DAWN 5-12-2011

THE international leadership meets in Bonn today to discuss, yet again, the future of Afghanistan. The main issues of discussion pertain to the civilian aspects of transition in the war-torn country, post-2014 international involvement in Afghanistan and the reconciliation process with the Taliban.

Although the international community, mainly western nations, have invested rather large sums of money in the infrastructure, economy, security and social sectors of Afghanistan there has been little progress on the crucial elements of political transition and institutionalisation as Afghan society has remained divided. The Taliban have exploited thisshortcoming, and the international community finds itself in a fix on how to deal with the issue.

Despite several years of attempts to engage the Taliban in the political process, nothing concrete has been achievedso far, the main reason being the communication gap between the adversaries and the hesitation of the United States to include the Taliban in any peace process without achieving some success against them on the battlefield.

At Bonn too the Taliban will not have representation, as was the case in two important meetings last month at the Istanbul conference and the Loya Jirga in Kabul. In the absence of a central party to the Afghan conflict, the West cannot reach an agreement that leads to peace in Afghanistan before foreign troops pull out of the country.

Terms such as `power-sharing` and `political process` that have been in extensive currency still remain fluid and offer little incentive to the Taliban to soften their stance on the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban are still keeping their links with Al Qaeda as a trump card. Although there is growing realisation in western capitals that Pakistan can help bring the various Taliban factions to the negotiating table, it is the US approach towards the region that sets the tone for the West.Now is the time to adopt a top-down approach to reach a workable mechanism on Afghanistan before 2014. Measures such as the announcement of a ceasefire can provide the impetus for engagement. Pakistan favours a ceasefire and considers it a first step towards the endgame in Afghanistan, and the US seems to be giving serious thought to the idea.

During her last visit to Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had hinted that the US might be open to considering an Afghan ceasefire. Gilles Dorronsoro, prominent analyst, author and expert on the region, favours the idea of a ceasefire as a last resort and argues that even if some of the Taliban accept a deal while others don`t, that should be considered progress.

The West is still sceptical about the Taliban`s response to such an offer, but inthe recent past the Taliban have agreed to short-term ceasefires on at least two occasions once with the United Nations when a weeklong ceasefire allowed health workers to launch a polio vaccination campaign, and again during the Afghan presidential elections in the northwestern provinces when the insurgents agreed not to target the candidates and to allow them to set up campaign offices.

It is not at all far-fetched that the Taliban might respond positively if a ceasefire is announced. This idea can be floated for discussion with back channels employed to negotiate a truce with the Taliban. As Gilles argues, it will indeed be a test for the Taliban and to see how they react to such an overture, and will help remove ambiguities about matters such as relations between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which remains a prime concern for the US.

The response of the various Taliban factions to a ceasefire offer would also expose the depth of their ties with Al Qaeda and the probabilities of detaching them from the terrorist network. It can be included as a priority agenda alongwith a power-sharing formula during negotiations.

The Taliban might make demands for constitutional amendments for a more Islamic dispensation, but the occasion would also offer an opportunity to reach an agreement on issues such as the rights of women, children and religious minori ties and the sectarian and ethnic balance of Afghan society.

Concerns have been raised about the make-up of parties at the talks after such a ceasefire, including apprehensions that if Pakistan and the Taliban act in unison they would have virtual veto power on the negotiating table. But the talks should have two levels.

The first one can be at the national level among the Taliban and other major stakeholders in Afghanistan for evolving a power-sharing formula, consensus anda trust-building process on other national issues.

Pakistan and the US can act as facilitators.

On the strategic level, the talks could be among Kabul, 1slamabad, Washington and the Taliban, aimed at addressing the issuesof Al Qaeda on a priority basis and matters of border security and geo-economic cooperation at a later stage.

Pakistan and Afghanistan reaching a non-interference treaty, including commitments against supporting each other`s non-state actors, could be a great achievement for the process. Once this process is completed, the regional stakeholders can be taken into confidence and their guarantees involved, as the US desires.

A ceasefire should not only focus on suspending military operations in Afghanistan but also on an end to drone strikes inside Pakistan. Otherwise, the latter would remain a major irritant in any peace process. Although no major breakthrough is expected at Bonn, especially with Pakistan not participating, if negotiations start in the near future, they can pave the way for a successful gathering with similar objectives in Chicago, scheduled for May next year.• The writer is editor quarterly research journal Conflict and Peace Studies.

mamirrana@yahoo.com