Talking to the Taliban (merged)

[The Bread Guy]

Note to Jack Layton:  Even the UN won't sanction talks without removing sanctions against Taliban and/or AQ.  From a media briefing today - emphasis mine:

(....)

Radio Killid:  Recently, the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has stated that he is ready to hold talks with Mullah Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.  This was at the time when he returned from New York – he is saying that this would be done in consultation with the international community.  However, these people named by the President are on the United Nations blacklist.  What is the United Nations’ position?

UNAMA: I think if you read the President’s comments, you will see very clearly that he was extending an olive branch for talks as he has done on many occasions in the past.  And also, I think, he was making a point about Mullah Omar being in hiding.

On the question of a peace process, if talks bring peace, then we of course welcome them. However, the constitution is not up for discussion, nor is deviating from our duties under UN Security Resolution 1267, on measures to do with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Radio Killid:  If they come and show their willingness for talks with the Government, will they be taken off the blacklist?

UNAMA:  That’s a question for the United Nations Security Council. However, I don’t see prospect of them being taken off the 1267 list. 

InterNews:  UNAMA has recently stated that it is ready to mediate talks between the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban, and now the Taliban side is not ready to hold talks with the Government. How much progress have you so far seen in your mediation, and what is the reason for that?

UNAMA:  Mediation is not where we are at right now. It’s very important, I think, that journalists understand exactly where the story is right now - there is no ongoing mediation.  What the Special Representative Tom Koenigs has said is that UNAMA stands ready to extend its good offices role if asked. There are developments happening in peace in Afghanistan, and it’s important that the momentum on these continues.  But as I said, be wary of running ahead of the game. These things will take time, and they will take patience and determination.  

(....)

AP: Yesterday we had an interview with the President Karzai's spokesman, and he was saying that there was a debate among some Taliban about laying down arms.  Has the UN heard anything about this?

UNAMA:  On the issue of peace prospects, we certainly think there are things happening.  But it is still - as I tried to indicate - at a very early stage. I understand that Mullah Omar himself was quoted recently as saying that commanders who might negotiate would be punished. This would imply that some commanders are indeed reaching out. And as you know, the Government has its own strengthening peace (PTS) programme.

(....)

Noorin  Television:  The special Representative of the Secretary-General has said that he stands ready to mediate talks between the Government and the Taliban.  According to some critics, the efforts of the United Nations in bringing peace in Afghanistan have not been proved effective – what do you think about this time around?

UNAMA: You talk again about “mediation” but we have talked only about readiness to extend our good offices role. We must be quite clear on this. This is different to being some kind of go-between in active peace talks. So let’s get the story back to exactly where it is right now. The Special Representative has spoken of a readiness to extend our good offices role, if it’s asked for.

Secondly, if we all believed that we were doomed to permanently repeat the past then it’d be utterly pointless our being here and doing the jobs we do. Of course we believe in possibilities for progress here; that is why we are here, that is why we do our jobs. It really doesn’t make sense to think that if efforts have somehow not proved effective in the past then we cannot succeed in the future.

People are crying out for peace in Afghanistan and clearly together, we have to answer those cries. But we also have to take this a step at a time. The political processes and public enthusiasm will have to go hand in hand.  It will take time, it will take patience, it will take determination and it will take hope. And we are hopeful.

 

[twistedcables]

It was only a matter of time.  The story is below.

However, the Taliban have previously said they will 'never' negotiate with West: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/11/13/taliban-spokesman.html

This is a very dangerous investment.  Threats like the TB, that have made global their intentions, cannot be contained in local political participation.  Notwithstanding the variables of other regional players and their respective interests.

No position on whether this is good or bad, but even Obama has agreed to work with Iran towards containing the threat in Afghanistan:

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-wants-iran-to-help-out-with.html



By Rahim Faiez, The Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai offered Sunday to provide security for the Taliban's reclusive leader Mullah Omar if he agrees to enter peace talks, and suggested that the United States and other western countries could leave the country or oust him if they disagree.

Karzai's comments come as international political and military leaders are increasingly mulling whether negotiating with the Taliban is necessary as the insurgency gains sway in large areas of Afghanistan.

Karzai has long supported drawing the militia into the political mainstream on the condition that they accept the country's constitution.

"If I say I want protection for Omar, the international community has two choices, remove me or leave if they disagree," Karzai said in an hourlong news conference in Kabul.

"If I am removed in the cause of peace for Afghanistan by force by them, then I will be very happy. If they disagree, they can leave. But we are not in that stage yet," Karzai said.

Omar headed the government toppled by the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Since then, he has been in hiding but is believed to be running the insurgency.

Previously, Karzai has said that Omar lives in neighbouring Pakistan, an allegation dismissed by Pakistani officials.

Seven years after the invasion, record levels of violence are afflicting Afghanistan, where the number of insurgent attacks are up by 30 per cent compared to 2007. The Taliban are present in large parts of Afghanistan's south and east and are increasingly encroaching on Kabul, the capital.

In September, Taliban members met with Afghan and Pakistani officials during a dinner hosted by Saudi Arabia's king, but there were no concrete results from the meeting.

"If I hear from (Mullah Omar) that he is willing to come to Afghanistan or to negotiate for peace and for the well-being of the Afghans so that our children are not killed anymore, I as a president of Afghanistan will go to any length to provide protection," Karzai said.

Omar has not directly responded to these calls, but spokesmen associated with the Taliban have previously said their participation in any talks depends on the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops from the country.

Karzai dismissed that, saying foreign troops are necessary for Afghanistan's security.

Meanwhile, Pakistan temporarily barred oil tankers and container trucks from a key passageway to Afghanistan, threatening a critical supply route for U.S. and NATO troops on Sunday and raising more fears about security in the militant-plagued border region.

Confirmation of the suspension came as U.S.-led coalition troops reported killing 30 insurgents in fighting in southern Afghanistan and detaining two militant leaders - both in provinces near Pakistan's lawless border.

Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters are behind much of the escalating violence along the lengthy, porous Afghan-Pakistan border, and both countries have traded accusations that the other was not doing enough to keep militants out from its side.

There was no major announcement of the ban, and it was unclear how strictly it had been enforced in the past week. News of the ban filtered into local media over the weekend.

END

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Karzai is free to negotiate with whomever he wishes.  It is his country.

edit-spelling

 

[ModlrMike]

I actually think this is a good move by Mr Karzai. Mullah Omar has consistently stated that the Taliban will not negotiate until all foreign troops have left the country. Mr Karzai shows that he is willing to negotiate, while Omar is not.

 

[Armymedic]

And if he did not ensure Omar free passage for talks, then the offer would be nothing but an empty jesture....but would the CIA listen?

 

[twistedcables]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081117/n_top_news/cnews_us_afghan_taliban

Big surprise.

 

[ballz]

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/video.aspx?cp-documentid=cbcc2010-2801-1558-0017-139848477200,3b523e3a-f423-42a5-8510-a0eb8daa74fb,627ee45e-5034-453b-81b0-a9d551a9ea44

Very sketchy, could be very dangerous... but I think it could work to some extent. As long as we can get all their "low-level" fighters, the ones doing the real dirty work

My favorite part of course: "Menard says Taliban members are finding it harder than ever to continue fighting because of the large increase in the number of troops."

Looking forward to hearing the opinions of people that have knowledge and experience in the Sandbox.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The good news:  a new statement posted to the Taliban's Voice of Jihad web page (VOJ version <a href="http://www.alemarah.info/english/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=1237:can-we-call-this-reconciliation&amp;catid=2:articles&amp;Itemid=3">here</a>, PDF at non-terrorist site <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/26490653/Can-We-Call-This-Reconciliation">here</a>) says this (the first time I've ever seen it in the past year - emphasis mine):

The Islamic Emirate has curtains goals to achieve. They are: 1. Complete independence of the country. 2. Establishment of an Islamic system representing the wants and aspiration of the Afghan people. 3. Progress and prosperity of the country and people. Our first priority is to achieve  these goals through talks and negotiation.

The bad news:  they remain unimpressed with conditions for coming into the tent:
<blockquote>Similarly, they put forward conditions, which are tantamount to escalating the war rather than ending it. For example, they want Mujahideen to lay down arms; accept the Constitution and renounce violence. None can name this reconciliation.</blockquote>
We want to talk and negotiate, but we're not happy with <em>anything</em> you're offering right now - interesting opening gambit, that.

The interesting news: first time in a while I haven't seen a call in a signed statement or editorial for getting all foreign troops out of Afghanistan before talking.

Meanwhile....
<blockquote>But if the invading powers in Afghanistan are not ready to give the Afghans their natural rights which is the right of independence and establishment of a government based on their aspirations and wants, then the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate are determined to carry on the fight until the realization of the said goals. </blockquote>
I remain skeptical, based on previous "talks that weren't talks and/or didn't happen," but stay tuned to see what else they say down the road.

 

[lyned]

As far as I'm concerned the Taliban have less "morals" than the nazis of WW2. Can't be trusted.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This, from The Guardian (UK):

Britain will today urge the Afghan government to put more effort into the pursuit of peace talks amid fears that the war could be prolonged – and more British lives lost – as a result of incompetence and lack of political will in Kabul.

A speech to be delivered in the US by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, will reflect growing anxiety in London that President Hamid Karzai's professed desire for a political solution has not been backed up by any serious planning or concrete proposals.

Unless more pressure is put on the Afghan government, some British officials predict that Karzai's proposed loya jirga, or grand peace council, due at the end of next month, will be little more than a PR stunt. "My argument today is that now is the time for the Afghans to pursue a political settlement with as much vigour and energy as we are pursuing the military and civilian effort," Miliband will say at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, according to a text of the address seen by the Guardian ....

The news release leading into today's speech says this:

.... The Foreign Secretary will say that the Afghan government must now 'pursue a political settlement with as much vigour and energy as we are pursuing the military and civilian effort'.

The military and civilian surges create the space for Afghan politics to take place. Political and military efforts must work alongside each other as part of a comprehensive Counter-insurgency strategy, as set out by Commander ISAF, General McChrystal, and reiterated by President Obama and Gordon Brown.

He will also highlight the need for Afghan leadership in building the politics that will help dismantle the insurgency: 'The Afghans must own, lead and drive such political engagement. It will be a slow, gradual process. But the insurgents will want to see international support.' ....

And the Minister's blog?

.... The core of my argument is simple – only politics will end the War in Afghanistan. The immense effort of UK, ISAF and Afghan troops is vital, as is the development and capacity building work that now runs alongside it. But – as with the vast majority of conflicts - the key is a genuine political settlement.

This involves three things. First, the reintegration into Afghan society of low-level insurgents prepared to lay down their arms and accept the writ of the government. Second, political engagement with those disaffected by the current settlement, but prepared to renounce violence, split from Al Qaeda and accept the constitutional framework. Third, a wider regional political settlement that sees all Afghanistan’s neighbours and near neighbours supportive of an independent Afghan state....

 

[The Bread Guy]

A new paper via NYU's Center on International Cooperation:

Separating the Taliban from al-Qeada : The Core of Success in Afghanistan
A CIC Study
February 2011

Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn are researchers and writers based in Kandahar. They have worked in Afghanistan since 2006, focusing on the Taliban insurgency and the history of southern Afghanistan over the past four decades. This paper published by CIC, expands on the following key findings:

    * The Taliban and al-Qaeda remain distinct groups with different goals, ideologies, and sources of recruits; there was considerable friction between them before September 11, 2001, and today that friction persists.

    * Elements of current U.S. policy in Afghanistan, especially night raids and attempts to fragment the Taliban, are changing the insurgency, inadvertently creating opportunities for al-Qaeda to achieve its objectives and preventing the achievement of core goals of the United States and the international community.

    * There is room to engage the Taliban on the issues of renouncing al-Qaeda and providing guarantees against the use of Afghanistan by international terrorists in a way that will achieve core U.S. goals ....

Paper attached - more from the New York Times here and Wired.com Danger Room here.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Let's see how this goes ....

Afghanistan officials will open a U.S.-backed office in the Gulf nation of Qatar as early as Tuesday to facilitate direct peace talks with the Taliban, according to three senior administration officials.

The announcement comes as Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced Tuesday that Afghan security forces have taken the lead from NATO. The White House officials spoke on the condition they not be identified because the government of Qatar has yet to announce the official opening of the office in the capital of Doha ....

Army Times, 18 Jun 13

.... “The office is to open dialogue between the Taliban and the world,” Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said, although he made no reference to peace talks or the Afghan government. “The Islamic Emirate Of Afghanistan [the group’s formal name] doesn’t want any threats from Afghanistan soil to other countries, and neither permits anyone to threaten other countries using Afghanistan soil.

“We support a political and peaceful solution that ends Afghanistan’s occupation, and guarantees the Islamic system and nationwide security.”

(....)

One official significantly added that a requirement for the Taliban to drop relations with al Qaeda – something which had stymied previous attempts at direct talks – was no longer necessary in order for them to progress.

“We’ve long had a demand on the Taliban that they make a statement that distances themselves from the movement from international terrorism, but made clear that we didn’t expect immediately for them to break ties with al Qaeda, because that’s an outcome of the negotiation process,” the official said ....

The Telegraph, 18 Jun 13

The Taliban held secret negotiations in Norway over the past few months, helping yield a deal that allowed the radical Afghan rebels to open an office in Qatar, Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said on Tuesday.

"We have played a key role in this process," Barth Eide told state broadcaster NRK. "It has been a strictly confidential process but we can now reveal it."

Barth Eide would not say how many rounds of such talks took place in Norway, a NATO member, or who the Taliban negotiated with. Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in Oslo in February for what appeared at the time as a mostly protocol visit ....

Reuters, 18 Jun 13

 

[Jed]

Well I personally am not comfortable with were this process is taking us. I hope the lid stays long enough to get this last contingent of Canadian troops back safe and sound from the sandbox.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The only ones that should be at the table are Afghanistan and the Taliban. The US can issue statements based on meetings with the Afghan negotiators. At the end of the day, it's the Afghans that will have to live with whatever is agreed to. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... from their web page - usual caveat:  don't click if you don't want the Taliban's webmaster to get your info.  You can also see a screen capture of the statement at a non-terrorist site (Google Drive) here.

Statement regarding inauguration of political office of Islamic Emirate in Qatar

Everyone is aware that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been waging Jihad and working tirelessly to bring an end to the invasion of Afghanistan and establish in it an independent Islamic government and has always utilized every legitimate method to achieve this goal.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has both military as well as political objectives which are confined to Afghanistan. The Islamic Emirate does not wish to harm other countries from its soil and neither will it allow others use Afghan soil to pose a threat to the security of other nations! The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan wants to have cordial relations on basis of mutual respect with all the countries of the world including its neighbors and desires security for its nation as well as security and justice on international level.

Undoubtedly the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan considers it its religious and national obligation to free its country from occupation and has used every legitimate method for this goal which it will keep on doing in the future. Similarly, it considers the struggle of every oppressed nation working for their due rights and independence to be their legitimate right because every nation deserves to secure freedom from imperialism and attain their rights.

It is due to these objectives that the Islamic Emirate considered it necessary to open a political office in the Islamic country of Qatar for the following reasons:

    1.To talk and improve relations with the international community through mutual understanding.
    2. To back such a political and peaceful solution which ends the occupation of Afghanistan, establishes an independent Islamic government and brings true security which is the demand and genuine aspiration of the entire nation.
    3.To have meetings with Afghans in due appropriate time.
    4.To establish contact with the United Nations, international and regional organizations and non-governmental institutions.
    5.To give political statements to the media on the ongoing political situation.

We also thank the government of Qatar and its Emir ‘Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani’ to have agreed with inaugurating the political office of Islamic Emirate and to have made everything easy in this regard.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

09/08/1434

28/03/1392        18/06/2013​

 

[skyhigh10]

Pardon my ignorance.

I thought the U.S. doesn't negotiate with "terrorists"?  I thought the US preached for years that Taliban rule in Afghanistan enabled all this bloodshed in the first place?  Why aren't Obama's political foes going nuts over this announcement? 

Exit strategy me thinks. 

 

[JorgSlice]

They say they want to talk, but then they attack Bagram and kill U.S. soldiers.

Just turn that damn place into a parking lot.

 

[Nemo888]

They don't call it the graveyard of empires for nothing. Once they sabotaged our development efforts winning was out of our grasp. I was hoping they would change the name to let us save face. Time to learn some lessons so we don't repeat them.

 

[Journeyman]

Once they sabotaged our development efforts winning was out of our grasp.

Yep, victory was ours -- if only we could have built two more schools...and a well! Yes, another well would have ensured victory.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And who's not going to be at the table?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Wednesday his government would not join U.S. peace talks with the Taliban until they were led by Afghans and would suspend negotiations with the United States on a troop pact.

U.S. officials have said talks with the Taliban would begin in Doha, capital of Qatar, on Thursday, raising hopes for a negotiated peace in Afghanistan after 12 years of bloody and costly war between American-led forces and the insurgents.

Fighting, however, continues in the war-ravaged nation. Four U.S. soldiers were killed in a rocket attack on the heavily fortified Bagram base near Kabul late on Tuesday, international military officials said.

"As long as the peace process is not Afghan-led, the High Peace Council will not participate in the talks in Qatar," Karzai said in a statement, referring to a body he set up in 2010 to seek a negotiated peace with the Taliban.

A senior Afghan official told Reuters the government was unhappy over the official status being given to the Taliban, who opened an office in Doha on Tuesday ....

Reuters, 19 Jun 13