US-Taliban Peace Talks and the Challenges Ahead

United States officials and Taliban representatives have resumed negotiations in Qatar’s capital on finding a peaceful solution to Afghanistan’s long-running war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians, eleven face-to-face conversations have occurred over the past year. The meeting, however, has been heated recently by the signing of a deal between them, in terms of whether it is a new agreement or if it is similar to the previous one that was close to last year. It is not known what will be signed between the two sides in September. In this weekly analysis, we took a closer look at the face-to-face talks between the US and the Taliban, a look at the talks that began after the Trump breakdown, what is in agreement, and whether that agreement will ever be true in Afghanistan. To bring about lasting peace and to try to answer similar questions here.

US-Taliban Peace Talks at a Glance

On September 4, 2018, the US Department of State officially announced that the former US ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq has appointed its representative for Afghan peace. Zalmai Khalilzad begins the first face-to-face talks with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar on October 12, 2018, and has held eleven face-to-face meetings between the Americans and the Taliban so far during the ninth round. Agreement was reached on both sides of the agreement, but after US troops were killed in Afghanistan, President Trump with a tweet saying that our soldiers were killed in the Taliban attack, we did not talk to the Taliban. Closed for short periods, US President Donald Trump arrived in Afghanistan on December 28, 2019, during an unannounced visit, saying during his visit that he began peace talks with the Taliban and said he believed it. The group now wants a ceasefire, and since the start of the second round of talks, two rounds of meetings have been held so far, and they seem to have reached a partial agreement, and with representatives of the United Nations on technical work and countries involved in Afghan peace. There were also talks.

Points Agreed Upon

As the United States is poised to sign a peace agreement with the Islamist Taliban movement in Afghanistan, there are signs that a lasting settlement between the insurgents and Afghan society might prove more of a challenge than an accord between Washington and the Taliban. In an interview with Barnet Rubin on Radio Liberty and at the Institute for International Strategic Studies, Robin has been monitoring the political situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan for four decades and the various aspects of US foreign policy in these countries. Barnet-Robin believes that although security guarantees for the success of peace processes may not be reached anywhere, there are some key issues in agreeing to end the Afghan war in Qatar. Mr. Robin said: “On the first day after the signing of the agreement, the Taliban are determined to cut their ties with al-Qaeda and fight against ISIS. The withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan begins the rate of violence decreases. And talks with the Afghan government begin in the first 10 days, The US expert said that the inter-Afghan talks began in the Norwegian capital, within seven days of signing the agreement between US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and the Taliban’s political office. According to Barnet Rubin, the US and the Taliban have agreed that the number of US troops in Afghanistan will be reduced to six within seven days after signing. But Thomas Rotiq, a member of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, reiterates that, on this point, we should know that the agreement is not for Afghanistan: “The US and the Taliban agree on two or three issues; given that cutting off links to terrorism, the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan could be fixed and that might include reducing violence. The Taliban have clearly said they do not speak on the ceasefire. Of course, this agreement also needs to be monitored and guaranteed

Problem of Ceasefire

The Taliban acknowledged that in order to reach an agreement with the United States, it would reduce violence in major cities in seven to 10 days, but that action was accompanied by the vehement reactions of their Afghan government and the International Amnesty Organization, but US officials No response has been made so far, nor has Mr Khalilzad’s office or himself said anything about it. Factions within the Afghan government and Washington differ over whether they are willing to accept a reduction in violence or expect a complete cease-fire in the wake of an agreement between the United States and the Taliban. This step is considered important for jumpstarting negotiations between the Taliban, the Afghan government, and other parties for sharing power and agreeing on their country’s future political system. The talks are understood to begin in Oslo within 10 days of the agreement between Washington and the Taliban. Mr Ghani’s spokesman Sediq Sediqqi wrote on his Twitter: “The issue of reducing violence for the people of Afghanistan is a serious issue, which means that there will be no more than ten attacks a day, five or ten. People will not be killed? Five will be killed. We want to end the violence in Afghanistan; Meanwhile, Amnesty International has said in a statement that “reducing violence” is “meaningless”. “The term minimizing violence is meaningless in the wars in which civilians are attacked,” said Omar Wraich, who heads the organization for South Asia.

Can US -Taliban Peace Talks Encounter challenges?

The Taliban and the Americans were nearing a final decision in the 10th round, and both sides said they would reach a final decision by the end of January this year, but now in a recent report that the Associated Press reports about the Taliban. The official website says in quote, that they are more fed up with the demands of the American side, and they are wasting time, why is the American side manipulating their decisions? In a January 6 interview, the Taliban’s deputy leader and top negotiator, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, said the war in Afghanistan will end when the United States withdraws from Afghanistan. “If there’s no U.S., we [will] for sure reach an agreement between ourselves, because they are Afghans and we are Afghans,” he told the Public Broadcasting Service, an American public television, about future peace talks among Afghans. Baradar, however, didn’t elaborate on the peace process after the U.S. withdrawal. In Kabul, political elites are divided over whether to push for a complete cease-fire as a precondition for resuming talks with the Taliban or accept the Taliban’s offer of a significant decrease in violence for 10 days, which officials say entails ceasing attacks on highways and Afghan cities. Ghani’s top election rival Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah and former President Hamid Karzai lead the Afghan political elites favoring accepting the insurgents’ current offer to begin talks. But former spy chief Amrullah Salih, Ghana’s vice-presidential running mate, is not upbeat about the peace returning to his country after a U.S.-Taliban deal. “The talks between the United States and the Taliban in Qatar might end the war between the two, but it will not end the Taliban’s war against the Afghan nation,” he told a think tank audience in Kabul on January 23. “No foreigner can negotiate with the Taliban on behalf of the Afghan people, and no foreigner can impose its deal on us.” A recent survey of 5,000 Afghans by the Institute of War and Peace Studies, an Afghan think tank, found that nearly 68 percent want a republican form of government while only 12 percent support an Islamic Emirate, the formal name of the Taliban. Some 46 percent of respondents support the withdrawal of international forces. The organization said most of its survey’s respondents live in villages across Afghanistan. And another, under the heading of the Ministry of Peace, Salam Rahimi, in a meeting with the Russian ambassador, emphasized the role of Russia and the countries of the region in the formation of a global consensus on Afghan peace, he added. Created by the President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. Speaking in the language of war on behalf of the leaders of the political office of Qatar and the leaders of the National Solidarity Government, and the United States, which, at the end of the negotiations, may change its decision in the US government. There will be groups that stand behind the leaders of the National Solidarity Government, and another day in the region, an ever-changing situation (crisis between Iran and the United States) will shake the ground so that the talks between the Taliban and the United States will extend indefinitely.

Conclusion

Although WE and Taliban talks on Afghan peace and the beginning of inter-Afghan dialogue differ greatly in the views of the Afghan government and the Taliban, this is also the second time that Americans have escaped the negotiating table. At present, the involvement of 40-year-olds in Afghanistan has lost much of their personal interests. Afghans have a good experience of the situation created after the Soviet withdrawal, so they can use that experience to make good use of the current situation and establish a sustainable system in Afghanistan for the future. Work on how and the Afghan parties involved behave in a responsible way that will benefit the country and the nation. In order to achieve a lasting peace in Afghanistan, the Taliban need to reach an agreement with the United States, but we see that this is the second time that the US side has made a difference if the final decision is reached. He wants the United Nations, the region and the strong countries of the world (China, Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom and Turkey) to start a war in Afghanistan, the Afghans and the region do not want any more war here, to reach an agreement with the Taliban as soon as possible to facilitate inter-Afghan talks.