Round The World
New Delhi, 15 May 2012
Peace Negotiator Killed
US, WEST SEARCH FACE SAVING EXIT
By Monish Tourangbam
Research Scholar, School of
International Studies (JNU)
The assassination of peace
negotiator Arsala Rehmani in broad daylight in Kabul has cast a gloom over Afghan
reconciliation efforts. That it came nine months after the killing of the country’s
former President and High Peace Council Chief Barhanuddin Rabbani raises a
crucial question: Are the Taliban militants really interested in talking? If
yes, who are willing to talk and who are not?
Think. While Western forces
including US set withdrawal timelines and look at handing over responsibility
to Afghan forces, such violent attempts at sabotaging peace efforts sends a
grim reminder: Taliban maybe interested only in ruling the country, and will
not let any other power have their piece of pie.
Undeniably, Rehmani’s killing is a
major setback to efforts of bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. Hopes of a breakthrough had increased early
this year with the Taliban planning to open a liaison office in Qatar but
disagreements over a prisoner exchange deal halted efforts towards a compromise.
Despite no group claiming
responsibility for Rehmani’s killing all eyes are on the Taliban as it had
recently announced that peace council members would be targets of its spring
offensive. But the Taliban has denied its
involvement in the killing.
Recall, Rehmani was a key negotiator
in the peace efforts, as he was not only a former Minister in Taliban ruled Afghanistan, a
close associate of the insurgents, but was crucial in striking deals with them.
According to sources, he was credited with having reached out to key commanders
across Southern and South-Eastern Afghanistan.
In fact, his death was a fatal blow
to NATO leaders and the Karzai Government who wanted to show forward movements
in their efforts to talk to the Taliban at the NATO Summit in Chicago. Instead, they, now, have to handle another
high prolife murder that reflects the continued uncertainty and insecurity in Afghanistan.
Besides, with the US and other Western
countries setting a 2014 withdrawal timeline, there is a hasty transformation
in the way the war is fought. Afghanistan’s
Supreme Allied Commander Gen. John R. Allen instead of being involved in long-drawn
counter-insurgency operations is busy accelerating handover of responsibility
to Afghan forces. He reportedly plans to order American and NATO troops to push
Afghans into the lead across the country this summer, even in insurgent-ridden
places that had not been candidates for an early transfer.
Pertinently, Rehmani was killed on
the same day when a new list allocating areas that would be transferred from US
and allied troops to Afghan forces was released. This included strategic city Kandahar and other
volatile areas, about half of insurgent hotbed Nurestan province, a third of
violent Paktika province's districts and all of Uruzgan province.
According to the plan, Afghan forces
and officials would be responsible for over more than 75% of their own
territory. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, once the move was
implemented, "Transition will have begun in every one of Afghanistan’s 34
provinces including every provincial Capital."
The regions being handed over to
Afghan forces include many areas where insurgents remain active. Of late,
animosity and misunderstanding between western and Afghan forces serving
together have increased, with many incidents coming to fore where they have
targeted each other instead of the insurgents.
Western forces have been accused of
showing disrespect to Islamic religion, including burning the Koran with a
deranged American soldier going on a killing spree, murdering 16 Afghan
civilians including 9 children at the Belandai base in Kandahar on 11 March. More recently, US
soldiers have been accused of macabre acts like posing for photographs with
body parts of Afghan bombers. On the other hand, attacks carried out by members
of the Afghan police or army have been blamed for about 14% of the deaths of
Western service members this year.
These instances have increased
voices against war efforts on both sides. While President Karzai has to cater
to his domestic constituencies and call for quick withdrawal of Western forces,
domestic elements in the US
and other countries have increased their criticism against keeping their
soldiers in Afghanistan’s
badlands.
Clearly, the Karzai Government’s High
Peace Council faces a tough task ahead, with the death of two of its most
prized negotiators. Add to this, reports
of internal feud within the Taliban has only muddied waters more along-with divisions
between the so-called moderate Taliban and the hardcore elements. Analysts
point to infighting between Afghanistan-based Taliban and its Pakistan
faction. With members accusing each other of embezzling funds and working with
the UN mission in Afghanistan.
The Pakistani Establishment too has
been accused by its Afghan counterparts of not helping in the investigations
regarding Barhanuddin Rabbani’s assassination. Former Indian ambassador to
Kabul Vivek Katju points fingers at Pakistan’s intelligence ISI. He said, “For years now, the ISI has made
clear it will not tolerate an arrangement in Afghanistan that does not
accommodate its perceived interests. This assassination is part of that
continuum,” he added.
The fractures within the Taliban are
increasingly coming to light and its differences will probably be fought on the
streets spewing more violence and attacks targeting anyone and anything that
talk about reconciliation.
Notwithstanding, the US and Afghan Government recent signed strategic
partnership that specially talks about American engagements in Afghanistan
post 2014 withdrawal. But, Western forces are eager to leave hardcore combat responsibility
to the Afghans while the Karzai Government wants a compromise with Taliban
before 2014.
Questionably, what is stopping the
Taliban from talking? Observers aver the Taliban is a political fact and their
inclusion is inevitable if some semblance of stability is to be brought in this
war-torn country. At the same time, others concur that post the last decade of
bloodshed, a return to Taliban rule which existed in the 90s is not in the
interest of Afghanistan
and the region.
Thus, as things stand, an amicable
resolution is hardly visible. What do the militants want in Afghanistan? If at all there is a bloody feud between the Taliban
‘moderates’ and ‘hardliners’ will the ensuing violence run roughshod over the
country, yet again plunging the country into another vortex of bloodshed?
In sum, at this juncture, all the Western
forces are looking for is a face saving exit. Given that the Taliban militants seem
dis-interested in a compromise and are eying an eventual victory. They seem
intent on ruling Afghanistan,
even if it takes violence. ----- INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|