Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Splitting the Taliban

The leaked reports over the past two weeks of a series of meetings between U.S. officials and a Taliban figure close to leader Mullah Omar seemed to point to real progress toward a negotiated settlement of the war in Afghanistan.

But in fact the talks are part of a Barack Obama administration strategy aimed at putting pressure on the Taliban leadership in part by dividing it from Pakistan as well as bolstering Obama’s domestic support for the war.

Senior administration officials hope to use the talks to sow suspicion between the Taliban and their main ally, thus weakening the Taliban resolve to negotiate on a peace settlement only if the United States offers a timetable for troop withdrawal.

Afghan and German officials have said that U.S. officials met three times in Qatar and Germany in recent months with Tayyeb Agha, an aide of the top Taliban leader Mullah Omar, according to reports in the Washington Post and Der Spiegel.

Agha is about as close to Mullah Omar as any official in the Taliban. He has long been Omar’s “head of office” and a “very close confident”, according to Thomas Ruttig of the Afghanistan Analysts Network.

The Hamid Karzai regime was fully briefed on those “exploratory” meetings, but Pakistani officials have been kept in the dark as part of a strategy of sowing discord between Pakistan and the Taliban leadership.

That strategy began to emerge when UK Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Mark Sedwill visited Pakistan last week.

Sedwill told journalists that the Taliban leadership was engaged in talks with “various stakeholders with full backing of the U.S. with the sole aim of finding a solution to Afghanistan from within, without any involvement of foreign players.”

He was clearly hoping to rattle the Pakistani military leadership and civilian government, which have complained in the past that they have not been told about contacts with the Taliban. Sedwill’s carefully worded statement hinted that talks with the Taliban were moving toward an accord between the Taliban and the Karzai government without Pakistan’s participation, thus playing into Pakistan’s worst fears.

He said various channels are now open to the Taliban, and that no single entity is fully aware of these talks. That was clearly intended to imply that the Taliban are already involved in secret talks with Karzai.

The UK envoy said he had come with this “special message” from the British government and hoped the Pakistanis “fully grasped it”.

That unusually harsh and even condescending language sought to convey the U.S.-British intention to freeze Pakistan out of the diplomatic action, despite earlier assurances that Pakistan would be fully involved in the peace process.

That policy obviously seeks to increase the tensions between the Taliban and the Pakistani military. They share an interest in an outcome in Afghanistan that reflects greater Taliban influence over the country’s politics, but Taliban leaders and commanders have long resented their dependence on Pakistan.

The Pakistani military, meanwhile, is believed to have worried that the Taliban will reach an accord with Karzai at Pakistan’s expense. It is well known that the Taliban prefer to have an office outside Pakistan that could be used as a venue for peace talks, free from direct Pakistani interference.

But the reality of the U.S.-Taliban talks does not support the line being promoted so aggressively by Washington through its British ally. Nor are the Taliban likely to cut Pakistan out of the loop on their talks with the United States and Karzai.

For one thing, the United States is still unwilling to offer the Taliban an office in Turkey or elsewhere. Instead, as Sedwill revealed in Islamabad last week, that concession, as well as the removal of Taliban leaders from the United Nations “blacklist”, will only be granted in return for “confidence-building” measures by the Taliban side.

Sedwill told journalists the U.S. and UK would “need to see what concessions the Taliban would be willing to first cede?.”

The most likely concession demanded of the Taliban would be to agree to negotiate formally with the Karzai regime. As a U.S. official told Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, the Taliban “is going to have to talk with both the Afghans and Americans”.

The Obama administration is still demanding, moreover, that those talks must be “Afghan-led”.

But the idea that Taliban will give up what would be one of the last concessions in talks before the United States has even begun to negotiate reflects an assessment of the bargaining position of the two sides that is not shared by those outside the Obama administration.

Both the Taliban and the Pakistani military appear to believe that the Taliban has a stronger bargaining position at this point than Obama.

Last month Pakistan’s foreign secretary Salman Bashir challenged the premise of the Obama administration that U.S. military pressure is altering the balance of power in Afghanistan in Washington’s favour.

The Taliban, meanwhile, have made it clear in private contacts with representatives of the Karzai regime that they won’t negotiate with either the United States or Karzai without a public indication from the United States that it will negotiate the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops.

A member of the executive board of Karzai’s High Peace Council, Mohamad Ismail Qasem Yar, told IPS that the Taliban had insisted in contacts with Afghan officials on one precondition for peace talks. “There is one thing that they want to make clear and they want to be sure of, which is a deadline for the withdrawal,” he said.

In their public statements, however, the Taliban continue to insist that they won’t negotiate as long as foreign troops occupy the country. Michael Semple, who was deputy to the European Union special representative for Afghanistan from 2004 to 2007, observes that the idea of jihad against foreign troops is important to the morale of the Taliban fighters and their supporters.

The public demand for withdrawal before negotiations “may be an untenable position,” Semple told IPS, “but the process of shifting may be painful.”

Even though Taliban officials may be distrustful of Pakistan and may now feel more vulnerable because of the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. special forces, they are not likely to be panicked into making concessions to Washington.

Although it was widely believed that Pakistan detained Mullah Baradar and other high Taliban officials, including Tayyeb Agha, in early 2010 because of the suspicion that the Taliban were talking with the Karzai regime behind their backs, the real reasons for the arrests suggest a different worry.

Baradar was picked up in a joint ISI-CIA operation, but it was later reported by U.S. sources that neither intelligence agency had known in advance that Baradar would be at the site of the raid.

In any case, Baradar, Agha and the other key Taliban officials were later released, suggesting that the Pakistanis were primarily concerned with averting their capture and detention by the United States. Pakistani warnings to the Taliban against contacts with the Karzai regime that were not coordinated with ISI could obviously be communicated without temporary detention.

The widely-publicised U.S. talks with the Taliban also serve a domestic political function for Obama. One U.S. official told the Washington Post that Obama would cite the talks with the Taliban in his mid-year policy announcement as evidence that he was making good on Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s promised to produce negotiations.

*Walid Fazly contributed reporting from Kabul.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist with Inter-Press Service specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam“, was published in 2006.

 

 

More articles by:

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

May 23, 2018
Nick Pemberton
Maduro’s Win: A Bright Spot in Dark Times
Ben Debney
A Faustian Bargain with the Climate Crisis
Deepak Tripathi
A Bloody Hot Summer in Gaza: Parallels With Sharpeville, Soweto and Jallianwala Bagh
Farhang Jahanpour
Pompeo’s Outrageous Speech on Iran
Josh White
Strange Recollections of Old Labour
CJ Hopkins
The Simulation of Democracy
Lawrence Davidson
In Our Age of State Crimes
Dave Lindorff
The Trump White House is a Chaotic Clown Car Filled with Bozos Who Think They’re Brilliant
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Domination of West Virginia
Ty Salandy
The British Royal Wedding, Empire and Colonialism
Laura Flanders
Life or Death to the FCC?
Gary Leupp
Dawn of an Era of Mutual Indignation?
Katalina Khoury
The Notion of Patriarchal White Supremacy Vs. Womanhood
Nicole Rosmarino
The Grassroots Environmental Activist of the Year: Christine Canaly
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin
“Michael Inside:” The Prison System in Ireland 
May 22, 2018
Stanley L. Cohen
Broken Dreams and Lost Lives: Israel, Gaza and the Hamas Card
Kathy Kelly
Scourging Yemen
Andrew Levine
November’s “Revolution” Will Not Be Televised
Ted Rall
#MeToo is a Cultural Workaround to a Legal Failure
Gary Leupp
Question for Discussion: Is Russia an Adversary Nation?
Binoy Kampmark
Unsettling the Summits: John Bolton’s Libya Solution
Doug Johnson
As Andrea Horwath Surges, Undecided Voters Threaten to Upend Doug Ford’s Hopes in Canada’s Most Populated Province
Kenneth Surin
Malaysia’s Surprising Election Results
Dana Cook
Canada’s ‘Superwoman’: Margot Kidder
Dean Baker
The Trade Deficit With China: Up Sharply, for Those Who Care
John Feffer
Playing Trump for Peace How the Korean Peninsula Could Become a Bright Spot in a World Gone Mad
Peter Gelderloos
Decades in Prison for Protesting Trump?
Thomas Knapp
Yes, Virginia, There is a Deep State
Andrew Stewart
What the Providence Teachers’ Union Needs for a Win
Jimmy Centeno
Mexico’s First Presidential Debate: All against One
May 21, 2018
Ron Jacobs
Gina Haspell: She’s Certainly Qualified for the Job
Uri Avnery
The Day of Shame
Amitai Ben-Abba
Israel’s New Ideology of Genocide
Patrick Cockburn
Israel is at the Height of Its Power, But the Palestinians are Still There
Frank Stricker
Can We Finally Stop Worrying About Unemployment?
Binoy Kampmark
Royal Wedding Madness
Roy Morrison
Middle East War Clouds Gather
Edward Curtin
Gina Haspel and Pinocchio From Rome
Juana Carrasco Martin
The United States is a Country Addicted to Violence
Dean Baker
Wealth Inequality: It’s Not Clear What It Means
Robert Dodge
At the Brink of Nuclear War, Who Will Lead?
Vern Loomis
If I’m Lying, I’m Dying
Valerie Reynoso
How LBJ initiated the Military Coup in the Dominican Republic
Weekend Edition
May 18, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
The Donald, Vlad, and Bibi
Robert Fisk
How Long Will We Pretend Palestinians Aren’t People?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail