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.

"I think there are certain times where you have tectonic shifts and change always happens that way."

On the latest episode of 'That Made All the Difference,' Vincent Stanley, Director of Philosophy at Patagonia, shares his thoughts on the role we all have to play in bringing our communities and the environment back to health.

For many, Paul Rusesabagina became a household name after the release of the 2004 tear-jerker film Hotel Rwanda, which was set during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Rusesabagina, who used his influence as a hotel manager to save the lives of more than 1,000 Rwandans, has again made headlines in recent weeks after he was reportedly duped into boarding a flight to Kigali, Rwanda's capital, where he was promptly arrested on terrorism, arson, kidnapping and murder charges. Rusesabagina's supporters say he is innocent and that the move is retaliation against the former "hero" for his public criticism of President Paul Kagame, who has ruled the country with a strong hand since ending the civil war in the mid 1990s.

More Show less

In an interview with Eurasia Group Vice Chairman Gerald Butts, Nicolas de Rivière cautions against an overly halcyon view of the UN's history. The Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations explains that throughout its 75 years the organization has confronted adversity. This moment is no exception, but "we have no other choice" than cooperation in order to address today's biggest crises, he explains. Rivière also discusses the global pandemic response, a need for greater commitments to climate action, and a recent move by the US to push for renewed sanctions against Iran.

One of the biggest threats to 21st century international peace is invisible. It recognizes no borders and knows no rules. It can penetrate everything from the secrets of your government to the settings of your appliances. This is, of course, the threat of cyberattacks and cyberwarfare.

During the coronavirus pandemic, cyberattacks have surged, according to watchdogs. This isn't just Zoom-bombing or scams. It's also a wave of schemes, likely by national intelligence agencies, meant to steal information about the development and production of vaccines. Attacks on the World Health Organization soared five-fold early in the pandemic.

More Show less

Malaysian political drama: Malaysia's (eternal) opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim says he finally has enough votes in parliament to be appointed prime minister, seven months after the coalition that was going to support him collapsed amid an internal revolt that also forced out 95-year-old Mahathir Mohamed as head of the government. Two years ago, Mahathir — who governed Malaysia from 1980 to 2003 — shocked the country by running in the 2018 election and defeating his former party UMNO, which had dominated Malaysian politics since independence in 1956. After winning, Mahathir agreed to hand over power to Anwar — a former protégé with whom he had a falling out in the late 1990s — but Mahathir's government didn't last long enough to do the swap. Will Anwar now realize his lifelong dream of becoming Malaysia's prime minister? Stay tuned for the next parliamentary session in November.

More Show less

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal