in “high-profile” attacks. Five are linked to the 2018 attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul that killed 40 people, including 14 foreigners. Chief US negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad was quick to herald Jirga’s decision, tweeting: “With these bold steps, after 40 years of war, a historic opportunity for peace is now possible; one that benefits all Afghans and contributes to regional stability and global security. “Calling the Jirga’s decision “a good step, a positive step.” Amid continued violence, the US continues to press for the peace process to move forward, five months after intra-Afghan negotiations were scheduled to begin on March 10. Khalilzad said the two sides are to meet in Doha, after the prisoner releases “in the next few days”, he expects negotiating teams to travel to Doha “and from there the immediate start of intra-Afghan negotiations”. Former President Hamid Karzai told the Jirga he understood that the talks “would begin within two to three days” after the prisoners are released. President Donald Trump’s repeated commitment to pulling out American forces has undermined the Afghan government’s negotiating position. Time is on Taliban’s side.
Though Trump is keen to pull out troops he is also committed to “always have a presence” in Afghanistan for counterterrorism. According to JP Lawrence, Taliban negotiators are likely to oppose any proposal to retain a lasting US counterterrorism presence in Afghanistan during their upcoming peace talks with the Afghan government. Prospects of any sort of retention of foreign military presence is a non-starter among Taliban leadership as well as their rank and file. According to a White House press briefing in February, Trump envisions Taliban helping the US fight Daesh. Some lawmakers, including Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, have also proposed leaving a compatible residual US force to prevent the country being used again as a launch-pad for global terrorism. Divergence of end objective from both sides is phenomenal that betrays achieving early and or lasting peace.
Taliban are pretty shrewd negotiators, not only capable of timing out Trump’s current term but also the next one if at all he stands returned on 08 November 2020. And with Joe Biden in the White House, they could seek a new start up. Of now, the prospects of intra-Afghan peace talks, once again, stand dwindled as Trump prepares for further drawdown. From the US perspective, the path to peace between the Taliban and the Afghan government seems in sight — and the route is perceived as a short one. However, credible analysts believe that it’s easier said than done! Complications are too many and rather knotty, skipping any dimension of the conflict one could result in rapid reversals.
—The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.
