A tenuous deal in Afghanistan

A tenuous deal in Afghanistan

It's the decision that could kickstart intra-Afghan dialogue, and pave the way to ending the US occupation in Afghanistan after 20 bloody years.

On Sunday, after days of deliberations that involved thousands of Afghan delegates packing into one tent (what's COVID again), President Ashraf Ghani agreed to release hundreds of Taliban prisoners from government jails. The move opens the way to intra-Afghan dialogue under a deal that the US brokered directly with the Taliban earlier this year.

The Trump administration has touted this development as a major step towards peace, but after nearly two decades of war, the relevant players are still miles apart when it comes to laying out a common vision for the conflict-ridden country. What do they all want?


The Afghan government: Power brokers in Kabul have articulated some guidelines for a way forward after decades of war: In exchange for disarmament and a commitment to anti-terrorism measure, the Taliban could remain a visible force in public life and compete in elections.

Some analysts have compared this vision to the 2016 deal reached between the Colombian government and FARC rebels after years of conflict.

Indeed, while President Ghani and other influence peddlers in Kabul support the system of electoral democracy that emerged in the wake of the 2001 US invasion, critics point to tribal divisions and endemic corruption as reasons for widespread lack of confidence in the current political system.

The Taliban: The militant group's vision for a post-settlement Afghanistan remains murky. Ambiguous commitments about ceasing its violent activities — and offering protection for women— have only engendered greater fear among the Afghan population and mistrust among the political elite.

To date, the group has done little to show its willingness to embrace meaningful compromise. It has, in fact, intensified its violent insurgency in recent months, waging attacks that killed at least 42 government forces and 41 civilians in the week leading up to August 6.

Crucially, while the Afghan government backs the political status quo, the Taliban wants to reimpose the Islamic Emirate brand (enforced when they ruled the country from 1996-2001) as a system of governance — essentially, a theocratic state ruled by extreme interpretations of Islamic law. How the two sides might reconcile these disparate world-views within the framework of a power-sharing agreement remains… unclear.

The US: For the Trump administration, any political progress in Afghanistan will make it easier to follow through on its promises to reduce the number of American troops in wars in far-flung places around the world. This mission, popular among a war-weary US public, has renewed urgency now that polls show his Democratic opponent Joe Biden running full steam ahead.

Presumably, that's part of the reason for the Pentagon's announcement this week that the number of American troops in Afghanistan would be cut to below 5,000 by the end of November, despite the fact that the atmosphere surrounding intra-Afghan negotiations, and prospects for reconciliation, remain bleak. (There are around 8,600 American troops still in Afghanistan.)

What do the Afghan people want? Undoubtedly, the Afghan people have borne the brunt of insurgent violence, weak government, and economic stagnation over the past few decades.

But a recent survey by the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies found that 68 percent of respondents prefer the current political structure, however flawed, to Taliban rule.

Over 80 percent said they think the people should directly elect the country's leaders, while the same number of respondents also expressed support for liberalization, including greater emphasis on women's rights and freedom of expression — concepts at odds with the Taliban ethos. (Many Afghan women fear that gains made towards their integration into Afghan society over the past 18 years will disappear in a flash if the Taliban joins the government.)

For years, warlords and criminal networks have squandered foreign aid intended to stimulate businesses and jobs. In the country deemed the most dangerous place in the world to be a child, it's no surprise that most Afghans simply want to be freed from the destructive cycle of corruption and violence that has sapped the promise of Afghanistan's economy.

Is there any hope? Almost two decades after the US invasion of Afghanistan there is an opening for peace, but making real progress will rely on meeting the demands of all of these groups in a way that has so far proven disastrously elusive.

This time last year, world health experts were speculating about why Africa appeared to have escaped the worst of the global pandemic. Younger populations? Natural immunity created by exposure to past viruses? Something else?

They can stop wondering. Africa is now in the grip of a COVID emergency.

More Show less

Listen: Stanford historian Niall Ferguson joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast to talk about the geopolitics of disaster. Throughout human history we seem to be unable to adequately prepare for catastrophes (natural or human-caused) before they strike. Why is that? And as we emerge from the greatest calamity of our lifetimes in the COVID-19 pandemic and look to the plethora of crises that climate change has and will cause, what can we do to lessen the blow?

Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

Get insights on the latest news in US politics from Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi barred two Republican members from serving on the Jan. 6 commission. What's going on?

Well, the Jan. 6 commission was designed to be a bipartisan commission, taking input from members from Democrats and Republicans. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had the opportunity to make recommendations but the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, could always veto those recommendations. In this case, she did, saying no to two members, Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, both of whom are strongly aligned with President Trump and who voted against certifying the election results in 2020. The Republicans for the most part see the Jan. 6 commission as an opportunity to score political points against them, and the Democrats say this is going to be a fair, non-biased, and nonpartisan investigation into what happened on Jan. 6, starting with a hearing next week with some of the police officers who were involved in the battle with the protesters inside the Capitol.

More Show less

In his New York Times op-ed, David Brooks says the US is facing an identity crisis — protecting liberal and progressive values at home while doing little to stop autocrats elsewhere. But has the US really abandoned its values abroad just because it's withdrawing from Afghanistan? Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group analyst Charles Dunst take out the Red Pen to argue that the US can advance democracy without being the world's sheriff.

More Show less

When the Tokyo Olympics begin on Friday, Japan watchers will be following more than just the performance of Japan's star athletes, including tennis star Naomi Osaka. They will also be tracking the political fortunes of Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who is taking a big gamble by staging the event — amid a raging pandemic — in the face of strong and longstanding opposition from the Japanese public. What are the stakes for Suga, particularly with elections on the horizon? Eurasia Group senior analyst Ali Wyne explains.

More Show less

YouTube pulls Bolsonaro's rants: Google-owned YouTube pulled down a series of videos on the channel of Brazil's populist President Jair Bolsonaro, accusing him of spreading misinformation about the pandemic. YouTube removed more than a dozen clips for touting quack cures for coronavirus or claiming, in defiance of scientific experts, that masks don't reduce COVID transmissions. Last year, Twitter and Facebook also removed some content from Bolsonaro's feeds for similar reasons. But critics say that YouTube's move is too little too late, because Bolsonaro has been spreading misinformation about COVID since the pandemic began. Many Brazilians hold him personally responsible for the country's abysmal pandemic response, which has led to almost 550,000 deaths, the second worst toll in the world. Will YouTube's move change Bolsonaro's message? His weekly address to the nation, where he converses not only with government ministers but also various conspiracy theorists and loons, is broadcast on YouTube. Surely he doesn't want to risk losing that — or does he?

More Show less

Boycotts! Bans! Protests! Drugs! Think you've got gold medal knowledge about politics at the Olympics? Test what you know with this special Tokyo Olympics Quiz. And to stay current on all the latest political stories at the Games and around the world, subscribe here to Signal, our daily newsletter. Now, without further ado, the first question is...

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. Watch episodes now

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. Watch episodes now

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal