Afghan Taliban leaders said on Thursday that their new political chief will not be attending <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/russia-offers-to-help-us-on-afghan-peace-talks-with-taliban-ria-195886">peace talks with US envoys due to take place in Qatar</a> next week.

US officials had been keen to negotiate with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, hoping the Taliban's co-founder and military veteran would add momentum and have the clout to discuss tough issues surrounding the end of America's longest war.

But senior Taliban leaders said Baradar would not be travelling to Qatar, citing different reasons including problems obtaining travel documents as well difference among the leadership over his precise role in the talks.

Baradar was released from a Pakistani jail in October and his appointment was widely seen as marking a new push by the Taliban to emerge from the political and diplomatic shadows.

Baradar, who earlier led the insurgent group’s military operations in southern Afghanistan, was arrested in 2010 by a team from Pakistan and US intelligence agencies. A co-founder of the movement, he was a close friend of the reclusive late Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, who gave him his nom de guerre, "Baradar" or "brother".

"Actually Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar wanted to go to Qatar and personally head the peace talks but due to a host of reasons, he would not be able to travel to Qatar and participate in talks," one leader told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Taliban spokesman Sohail Shahin said earlier this week that he was unable to say whether Baradar would be attending.

January talks

The last round of talks ended in Qatar in January with both the hardline Islamist movement and US special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad hailing progress after a longer-than-expected six-day session.

US officials familiar with discussions said they were hoping to get more details over fresh assurances from the Taliban that they would not allow Afghanistan to be used by groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State to attack the United States and its allies - a key demand by Washington.

The timing of a ceasefire and the withdrawal of foreign forces remain sticking points, while Washington is also pushing the Taliban to talk to the Afghan government.

The movement has so far boycotted the government, saying it is a puppet of the United States - a position that has alarmed Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

Another Taliban official said they were not expecting breakthroughs in the coming talks, adding that they also wanted to discuss the exchange of prisoners and lifting bans on the movement of Taliban leaders.

The Taliban side will continue to be headed by lead negotiator Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, a figure who has been increasingly active diplomatically and who recently met Afghan opposition politicians in Moscow.

The movement earlier announced that its team would meet US negotiators this week in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, as well holding talks with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. The meetings did not take place for reasons that remain unclear.

Staging near-daily attacks against the Western-backed Afghan government and its security forces, the Taliban contest or control nearly half of Afghanistan and are widely seen as more powerful than at any time since being toppled from power in the 2001 US-led invasion.

The United States has nearly 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan defence and security forces as well as a separate counter-terrorism effort.

Afghan Taliban leaders said on Thursday that their new political chief will not be attending peace talks with US envoys due to take place in Qatar next week. US officials had been keen to negotiate with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, hoping the Taliban's co-founder and military veteran would add momentum and have the clout to discuss tough issues surrounding the end of America's longest war.

Afghan Taliban leaders said on Thursday that their new political chief will not be attending peace talks with US envoys due to take place in Qatar next week. US officials had been keen to negotiate with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, hoping the Taliban's co-founder and military veteran would add momentum and have the clout to discuss tough issues surrounding the end of America's longest war. But senior Taliban leaders said Baradar would not be travelling to Qatar, citing different reasons including problems obtaining travel documents as well difference among the leadership over his precise role in the talks. Baradar was released from a Pakistani jail in October and his appointment was widely seen as marking a new push by the Taliban to emerge from the political and diplomatic shadows. Baradar, who earlier led the insurgent group’s military operations in southern Afghanistan, was arrested in 2010 by a team from Pakistan and US intelligence agencies. A co-founder of the movement, he was a close friend of the reclusive late Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, who gave him his nom de guerre, "Baradar" or "brother". "Actually Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar wanted to go to Qatar and personally head the peace talks but due to a host of reasons, he would not be able to travel to Qatar and participate in talks," one leader told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Taliban spokesman Sohail Shahin said earlier this week that he was unable to say whether Baradar would be attending. January talks The last round of talks ended in Qatar in January with both the hardline Islamist movement and US special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad hailing progress after a longer-than-expected six-day session. US officials familiar with discussions said they were hoping to get more details over fresh assurances from the Taliban that they would not allow Afghanistan to be used by groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State to attack the United States and its allies - a key demand by Washington. The timing of a ceasefire and the withdrawal of foreign forces remain sticking points, while Washington is also pushing the Taliban to talk to the Afghan government. The movement has so far boycotted the government, saying it is a puppet of the United States - a position that has alarmed Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Another Taliban official said they were not expecting breakthroughs in the coming talks, adding that they also wanted to discuss the exchange of prisoners and lifting bans on the movement of Taliban leaders. The Taliban side will continue to be headed by lead negotiator Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, a figure who has been increasingly active diplomatically and who recently met Afghan opposition politicians in Moscow. The movement earlier announced that its team would meet US negotiators this week in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, as well holding talks with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. The meetings did not take place for reasons that remain unclear. Staging near-daily attacks against the Western-backed Afghan government and its security forces, the Taliban contest or control nearly half of Afghanistan and are widely seen as more powerful than at any time since being toppled from power in the 2001 US-led invasion. The United States has nearly 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan defence and security forces as well as a separate counter-terrorism effort.

New Taliban political chief to miss upcoming Afghan peace talks with US envoys in Qatar

WION Fineprint: Afghanistan protests to UN on Pakistan's role in Taliban peace talks

Negotiations between <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-taliban-meeting-afghanistan-seeks-unsc-intervention-197962">US officials and Taliban</a> members which were supposed to be held in Islamabad on Monday has now been postponed.

In a statement, Taliban said that they were ready for talks on a peace process to end the nearly two-decades-long conflict in Afghanistan, but asserted that most of its members would be not able to attend the meeting as they are blacklisted by the US and the UN, TOLOnews reported.

Officials said that Afghanistan's foreign ministry had lodged a formal complaint with the UN Security Council over the planned meeting between Taliban representatives and Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, terming it a clear violation of Afghanistan`s sovereignty.

In its complaint, the Afghan government stated that the Taliban officials invited to Pakistan have a travel ban against them and is a clear violation of international law.

Interestingly, the Taliban did not elaborate on how its representatives were able to travel to the UAE and Russia for similar meetings. The group has a political office in Qatar, where the negotiating team lives.

Earlier this month, Afghanistan lodged a similar complaint with the UN over a recent visit by Taliban members to Moscow. Kabul said that Moscow allowed them to enter the country despite them being blacklisted by the world body.

The Afghan government has criticised the talks from the beginning by saying that the talks hosted by Russia were against the spirit of Afghan-led and owned peace process.

Negotiations between US officials and Taliban members which were supposed to be held in Islamabad on Monday has now been postponed. In a statement, Taliban said that they were ready for talks on a peace process to end the nearly two-decades-long conflict in Afghanistan, but asserted that most of its members would be not able to attend the meeting as they are blacklisted by the US and the UN, TOLOnews reported.

Negotiations between US officials and Taliban members which were supposed to be held in Islamabad on Monday has now been postponed. In a statement, Taliban said that they were ready for talks on a peace process to end the nearly two-decades-long conflict in Afghanistan, but asserted that most of its members would be not able to attend the meeting as they are blacklisted by the US and the UN, TOLOnews reported. Officials said that Afghanistan's foreign ministry had lodged a formal complaint with the UN Security Council over the planned meeting between Taliban representatives and Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, terming it a clear violation of Afghanistan`s sovereignty. In its complaint, the Afghan government stated that the Taliban officials invited to Pakistan have a travel ban against them and is a clear violation of international law. Interestingly, the Taliban did not elaborate on how its representatives were able to travel to the UAE and Russia for similar meetings. The group has a political office in Qatar, where the negotiating team lives. Earlier this month, Afghanistan lodged a similar complaint with the UN over a recent visit by Taliban members to Moscow. Kabul said that Moscow allowed them to enter the country despite them being blacklisted by the world body. The Afghan government has criticised the talks from the beginning by saying that the talks hosted by Russia were against the spirit of Afghan-led and owned peace process.

US, Taliban talks in Pakistan postponed

Afghanistan on Sunday voiced its concern to United Nations Security Council on Pakistan’s engagements with Taliban, saying it not only undermines ongoing peace efforts but violates Afghanistan's National Sovereignty and UNSC Resolution 1988.

This comes in the wake of Pakistan's invitation to the Taliban to hold talks with Prime Minister Imran Khan.

In a letter written to the UNSC, Afghanistan’s mission to the United Nations mentioned that Pakistan’s invitation to the Taliban amounted to a violation of Afghanistan's national sovereignty.

As there was no coordination with the Afghan government, it poses a serious threat to Afghanistan's security.

"The Taliban members were sanctioned by provisions of the UN Security Council s 1988 Committee's sanctions regime," it added.

Last week, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said that his government is ready to allow the Taliban to open an office in Kabul, Kandahar or Nangarhar provinces to bring "lasting and honourable peace to the country".

"If the Taliban want an office, I will give it to them in Kabul, Nangarhar or Kandahar by tomorrow." Tolo news quoted Ghani, as saying.

"We will bring lasting and honourable peace to the country," he added.

The President made these remarks during his visit to Nangarhar province, which is considered as a stronghold of the Taliban.

For sustainable peace, Ghani said that he is ready to sacrifice his life too.

While criticising Moscow talks which were held from February 5 to February 8, Ghani said, "The nation says that they (Afghan politicians and Taliban members) did not go to Mecca but they went to Moscow (for talks on peace); therefore, they should answer to this question."

The government has criticised the talks from the beginning by saying that the talks hosted by Russia were against the spirit of Afghan-led and owned peace process.

The government also lodged a complaint with the United Nations over a recent trip by UN-blacklisted Taliban members to Moscow to attend talks.&nbsp;

Afghanistan on Sunday voiced its concern to United Nations Security Council on Pakistan’s engagements with Taliban, saying it not only undermines ongoing peace efforts but violates Afghanistan's National Sovereignty and UNSC Resolution 1988.

Afghanistan on Sunday voiced its concern to United Nations Security Council on Pakistan’s engagements with Taliban, saying it not only undermines ongoing peace efforts but violates Afghanistan's National Sovereignty and UNSC Resolution 1988. This comes in the wake of Pakistan's invitation to the Taliban to hold talks with Prime Minister Imran Khan. In a letter written to the UNSC, Afghanistan’s mission to the United Nations mentioned that Pakistan’s invitation to the Taliban amounted to a violation of Afghanistan's national sovereignty. As there was no coordination with the Afghan government, it poses a serious threat to Afghanistan's security. "The Taliban members were sanctioned by provisions of the UN Security Council s 1988 Committee's sanctions regime," it added. Last week, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said that his government is ready to allow the Taliban to open an office in Kabul, Kandahar or Nangarhar provinces to bring "lasting and honourable peace to the country". "If the Taliban want an office, I will give it to them in Kabul, Nangarhar or Kandahar by tomorrow." Tolo news quoted Ghani, as saying. "We will bring lasting and honourable peace to the country," he added. The President made these remarks during his visit to Nangarhar province, which is considered as a stronghold of the Taliban. For sustainable peace, Ghani said that he is ready to sacrifice his life too. While criticising Moscow talks which were held from February 5 to February 8, Ghani said, "The nation says that they (Afghan politicians and Taliban members) did not go to Mecca but they went to Moscow (for talks on peace); therefore, they should answer to this question." The government has criticised the talks from the beginning by saying that the talks hosted by Russia were against the spirit of Afghan-led and owned peace process. The government also lodged a complaint with the United Nations over a recent trip by UN-blacklisted Taliban members to Moscow to attend talks.

Pakistan-Taliban meeting: Afghanistan seeks UNSC intervention

Afghanistan has also come hard on Pakistan and complained about the country to the United Nations security council (UNSC) on Islamabad's engagement with the Taliban and support to terror groups. The letter accessed by WION talks about how Pakistan is undermining the sovereignty of Afghanistan with its engagement with the Taliban.

The letter written by Afghanistan's Deputy Permanent Representative to United Nations Nazifullah Salarzai on Friday says Pakistan's engagements with Taliban which "are taking place under the pretext of support for peace efforts in Afghanistan" are "void of any degree of coordination and consultation with the Government of Afghanistan."

The letter explained Ghani's government's viewpoint of the Afghan peace process and said "Government of Afghanistan welcomes and appreciates all efforts aimed at achieving the goal of a peaceful settlement...so long as they are rendered in a manner that conforms to the established principle of Afghan ownership and leadership of the process"

Pakistan government had invited the Taliban for talks along with the United States on Monday with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan also meeting the group. The Taliban in a release said at the "formal invitation of the government of Pakistan" meeting was scheduled to take place "between the negotiation teams of the Islamic Emirate and the US on 18th of February 2019 in Islamabad." The Taliban in a statement said the meet has been postponed since most of the members of the group are on US/UN blacklist and cannot travel.&nbsp;

The Afghan govt in the letter slammed Khan-Taliban meet and said, "This initiative is a source of deep regret and concern to the people and Government of Afghanistan as it amounts to the official recognition and legitimization of an armed-group that poses a serious threat to the security and stability of Afghanistan"

Kabul said Pakistan's engagement with the Taliban also violates the "provisions of the 1988 Committee’s Sanctions Regime undermine efforts for a peaceful settlement of the current conflict."

Based on the Taliban statement issued on 12 February on the group’s website, members of the Taliban delegation who have been introduced and are listed in the 1988 Committee’s sanctions regime include: Sher Mohammad Stanekzai; Ziauddin Madani; Salam Hanafi; Shahabuddin Delawar; Abdul Latif Mansur; Amir Khan Motaqi; Fazl Mohammad Mazloom and Nurullah Nuri.

Afghan foreign ministry spokesperson Sibghatullah Ahmadi also tweeted about the developments. In a tweet, Ahmadi said, "Afghanistan complains to UN Security Council on Pakistan’s engagements with the Taliban on which Afg Government is not consulted." Elaborating further he said, "It not only undermines the ongoing peace efforts but violates Afghanistan's National Sovereignty, also falls in violation of UNSC Resolution 1988."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Afghanistan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Afghanistan</a> complains to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UNSecurityCouncil?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#UNSecurityCouncil</a> on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Pakistan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Pakistan</a>’s engagements with the Taliban on which <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Afg?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Afg</a> Government is not consulted. It not only undermines the ongoing peace efforts but violates Afghanistan's National Sovereignty, also falls in violation of UNSC Resolution 1988. <a href="https://t.co/FtmnwivvX2">pic.twitter.com/FtmnwivvX2</a>
— Sibghatullah Ahmadi (@Sibghat_Ah) <a href="https://twitter.com/Sibghat_Ah/status/1097092008093593600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

India's official policy on the Afghan peace process is that it should be "Afghan-owned, Afghan-led and Afghan-controlled".

Afghanistan also slammed Pakistan on its support to terrorism. The letter written a day after the Pulwama terror attack in India, said, "we also expect of, and call on the Government of Pakistan to take decisive action against known terrorist and extremist groups on its territory, which pose a common threat to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region."

Further adding, " Any passivity in fulfilling this objective not only undermines broader counterterrorism efforts but also have a profound impact in providing further space and capacity for such groups to continue their attacks in Afghanistan and the wider region."

In past Afghanistan has raised Pakistan's support to terror in the region and asked Islamabad to stop giving safe haven to terrorists. A number of terror attacks in Afghanistan have been linked to terror outfits based in Pakistan.

Afghanistan has also come hard on Pakistan and complained about the country to the United Nations security council (UNSC) on Islamabad's engagement with the Taliban and support to terror groups.

Afghanistan has also come hard on Pakistan and complained about the country to the United Nations security council (UNSC) on Islamabad's engagement with the Taliban and support to terror groups. The letter accessed by WION talks about how Pakistan is undermining the sovereignty of Afghanistan with its engagement with the Taliban. The letter written by Afghanistan's Deputy Permanent Representative to United Nations Nazifullah Salarzai on Friday says Pakistan's engagements with Taliban which "are taking place under the pretext of support for peace efforts in Afghanistan" are "void of any degree of coordination and consultation with the Government of Afghanistan." The letter explained Ghani's government's viewpoint of the Afghan peace process and said "Government of Afghanistan welcomes and appreciates all efforts aimed at achieving the goal of a peaceful settlement...so long as they are rendered in a manner that conforms to the established principle of Afghan ownership and leadership of the process" Pakistan government had invited the Taliban for talks along with the United States on Monday with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan also meeting the group. The Taliban in a release said at the "formal invitation of the government of Pakistan" meeting was scheduled to take place "between the negotiation teams of the Islamic Emirate and the US on 18th of February 2019 in Islamabad." The Taliban in a statement said the meet has been postponed since most of the members of the group are on US/UN blacklist and cannot travel. The Afghan govt in the letter slammed Khan-Taliban meet and said, "This initiative is a source of deep regret and concern to the people and Government of Afghanistan as it amounts to the official recognition and legitimization of an armed-group that poses a serious threat to the security and stability of Afghanistan" Kabul said Pakistan's engagement with the Taliban also violates the "provisions of the 1988 Committee’s Sanctions Regime undermine efforts for a peaceful settlement of the current conflict." Based on the Taliban statement issued on 12 February on the group’s website, members of the Taliban delegation who have been introduced and are listed in the 1988 Committee’s sanctions regime include: Sher Mohammad Stanekzai; Ziauddin Madani; Salam Hanafi; Shahabuddin Delawar; Abdul Latif Mansur; Amir Khan Motaqi; Fazl Mohammad Mazloom and Nurullah Nuri. Afghan foreign ministry spokesperson Sibghatullah Ahmadi also tweeted about the developments. In a tweet, Ahmadi said, "Afghanistan complains to UN Security Council on Pakistan’s engagements with the Taliban on which Afg Government is not consulted." Elaborating further he said, "It not only undermines the ongoing peace efforts but violates Afghanistan's National Sovereignty, also falls in violation of UNSC Resolution 1988." #Afghanistan complains to #UNSecurityCouncil on #Pakistan’s engagements with the Taliban on which #Afg Government is not consulted. It not only undermines the ongoing peace efforts but violates Afghanistan's National Sovereignty, also falls in violation of UNSC Resolution 1988. pic.twitter.com/FtmnwivvX2 — Sibghatullah Ahmadi (@Sibghat_Ah) February 17, 2019 × India's official policy on the Afghan peace process is that it should be "Afghan-owned, Afghan-led and Afghan-controlled". Afghanistan also slammed Pakistan on its support to terrorism. The letter written a day after the Pulwama terror attack in India, said, "we also expect of, and call on the Government of Pakistan to take decisive action against known terrorist and extremist groups on its territory, which pose a common threat to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region." Further adding, " Any passivity in fulfilling this objective not only undermines broader counterterrorism efforts but also have a profound impact in providing further space and capacity for such groups to continue their attacks in Afghanistan and the wider region." In past Afghanistan has raised Pakistan's support to terror in the region and asked Islamabad to stop giving safe haven to terrorists. A number of terror attacks in Afghanistan have been linked to terror outfits based in Pakistan.

Afghanistan complains about Pakistan to UNSC on terror, Taliban

<a href="http://cms.wionews.com/south-asia/saudi-crown-prince-salmans-pakistan-visit-delayed-by-a-day-197704">Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman</a> is likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives during his visit to Pakistan starting on Sunday, Pakistani government sources said, part of efforts to broker an end to Afghanistan's 17-year-old civil war.

Pakistan has been playing an increasingly vital role in the Afghanistan peace talks, which have been gathering momentum in recent months amid a growing US desire to pull out its troops.

Along with other Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia has been part of the peace negotiations and is seen to have some sway over the Afghan Taliban militants due to Riyadh's historical ties with the hardline Islamist group and the kingdom's religious clout as the birthplace of Islam.

Two senior Pakistani officials said the crown prince was likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives in Islamabad, where the militants, fighting to restore strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan after their 2001 ouster, say they are due to meet US representatives and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

"Though it is top secret so far, there are strong indications representatives of the Afghan Taliban will meet Prince Salman during their visit of Pakistan on February 18," one of the Pakistani officials in Islamabad said.

A senior Taliban leader in Qatar said no decision had been made on whether they would meet the crown prince.

"Actually meeting Prince Salman is not in the plan so far but we can discuss it when we are in Islamabad," said the Taliban representative.

Pakistan's Foreign Office and Saudi Arabia's government did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.

The crown prince is expected to stay to leave Pakistan on Monday after signing a raft of investment agreements in the energy sector for more than $10 billion.

But his trip, which Islamabad is treating as the biggest state visit in years, risks being overshadowed by escalating tensions between India and Pakistan following a militant attack on Indian security forces in the disputed Kashmir region.

New Delhi says Pakistan had a hand in the attack by a militant group which is based on Pakistani soil, something Islamabad denies.

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives during his visit to Pakistan starting on Sunday, Pakistani government sources said, part of efforts to broker an end to Afghanistan's 17-year-old civil war.

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives during his visit to Pakistan starting on Sunday, Pakistani government sources said, part of efforts to broker an end to Afghanistan's 17-year-old civil war. Pakistan has been playing an increasingly vital role in the Afghanistan peace talks, which have been gathering momentum in recent months amid a growing US desire to pull out its troops. Along with other Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia has been part of the peace negotiations and is seen to have some sway over the Afghan Taliban militants due to Riyadh's historical ties with the hardline Islamist group and the kingdom's religious clout as the birthplace of Islam. Two senior Pakistani officials said the crown prince was likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives in Islamabad, where the militants, fighting to restore strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan after their 2001 ouster, say they are due to meet US representatives and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. "Though it is top secret so far, there are strong indications representatives of the Afghan Taliban will meet Prince Salman during their visit of Pakistan on February 18," one of the Pakistani officials in Islamabad said. A senior Taliban leader in Qatar said no decision had been made on whether they would meet the crown prince. "Actually meeting Prince Salman is not in the plan so far but we can discuss it when we are in Islamabad," said the Taliban representative. Pakistan's Foreign Office and Saudi Arabia's government did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. The crown prince is expected to stay to leave Pakistan on Monday after signing a raft of investment agreements in the energy sector for more than $10 billion. But his trip, which Islamabad is treating as the biggest state visit in years, risks being overshadowed by escalating tensions between India and Pakistan following a militant attack on Indian security forces in the disputed Kashmir region. New Delhi says Pakistan had a hand in the attack by a militant group which is based on Pakistani soil, something Islamabad denies.

Afghan Taliban likely to meet Saudi crown prince in Pakistan: Report

Fighting "fake" news, wrestling with social media, and deploying an intern army -- the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-taliban-announce-talks-with-us-in-pakistan-197349">Taliban's sprawling propaganda</a> machine embraces modernity even as the group vows to enforce Islamist controls on journalists if it returns to power.

Notorious for banning TV and radio under its iron-fisted 1996-2001 regime, the militants have proven surprisingly deft at adapting to the ever-changing nature of modern media.

The Taliban's official spokesman now tweets real-time updates about battlefield operations and its media arm stays in direct contact with journalists on a range of messaging apps.

"Media is considered one side of the struggle," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP via Whatsapp.

"We are not against modern technology," a senior Taliban source with links to the insurgents' media wing told AFP.

"This is the need of the hour and using it is not against Islamic shariah."

But the source admits his team struggles at times to control their own narrative.

High-profile interviews have taken place without the media wing's knowledge, sparking hurried denials along with confusion over the identity of the interviewee and whether he can really claim to speak for the Taliban.

Unverified leaks to media outlets from alleged Taliban sources are frequent.

Fake or unauthorised accounts sprout often on social media, while their official Facebook pages and Twitter handles are regularly banned only to be restarted under another name.

Even the official spokesman, Mujahid, is widely believed to be not one man but a moniker used by the information wing to issue statements.

The operation can be dizzying, admits the Taliban source.

Truth greater than fiction&nbsp;

The increasingly refined production has not gone unnoticed, with NATO regularly briefing top officials on Taliban content.&nbsp;

"It gives us an idea of what the group is thinking about that day," said Colonel Knut Peters, spokesman for NATO's Resolute Support mission in Kabul.

The casualty figures they release are often wildly exaggerated, but the group has been known to describe their operations more accurately, with fewer outlandish battlefield claims.

"The Taliban have discovered that truth has a greater impact than fiction," said Graeme Smith, a consultant for International Crisis Group.

Journalists said insurgents are also often more responsive than the government.

"When a journalist was killed in Farah province, (a few) weeks back, I wrote to the Taliban spokesman, and I got the reply in minutes," said A. Mujeeb Khalvatgar, the director of an Afghan media support group, who said he is still waiting for a statement from the president's office.&nbsp;

Information remains difficult to verify, however. Pakistani senior journalist Tahir Khan, who showed AFP a stream of messages, photos and voice notes from the Taliban on his mobile phone, said the information was "not usually correct".

But in a campaign like this, the battle for the truth might not matter. "This war... one major factor is psychological propaganda," he added.

Its value is demonstrated by how high the media operation goes.

The Taliban leadership gives orders to a handful of high-ranking militants responsible for the group's media strategy, the militant source said.

They work across five different language services -- Pashto, Dari, English, Urdu and Arabic -- with dozens of volunteers who produce multimedia content.

Print magazines target rural audiences without mobile phones, while slick propaganda videos and songs reach the illiterate.

The army of interns include journalism school students, along with IT experts who monitor the latest trends, the source claimed.

"They are servants of God, volunteers," he said.

Code of conduct&nbsp;

The Islamists maintained strict control over media during their brutal rule. Most foreign journalists fled the country, while Afghan reporters often worked undercover for fear of being violently harassed or accused of spying.

In the 17 years since the US invasion, Afghanistan's media has flourished.

But their success has made them targets, starting in 2016, when the Taliban killed seven employees of popular TV channel Tolo -- the first major attack on Afghan media since 2001.

Journalists have faced killings, attacks and abductions. In 2018 Afghanistan was ranked the most dangerous country for journalists in the world.

"Now (the Taliban are) using media a lot. It doesn't mean they believe in freedom of expression," said Khalvatgar.

"It means that they know how to use the media... as a propaganda tool, not as a right of the people."

Meanwhile, unprecedented talks between the Taliban and Washington have sparked fears of a potential US exit and a possible return to power for the insurgents.

The Taliban source said the group has no wish to shutter Afghan outlets -- but journalists would have to comply with an unspecified "code of conduct" in line with Islamic shariah.

Female anchors, common in Afghanistan today, would not be allowed on camera.&nbsp;

"It's better that they stay at home or join some other respectable profession," said the Taliban source.

But foreign media would be welcomed, he claimed, unlike in the past.

"We sheltered Osama [bin Laden] and provided him all our respect because he was our guest," he said.&nbsp;

"Everyone who comes from any other country will be our guest."

Fighting "fake" news, wrestling with social media, and deploying an intern army -- the Taliban's sprawling propaganda machine embraces modernity even as the group vows to enforce Islamist controls on journalists if it returns to power.

Fighting "fake" news, wrestling with social media, and deploying an intern army -- the Taliban's sprawling propaganda machine embraces modernity even as the group vows to enforce Islamist controls on journalists if it returns to power. Notorious for banning TV and radio under its iron-fisted 1996-2001 regime, the militants have proven surprisingly deft at adapting to the ever-changing nature of modern media. The Taliban's official spokesman now tweets real-time updates about battlefield operations and its media arm stays in direct contact with journalists on a range of messaging apps. "Media is considered one side of the struggle," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP via Whatsapp. "We are not against modern technology," a senior Taliban source with links to the insurgents' media wing told AFP. "This is the need of the hour and using it is not against Islamic shariah." But the source admits his team struggles at times to control their own narrative. High-profile interviews have taken place without the media wing's knowledge, sparking hurried denials along with confusion over the identity of the interviewee and whether he can really claim to speak for the Taliban. Unverified leaks to media outlets from alleged Taliban sources are frequent. Fake or unauthorised accounts sprout often on social media, while their official Facebook pages and Twitter handles are regularly banned only to be restarted under another name. Even the official spokesman, Mujahid, is widely believed to be not one man but a moniker used by the information wing to issue statements. The operation can be dizzying, admits the Taliban source. Truth greater than fiction The increasingly refined production has not gone unnoticed, with NATO regularly briefing top officials on Taliban content. "It gives us an idea of what the group is thinking about that day," said Colonel Knut Peters, spokesman for NATO's Resolute Support mission in Kabul. The casualty figures they release are often wildly exaggerated, but the group has been known to describe their operations more accurately, with fewer outlandish battlefield claims. "The Taliban have discovered that truth has a greater impact than fiction," said Graeme Smith, a consultant for International Crisis Group. Journalists said insurgents are also often more responsive than the government. "When a journalist was killed in Farah province, (a few) weeks back, I wrote to the Taliban spokesman, and I got the reply in minutes," said A. Mujeeb Khalvatgar, the director of an Afghan media support group, who said he is still waiting for a statement from the president's office. Information remains difficult to verify, however. Pakistani senior journalist Tahir Khan, who showed AFP a stream of messages, photos and voice notes from the Taliban on his mobile phone, said the information was "not usually correct". But in a campaign like this, the battle for the truth might not matter. "This war... one major factor is psychological propaganda," he added. Its value is demonstrated by how high the media operation goes. The Taliban leadership gives orders to a handful of high-ranking militants responsible for the group's media strategy, the militant source said. They work across five different language services -- Pashto, Dari, English, Urdu and Arabic -- with dozens of volunteers who produce multimedia content. Print magazines target rural audiences without mobile phones, while slick propaganda videos and songs reach the illiterate. The army of interns include journalism school students, along with IT experts who monitor the latest trends, the source claimed. "They are servants of God, volunteers," he said. Code of conduct The Islamists maintained strict control over media during their brutal rule. Most foreign journalists fled the country, while Afghan reporters often worked undercover for fear of being violently harassed or accused of spying. In the 17 years since the US invasion, Afghanistan's media has flourished. But their success has made them targets, starting in 2016, when the Taliban killed seven employees of popular TV channel Tolo -- the first major attack on Afghan media since 2001. Journalists have faced killings, attacks and abductions. In 2018 Afghanistan was ranked the most dangerous country for journalists in the world. "Now (the Taliban are) using media a lot. It doesn't mean they believe in freedom of expression," said Khalvatgar. "It means that they know how to use the media... as a propaganda tool, not as a right of the people." Meanwhile, unprecedented talks between the Taliban and Washington have sparked fears of a potential US exit and a possible return to power for the insurgents. The Taliban source said the group has no wish to shutter Afghan outlets -- but journalists would have to comply with an unspecified "code of conduct" in line with Islamic shariah. Female anchors, common in Afghanistan today, would not be allowed on camera. "It's better that they stay at home or join some other respectable profession," said the Taliban source. But foreign media would be welcomed, he claimed, unlike in the past. "We sheltered Osama [bin Laden] and provided him all our respect because he was our guest," he said. "Everyone who comes from any other country will be our guest."

Taliban confront fake news and social media in propaganda war

The Taliban was created by assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1993. A quarter-century later, the terrorist group threatens to disrupt the fragile balance of power in Afghanistan.

India has many irons in the Afghan fire. Its quiet developmental work has created enormous goodwill among Afghans. That could be compromised as events move rapidly in Afghanistan.

The US-Taliban “peace” talks leading to an interim deal could bring the Taliban back into mainstream Afghan politics. The biggest losers will be the Afghan people who experienced Taliban rule in 1996-2001.

When United States President Donald Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as Special Envoy to Afghanistan in September 2018, the hope was Khalilzad would be a tough negotiator able to contain the Taliban’s ambition to again run the Afghan government. He has done the exact opposite. After six-day-long talks with Taliban leaders in Qatar recently, the contours of a deal with the terrorist organisation have emerged.

There are several villains in this plot. The biggest, of course, is Pakistan. It not only created the Taliban 26 years ago, but has nurtured it, protected it and used it to terrorise the Afghan people.

The second villain is the United States. It has fought the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001, but has refused to attack it in its Pakistan-based safe havens. These are protected by the Pakistani Army.

American drones have attacked Taliban targets along the amorphous Durand Line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan. But apart from assassinating al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad in 2011, it has left Pakistan well alone. Significantly, Washington has not classified the Taliban as a designated terrorist organisation.

Former President Barack Obama set today’s events into motion in 2012 by publicly announcing a withdrawal timetable for US troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban gleefully hunkered down, killing Afghan security forces and civilians at will in the knowledge that, once US troops left, it could, with the help of the rogue Pakistani Army, once again take over the Afghanistan government.&nbsp;

Trump emboldened the Taliban further by tweeting last month that he intends to pull out all remaining US troops from Afghanistan within a short period of time.

Where does this leave India? Taliban representation in a future coalition Afghan government is now increasingly likely. President Ashraf Ghani has put himself up for re-election in the July 2019 elections. The Taliban has ignored him, refusing to talk to him while it deals with Afghanistan’s opposition leaders. India too has been sidelined in the ongoing peace talks.

But the situation is hardly irretrievable. Afghanistan’s northern and central ethnic groups — Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras — have long fought the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.

Even Pashtun civilians, who have borne the brunt of terror attacks in Afghanistan, are not united behind the Taliban. Pakistan’s terror factory, which spews out terrorists from the LeT and JeM into Kashmir, is looking forward to unleashing the Taliban on the Valley once the terror group increases its hold over Afghanistan and US troops leave.

For Pakistan, the Taliban’s resurgence is a Godsend. But it could be playing with fire. The jihadi culture that washes over the Taliban also creates splinter terror groups that attack Pakistani targets.

In the past, the Tehreek-e-Taliban launched a series of attacks on targets in Pakistan before a massive operation by the Pakistani Army, helped by US drones, killed virtually its entire leadership.

The likelihood of other Taliban breakaway terror groups emerging cannot be ruled out. As former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours. Eventually, those snakes are going to turn on whoever has (kept) them in the backyard.”

India now has to play its cards carefully. The Russians and Iranians are closely watching the evolving situation in Afghanistan. Russia created the Afghan problem to begin with by invading the country in 1979, causing the US to hire Pakistan as a jihadi recruiter to counter the Soviets. After Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, out-of-work jihadis trained by America’s CIA and Pakistan’s ISI turned their attention to Kashmir.

History could repeat itself once US troops, like the Soviets before them, leave Afghanistan to the predations of Pakistan.

Iran has a porous 921-km border with Afghanistan. The worst outcome for Tehran is Taliban-linked groups fomenting trouble at the border.

China too has an interest in curtailing terrorism in Afghanistan. Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), already under severe criticism over high-cost loans for inflated infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa, is vulnerable to attacks by splinter terror groups. It will not welcome a Taliban government in Afghanistan without protection guarantees for the BRI.

India’s best option is to double down on its developmental work while keeping a line of communication open with the Taliban. In a coalition government under an interim accord with the US, the Taliban will make a pretence of abandoning terrorism. That will give India a window to strengthen its position in Afghanistan where Pakistan is reviled and India admired.

It won’t be enough and it won’t last. But if peace does break out in Afghanistan, however fleetingly, the Afghan people will receive a well-deserved respite from the violence that has torn their country apart.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-india-s-new-afghan-challenge-2719719">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

 
&nbsp;

The Taliban was created by assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1993. A quarter-century later, the terrorist group threatens to disrupt the fragile balance of power in Afghanistan.

The Taliban was created by assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1993. A quarter-century later, the terrorist group threatens to disrupt the fragile balance of power in Afghanistan. India has many irons in the Afghan fire. Its quiet developmental work has created enormous goodwill among Afghans. That could be compromised as events move rapidly in Afghanistan. The US-Taliban “peace” talks leading to an interim deal could bring the Taliban back into mainstream Afghan politics. The biggest losers will be the Afghan people who experienced Taliban rule in 1996-2001. When United States President Donald Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as Special Envoy to Afghanistan in September 2018, the hope was Khalilzad would be a tough negotiator able to contain the Taliban’s ambition to again run the Afghan government. He has done the exact opposite. After six-day-long talks with Taliban leaders in Qatar recently, the contours of a deal with the terrorist organisation have emerged. There are several villains in this plot. The biggest, of course, is Pakistan. It not only created the Taliban 26 years ago, but has nurtured it, protected it and used it to terrorise the Afghan people. The second villain is the United States. It has fought the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001, but has refused to attack it in its Pakistan-based safe havens. These are protected by the Pakistani Army. American drones have attacked Taliban targets along the amorphous Durand Line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan. But apart from assassinating al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad in 2011, it has left Pakistan well alone. Significantly, Washington has not classified the Taliban as a designated terrorist organisation. Former President Barack Obama set today’s events into motion in 2012 by publicly announcing a withdrawal timetable for US troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban gleefully hunkered down, killing Afghan security forces and civilians at will in the knowledge that, once US troops left, it could, with the help of the rogue Pakistani Army, once again take over the Afghanistan government. Trump emboldened the Taliban further by tweeting last month that he intends to pull out all remaining US troops from Afghanistan within a short period of time. Where does this leave India? Taliban representation in a future coalition Afghan government is now increasingly likely. President Ashraf Ghani has put himself up for re-election in the July 2019 elections. The Taliban has ignored him, refusing to talk to him while it deals with Afghanistan’s opposition leaders. India too has been sidelined in the ongoing peace talks. But the situation is hardly irretrievable. Afghanistan’s northern and central ethnic groups — Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras — have long fought the Pashtun-dominated Taliban. Even Pashtun civilians, who have borne the brunt of terror attacks in Afghanistan, are not united behind the Taliban. Pakistan’s terror factory, which spews out terrorists from the LeT and JeM into Kashmir, is looking forward to unleashing the Taliban on the Valley once the terror group increases its hold over Afghanistan and US troops leave. For Pakistan, the Taliban’s resurgence is a Godsend. But it could be playing with fire. The jihadi culture that washes over the Taliban also creates splinter terror groups that attack Pakistani targets. In the past, the Tehreek-e-Taliban launched a series of attacks on targets in Pakistan before a massive operation by the Pakistani Army, helped by US drones, killed virtually its entire leadership. The likelihood of other Taliban breakaway terror groups emerging cannot be ruled out. As former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours. Eventually, those snakes are going to turn on whoever has (kept) them in the backyard.” India now has to play its cards carefully. The Russians and Iranians are closely watching the evolving situation in Afghanistan. Russia created the Afghan problem to begin with by invading the country in 1979, causing the US to hire Pakistan as a jihadi recruiter to counter the Soviets. After Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, out-of-work jihadis trained by America’s CIA and Pakistan’s ISI turned their attention to Kashmir. History could repeat itself once US troops, like the Soviets before them, leave Afghanistan to the predations of Pakistan. Iran has a porous 921-km border with Afghanistan. The worst outcome for Tehran is Taliban-linked groups fomenting trouble at the border. China too has an interest in curtailing terrorism in Afghanistan. Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), already under severe criticism over high-cost loans for inflated infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa, is vulnerable to attacks by splinter terror groups. It will not welcome a Taliban government in Afghanistan without protection guarantees for the BRI. India’s best option is to double down on its developmental work while keeping a line of communication open with the Taliban. In a coalition government under an interim accord with the US, the Taliban will make a pretence of abandoning terrorism. That will give India a window to strengthen its position in Afghanistan where Pakistan is reviled and India admired. It won’t be enough and it won’t last. But if peace does break out in Afghanistan, however fleetingly, the Afghan people will receive a well-deserved respite from the violence that has torn their country apart. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

India’s new Afghan challenge

The Afghan Taliban on Tuesday announced a 14-member team of negotiators to continue peace talks with the United States, consisting of some new faces including a jailed leader of the Haqqani Network.

In a statement, the Taliban said "talks with the American sides (will) continue" and given "the importance of the issue,” its chief Hibatullah Akhundzada asked his deputy Mullah Baradar to appoint a new team of negotiators.

Sher Muhammad Abbas Stanekzai, who was the head of Taliban's political office in Qatar and has overseen a series of meetings with the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad, will continue leading the negotiations with American diplomats along with another 13 members.

Among the new appointees is Anas Haqqani, a son of Haqqani Network founder Jalaluddin Haqqani, who died years ago due to unknown illness although his death was reported only last year.

The senior Haqqani was believed to have masterminded some of the deadliest attacks targeting the US and Afghan security forces and their interests in the last 17 years of war.

The Haqqani Network has pledged allegiance to the Taliban and is known to be coordinating its militant activities with the group.

Anas, a lesser-known figure in the Network now headed by his older brother Sirajuddin, was arrested in 2014 and remains in prison.

He was accused of directing the militant group's propaganda on social media and playing a crucial role in strategic decision-making and fundraising.

The Taliban on Tuesday renewed its demand for Anas’ release to enable him to be part of the team for talks.

"Anas Haqqani has been appointed as a member of the negotiating team but is still in prison. As he was a student (when he was arrested) and did not do any activity to lead to his imprisonment, therefore he should be released to start his new role as a member of negotiating team," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told EFE.

The names of four former Guantanamo Bay inmates are also on the list.

Previously, a 10-member Taliban team was handling the negotiations with the US for ending the Afghan conflict.

The new team was formed a day after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/acting-pentagon-chief-makes-surprise-baghdad-visit-196952">Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan</a> made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan and denied that he had received orders from President Donald Trump to reduce its US military presence in the war-torn country.

The pull-out of foreign troops from Afghanistan is one of the Taliban's key demands in peace negotiations with US officials.

The two sides have held multiple rounds of talks in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar amid opposition by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government, which insists on having a central role in the peace talks.

The Taliban has refused to engage with the government in Kabul.

The Afghan Taliban on Tuesday announced a 14-member team of negotiators to continue peace talks with the United States, consisting of some new faces including a jailed leader of the Haqqani Network.

The Afghan Taliban on Tuesday announced a 14-member team of negotiators to continue peace talks with the United States, consisting of some new faces including a jailed leader of the Haqqani Network. In a statement, the Taliban said "talks with the American sides (will) continue" and given "the importance of the issue,” its chief Hibatullah Akhundzada asked his deputy Mullah Baradar to appoint a new team of negotiators. Sher Muhammad Abbas Stanekzai, who was the head of Taliban's political office in Qatar and has overseen a series of meetings with the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad, will continue leading the negotiations with American diplomats along with another 13 members. Among the new appointees is Anas Haqqani, a son of Haqqani Network founder Jalaluddin Haqqani, who died years ago due to unknown illness although his death was reported only last year. The senior Haqqani was believed to have masterminded some of the deadliest attacks targeting the US and Afghan security forces and their interests in the last 17 years of war. The Haqqani Network has pledged allegiance to the Taliban and is known to be coordinating its militant activities with the group. Anas, a lesser-known figure in the Network now headed by his older brother Sirajuddin, was arrested in 2014 and remains in prison. He was accused of directing the militant group's propaganda on social media and playing a crucial role in strategic decision-making and fundraising. The Taliban on Tuesday renewed its demand for Anas’ release to enable him to be part of the team for talks. "Anas Haqqani has been appointed as a member of the negotiating team but is still in prison. As he was a student (when he was arrested) and did not do any activity to lead to his imprisonment, therefore he should be released to start his new role as a member of negotiating team," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told EFE. The names of four former Guantanamo Bay inmates are also on the list. Previously, a 10-member Taliban team was handling the negotiations with the US for ending the Afghan conflict. The new team was formed a day after Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan and denied that he had received orders from President Donald Trump to reduce its US military presence in the war-torn country. The pull-out of foreign troops from Afghanistan is one of the Taliban's key demands in peace negotiations with US officials. The two sides have held multiple rounds of talks in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar amid opposition by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government, which insists on having a central role in the peace talks. The Taliban has refused to engage with the government in Kabul.

Taliban name jailed Haqqani Network leader among team of peace negotiators

The Trump administration wants to ensure that Afghanistan is never used as a safe haven for terrorists, Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has told President Ashraf Ghani during his surprise visit to the war-torn country to lead a push for<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-khalilzad-in-taliban-talks-seeks-peace-deal-before-afghanistans-presidential-elections-196133"> peace talks with the Taliban.</a>

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-calls-recent-afghanistan-peace-talks-with-us-successful-report-195440">Shanahan held talks with Ghani </a>at the Presidential Palace on Monday to reaffirm his commitment to Afghanistan through the implementation of President Trump's South Asia strategy.

"The leaders discussed a broad range of defence issues, including the importance of the US-Afghanistan security relationship and of achieving a political settlement to the war that ensures Afghanistan is never again used as a safe haven from which terrorists can plan and launch terrorist attacks against the United States, our interests, and our allies," said Pentagon Spokesperson Cmdr Sean Robertson.

During the meeting, Shanahan praised the sacrifices made by Afghan and Coalition troops and reaffirmed America's continued support to Afghan forces as they lead the fight to defend their country.

Shanahan made a surprise trip to Afghanistan on Monday, his first-ever visit to the country where US troops have been stationed for 17 years.

President Donald Trump reportedly wants to cut in half the 14,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and the Taliban leaders have made a US withdrawal a key condition in peace negotiations.

Shanahan told reporters on Monday that he had no orders to reduce the American troop presence. He said that while the US had a key role to play, it is ultimately up to Afghans to find peace.

"The Afghans have to decide what Afghanistan looks like. It's not about the US, it's about Afghanistan," he said.

The Acting Defense chief's visit comes after the US held major talks with the Taliban officials in Qatar last month in an attempt to end the 17-year conflict.

US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is leading the talks, has expressed hope of finding a deal before Afghan presidential elections scheduled for July.

In a series of tweets after six days of talks with the Taliban representatives in Doha last month, Khalilzad said the US has made "significant progress" in its peace talks with the Taliban.

"We have a draft of the framework that has to be fleshed out before it becomes an agreement. The Taliban have committed, to our satisfaction, to do what is necessary that would prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a platform for international terrorist groups or individuals," Khalilzad said at the time.

Since being appointed in September, Khalilzad has met with all sides in an attempt to end America's longest war in which the US has lost over 2,400 soldiers.

The US is expected to start the second round of talks with Taliban officials on February 25 in Qatar, where they have their political office.

The Afghan Taliban, however, has said that despite the ongoing talks with the US and other regional powers, it had "not yet reached" any conclusion that would entail an immediate end to hostilities against America and its allies.

The Taliban are holding talks with the United States "on their own initiative", Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid was recently quoted as saying by a TV channel.

The Taliban control nearly half of Afghanistan and are more powerful than at any time since the 2001 US-led invasion after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001.

Meanwhile, Indian-American Congressman Ro Khanna said that the US should continue supporting the Afghan government financially and diplomatically after leaving and include them in the peace process.

"We should continue supporting the Afghan government financially and diplomatically after leaving and include them in the peace process. The Afghans must eventually earn domestic legitimacy themselves, though," he said in an op-ed in USA Today.

Khanna said the biggest threat to democracy was not the Taliban, but staying economically competitive with authoritarian superpowers like China.

Responding to critics who argue that after the US withdrawal the Taliban might steamroll the Afghan government and then harbour terrorists, Khanna said preventing that outcome did not require a permanent US troop presence.

"Deterrence works. The Taliban should understand that the United States will use overwhelming force again if they harbour terrorists who directly threaten our homeland. Moreover, other 'ungoverned territories' exist where terrorists can operate. There, we conduct counterterrorism from the air without troop deployment," Khanna said.&nbsp;

The Trump administration wants to ensure that Afghanistan is never used as a safe haven for terrorists, Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has told President Ashraf Ghani during his surprise visit to the war-torn country to lead a push for peace talks with the Taliban.

The Trump administration wants to ensure that Afghanistan is never used as a safe haven for terrorists, Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has told President Ashraf Ghani during his surprise visit to the war-torn country to lead a push for peace talks with the Taliban. Shanahan held talks with Ghani at the Presidential Palace on Monday to reaffirm his commitment to Afghanistan through the implementation of President Trump's South Asia strategy. "The leaders discussed a broad range of defence issues, including the importance of the US-Afghanistan security relationship and of achieving a political settlement to the war that ensures Afghanistan is never again used as a safe haven from which terrorists can plan and launch terrorist attacks against the United States, our interests, and our allies," said Pentagon Spokesperson Cmdr Sean Robertson. During the meeting, Shanahan praised the sacrifices made by Afghan and Coalition troops and reaffirmed America's continued support to Afghan forces as they lead the fight to defend their country. Shanahan made a surprise trip to Afghanistan on Monday, his first-ever visit to the country where US troops have been stationed for 17 years. President Donald Trump reportedly wants to cut in half the 14,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and the Taliban leaders have made a US withdrawal a key condition in peace negotiations. Shanahan told reporters on Monday that he had no orders to reduce the American troop presence. He said that while the US had a key role to play, it is ultimately up to Afghans to find peace. "The Afghans have to decide what Afghanistan looks like. It's not about the US, it's about Afghanistan," he said. The Acting Defense chief's visit comes after the US held major talks with the Taliban officials in Qatar last month in an attempt to end the 17-year conflict. US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is leading the talks, has expressed hope of finding a deal before Afghan presidential elections scheduled for July. In a series of tweets after six days of talks with the Taliban representatives in Doha last month, Khalilzad said the US has made "significant progress" in its peace talks with the Taliban. "We have a draft of the framework that has to be fleshed out before it becomes an agreement. The Taliban have committed, to our satisfaction, to do what is necessary that would prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a platform for international terrorist groups or individuals," Khalilzad said at the time. Since being appointed in September, Khalilzad has met with all sides in an attempt to end America's longest war in which the US has lost over 2,400 soldiers. The US is expected to start the second round of talks with Taliban officials on February 25 in Qatar, where they have their political office. The Afghan Taliban, however, has said that despite the ongoing talks with the US and other regional powers, it had "not yet reached" any conclusion that would entail an immediate end to hostilities against America and its allies. The Taliban are holding talks with the United States "on their own initiative", Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid was recently quoted as saying by a TV channel. The Taliban control nearly half of Afghanistan and are more powerful than at any time since the 2001 US-led invasion after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001. Meanwhile, Indian-American Congressman Ro Khanna said that the US should continue supporting the Afghan government financially and diplomatically after leaving and include them in the peace process. "We should continue supporting the Afghan government financially and diplomatically after leaving and include them in the peace process. The Afghans must eventually earn domestic legitimacy themselves, though," he said in an op-ed in USA Today. Khanna said the biggest threat to democracy was not the Taliban, but staying economically competitive with authoritarian superpowers like China. Responding to critics who argue that after the US withdrawal the Taliban might steamroll the Afghan government and then harbour terrorists, Khanna said preventing that outcome did not require a permanent US troop presence. "Deterrence works. The Taliban should understand that the United States will use overwhelming force again if they harbour terrorists who directly threaten our homeland. Moreover, other 'ungoverned territories' exist where terrorists can operate. There, we conduct counterterrorism from the air without troop deployment," Khanna said.

US wants to ensure, Afghanistan is not used as safe heaven for terrorists: Shanahan to Ghani

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/grammys-2019-ariana-grande-wins-best-pop-vocal-album-gives-the-ceremony-a-miss-196500">Grammys 2019: Ariana Grande wins Best Pop Vocal Album; gives the ceremony a miss</a>

Reigning pop princess Ariana Grande took home the first Grammy of her career for Best Pop Vocal Album on Sunday for her fourth studio album 'Sweetener,' topping a tough field including perennial favourite Taylor Swift.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bafta-2019-the-complete-list-of-winners-196479">BAFTA 2019: 'The Favourite', 'Roma' take home big awards of the night</a>

It was a big night for Oscar favourites ‘Roma’ and ‘The Favourite’ that picked up big awards at BAFTA. The British Academy Film and Television Awards took place in London.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/german-migrant-rescue-ship-renamed-after-tragic-toddler-alan-kurdi-196483">German migrant rescue ship renamed after tragic toddler Alan Kurdi</a>

A German migrant rescue ship which operates in the Mediterranean was renamed Sunday after Alan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian refugee boy whose body washed up on a Turkish beach at the height of the migrant crisis, sparking global outrage

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/lawyer-denies-tabloid-blackmailed-amazon-chief-jeff-bezos-196477">Lawyer denies tabloid blackmailed Amazon chief Jeff </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/lawyer-denies-tabloid-blackmailed-amazon-chief-jeff-bezos-196477">Bezos</a>

A lawyer denied Sunday allegations by Jeff Bezos that the National Enquirer tabloid had tried to extort and blackmail him, insisting that embarrassing photographs were obtained from a "reliable" source.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-representative-zalmay-khalilzad-to-be-back-to-focus-on-intra-afghan-dialogue-196488">US representative Zalmay Khalilzad to be back to focus on intra-Afghan dialogue</a>

United States Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad will be back in the region during which he will be visiting six countries - Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Grammys 2019: Ariana Grande wins Best Pop Vocal Album; gives the ceremony a miss Reigning pop princess Ariana Grande took home the first Grammy of her career for Best Pop Vocal Album on Sunday for her fourth studio album 'Sweetener,' topping a tough field including perennial favourite Taylor Swift.

Grammys 2019: Ariana Grande wins Best Pop Vocal Album; gives the ceremony a miss Reigning pop princess Ariana Grande took home the first Grammy of her career for Best Pop Vocal Album on Sunday for her fourth studio album 'Sweetener,' topping a tough field including perennial favourite Taylor Swift. BAFTA 2019: 'The Favourite', 'Roma' take home big awards of the night It was a big night for Oscar favourites ‘Roma’ and ‘The Favourite’ that picked up big awards at BAFTA. The British Academy Film and Television Awards took place in London. German migrant rescue ship renamed after tragic toddler Alan Kurdi A German migrant rescue ship which operates in the Mediterranean was renamed Sunday after Alan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian refugee boy whose body washed up on a Turkish beach at the height of the migrant crisis, sparking global outrage Lawyer denies tabloid blackmailed Amazon chief Jeff Bezos A lawyer denied Sunday allegations by Jeff Bezos that the National Enquirer tabloid had tried to extort and blackmail him, insisting that embarrassing photographs were obtained from a "reliable" source. US representative Zalmay Khalilzad to be back to focus on intra-Afghan dialogue United States Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad will be back in the region during which he will be visiting six countries - Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The US diplomat leading talks with the Taliban said Friday he hoped to see a peace deal in place before Afghanistan's July presidential elections, though he cautioned he did not trust America's long-time adversary.

Zalmay Khalilzad, a former ambassador to Afghanistan who has spoken extensively with the Taliban in recent weeks, also stressed that any US troop withdrawal would be dependent on conditions on the ground, and not on any particular timetable.

The talks come as President Donald Trump pushes to end the Afghanistan conflict, where about 14,000 US troops are still deployed and which has seen countless thousands of civilian and military deaths.

"The timing of a peace settlement from our point of view is the sooner is better," Khalilzad told an audience at the US Institute of Peace in Washington.

"There is an election, I know, that makes reaching a peace agreement particularly complicated. But it will be better for Afghanistan if we could get a peace agreement before the election."

Elections in Afghanistan had originally been slated for April 20 but were postponed for three months as peace talks progressed. President Ashraf Ghani, who was elected in a fraud-tainted poll in 2014, is seeking a second term.

'Red line'

Khalilzad last week announced a "draft framework" for a peace deal, though he warned that major hurdles remain.

Critics are skeptical for a number of reasons, primarily because talks have not yet included the Afghan government, which the Taliban considers US-backed puppets.&nbsp;

Intra-Afghan negotiations are a "key objective" for the US, Khalilzad said, noting the Taliban and the Afghan government "must sit across the table and come to an agreement."

Additionally, the Taliban have promised not to shelter foreign extremists, but experts say they cannot be trusted and even now are helping to hide such militants.

Khalilzad repeatedly stressed the US would not leave Afghanistan without enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure Afghanistan does not become a jihadist safe haven.

"Our vision long term is for an Afghanistan that's entirely sovereign, independent. If they decide that they don't want to have foreign troops, we don't want to stay where we are not wanted -- provided that there is no threat to our national security from Afghanistan," Khalilzad said.

"That is a red line, and I think that's a policy of the (US) president as well."

Khalilzad has in recent months held multiple meetings with Taliban officials in Qatar, where the group's senior leaders have an office in the capital Doha.

The Taliban told him they realize Afghanistan is different from when they were ousted in 2001 -- when the hardline Islamists subjugated women, barred girls from school and wiped out any number of freedoms.&nbsp;

"They understand that they cannot go back" to how things were, the US negotiator said.

"We do not trust the words of any of the protagonists," Khalilzad added, noting that US-backed values such as press freedom and women's rights "must be respected."

"Nothing is agreed to until everything has been agreed to," he said.

Moscow talks

Taliban leaders this week spent two days in talks in Moscow for an extraordinary summit that saw Afghan political figures from outside the government meeting with former sworn enemies.

All parties agreed to support the Doha peace talks with US negotiators that Trump on Tuesday described as "constructive."

A statement issued on behalf of all parties also agreed on the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.

But such a move is up to the Americans.

Khalilzad on Thursday took to Twitter to deny a Taliban claim that a withdrawal timetable was in place.&nbsp;

While the US is not seeking permanent military bases in Afghanistan, "our presence is conditions-based, our withdrawal is conditions-based," he told the Washington audience, speaking with a scratchy voice after "42 hours of talking with the Taliban."

He added that he welcomed Moscow's role in talks.&nbsp;

"I am not seeking to monopolize the diplomacy of peace," he said, and also offered rare praise to Pakistan, which he credited for helping push the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Afghanistan has suffered nearly constant conflict since the Soviet invasion of 1979, which was followed by civil war, the Taliban regime, and the US invasion in late 2001.

Khalilzad was a major player in George W. Bush's administration when the United States first invaded Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The US diplomat leading talks with the Taliban said Friday he hoped to see a peace deal in place before Afghanistan's July presidential elections, though he cautioned he did not trust America's long-time adversary.

The US diplomat leading talks with the Taliban said Friday he hoped to see a peace deal in place before Afghanistan's July presidential elections, though he cautioned he did not trust America's long-time adversary. Zalmay Khalilzad, a former ambassador to Afghanistan who has spoken extensively with the Taliban in recent weeks, also stressed that any US troop withdrawal would be dependent on conditions on the ground, and not on any particular timetable. The talks come as President Donald Trump pushes to end the Afghanistan conflict, where about 14,000 US troops are still deployed and which has seen countless thousands of civilian and military deaths. "The timing of a peace settlement from our point of view is the sooner is better," Khalilzad told an audience at the US Institute of Peace in Washington. "There is an election, I know, that makes reaching a peace agreement particularly complicated. But it will be better for Afghanistan if we could get a peace agreement before the election." Elections in Afghanistan had originally been slated for April 20 but were postponed for three months as peace talks progressed. President Ashraf Ghani, who was elected in a fraud-tainted poll in 2014, is seeking a second term. 'Red line' Khalilzad last week announced a "draft framework" for a peace deal, though he warned that major hurdles remain. Critics are skeptical for a number of reasons, primarily because talks have not yet included the Afghan government, which the Taliban considers US-backed puppets. Intra-Afghan negotiations are a "key objective" for the US, Khalilzad said, noting the Taliban and the Afghan government "must sit across the table and come to an agreement." Additionally, the Taliban have promised not to shelter foreign extremists, but experts say they cannot be trusted and even now are helping to hide such militants. Khalilzad repeatedly stressed the US would not leave Afghanistan without enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure Afghanistan does not become a jihadist safe haven. "Our vision long term is for an Afghanistan that's entirely sovereign, independent. If they decide that they don't want to have foreign troops, we don't want to stay where we are not wanted -- provided that there is no threat to our national security from Afghanistan," Khalilzad said. "That is a red line, and I think that's a policy of the (US) president as well." Khalilzad has in recent months held multiple meetings with Taliban officials in Qatar, where the group's senior leaders have an office in the capital Doha. The Taliban told him they realize Afghanistan is different from when they were ousted in 2001 -- when the hardline Islamists subjugated women, barred girls from school and wiped out any number of freedoms. "They understand that they cannot go back" to how things were, the US negotiator said. "We do not trust the words of any of the protagonists," Khalilzad added, noting that US-backed values such as press freedom and women's rights "must be respected." "Nothing is agreed to until everything has been agreed to," he said. Moscow talks Taliban leaders this week spent two days in talks in Moscow for an extraordinary summit that saw Afghan political figures from outside the government meeting with former sworn enemies. All parties agreed to support the Doha peace talks with US negotiators that Trump on Tuesday described as "constructive." A statement issued on behalf of all parties also agreed on the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. But such a move is up to the Americans. Khalilzad on Thursday took to Twitter to deny a Taliban claim that a withdrawal timetable was in place. While the US is not seeking permanent military bases in Afghanistan, "our presence is conditions-based, our withdrawal is conditions-based," he told the Washington audience, speaking with a scratchy voice after "42 hours of talking with the Taliban." He added that he welcomed Moscow's role in talks. "I am not seeking to monopolize the diplomacy of peace," he said, and also offered rare praise to Pakistan, which he credited for helping push the Taliban to the negotiating table. Afghanistan has suffered nearly constant conflict since the Soviet invasion of 1979, which was followed by civil war, the Taliban regime, and the US invasion in late 2001. Khalilzad was a major player in George W. Bush's administration when the United States first invaded Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

US envoy Khalilzad in Taliban talks seeks peace deal before Afghanistan's presidential elections

The Afghan government, which was not invited in last week`s <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/moscow-talks-first-step-towards-inter-afghan-dialogue-says-former-afghan-president-karzai-194988">Moscow talks</a>, slammed Russia for allowing the United Nations blacklisted Taliban members to take part in the talks.

“They (Taliban members who are on the UN blacklist) do not have the permission to freely travel, and they are on the terrorist groups’ list in many countries. Russia allowed the members to enter the country despite them being on the UN’s blacklist.” MoFA spokesman Sebghat Ahmadi told TOLOnes on Friday.

The ministry`s remarks came days after the government lodged a complaint with the United Nations over a recent trip by members of the Taliban to Moscow.

“Individuals such as Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai and his fellows who visited Russia are sanctioned by the UN. We have shared with the UN Security Council’s 1988’s committee the visit of those Taliban members to Moscow who are sanctioned by the UN,” added Ahamdi.

The government has criticised the talks from the beginning, by saying that the talks hosted by Russia were against the spirit of Afghan-led and owned peace process. The talks, which were held from February 4 to 7, were attended by 40 Afghan politicians, excluding government officials.

A declaration was signed after the three days talks, stating that all parties in the conference have agreed that a dignified and lasting peace is the aspiration of all the people of Afghanistan and this principle has been achieved in Moscow.

A joint statement of the participants, signed after the meeting, reiterated that the intra-Afghan dialogue must continue on a regular basis in view of the current sensitive situation.

Meanwhile, Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, said that the Taliban will reach a peace agreement with the United States before the Afghan Presidential elections slated to be held on July 20.

The Afghan government, which was not invited in last week`s Moscow talks, slammed Russia for allowing the United Nations blacklisted Taliban members to take part in the talks.

The Afghan government, which was not invited in last week`s Moscow talks, slammed Russia for allowing the United Nations blacklisted Taliban members to take part in the talks. “They (Taliban members who are on the UN blacklist) do not have the permission to freely travel, and they are on the terrorist groups’ list in many countries. Russia allowed the members to enter the country despite them being on the UN’s blacklist.” MoFA spokesman Sebghat Ahmadi told TOLOnes on Friday. The ministry`s remarks came days after the government lodged a complaint with the United Nations over a recent trip by members of the Taliban to Moscow. “Individuals such as Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai and his fellows who visited Russia are sanctioned by the UN. We have shared with the UN Security Council’s 1988’s committee the visit of those Taliban members to Moscow who are sanctioned by the UN,” added Ahamdi. The government has criticised the talks from the beginning, by saying that the talks hosted by Russia were against the spirit of Afghan-led and owned peace process. The talks, which were held from February 4 to 7, were attended by 40 Afghan politicians, excluding government officials. A declaration was signed after the three days talks, stating that all parties in the conference have agreed that a dignified and lasting peace is the aspiration of all the people of Afghanistan and this principle has been achieved in Moscow. A joint statement of the participants, signed after the meeting, reiterated that the intra-Afghan dialogue must continue on a regular basis in view of the current sensitive situation. Meanwhile, Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, said that the Taliban will reach a peace agreement with the United States before the Afghan Presidential elections slated to be held on July 20.

Afghan Government slams Russia for allowing UN blacklisted Taliban to attend Moscow talks

Pakistan, long at odds with the United States over the war in Afghanistan, has begun to play a behind-the-scenes but central role in supporting US peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, including by facilitating travel to negotiations, US officials and Taliban sources tell Reuters.

The Pakistani assistance, which has not been reported in such detail before, also includes exerting pressure on Taliban leaders who fail to cooperate, including by detaining members of the militants' families, the insurgents say.

The Pakistani role in the peace negotiations is a delicate one, with Islamabad seeking to avoid demonstrating the kind of broad influence over the Taliban that Washington has long accused it of having. Sources caution its help could be temporary.

The Taliban also do not want to appear beholden to Islamabad, which has long denied US accusations that it provides safe haven and assistance to insurgents as a way to preserve influence in neighboring Afghanistan throughout its more than 17-year-old war.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled his intention to wind down America's longest conflict, declaring this week in his State of the Union address that "great nations do not fight endless wars."

One senior US official, who declined to be identified, said of Pakistan's role in the talks: "We know it just wouldn't be possible without their support."

"They've facilitated some movement and travel to the discussions in Doha," the official said.

Trump's administration has accelerated talks for a political settlement in Afghanistan. US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad held six days of talks - perhaps the most productive to date - with the Taliban in Doha last month and is due to meet Taliban representatives again on February&nbsp;25.

Taliban sources said Pakistan's role in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table was instrumental. In one instance, Islamabad sent a message to the militants through religious leaders that they had to talk to the United States or risk a cut-off in ties.

They detained Taliban members' families as a way to pressure them, a Taliban leader told Reuters.

"I haven't seen Pakistan so serious before," the senior Taliban leader said.

The Taliban leader, who declined to be named, said Pakistan had kept "unprecedented pressure" on the militants and their close relatives over the past few months.

"They made it clear to us that we (Taliban) have to talk to the US and Afghan government," the Taliban leader said.

US General Joseph Votel, who leads the US military's Central Command, hinted at some kind of Pakistani assistance in a Senate hearing this week, saying Islamabad had "played a more helpful role."

To be sure, current and former US officials still are highly skeptical of Islamabad and do not see any steps by Pakistan that could not be easily reversed.

Washington appears for now to be sticking to a total freeze in US&nbsp;assistance to Islamabad imposed over a year ago over its alleged support to the Taliban. Trump at the time accused Islamabad of rewarding past US aid with "nothing but lies &amp; deceit."

"There's some self-interest obviously involved here ... I would be wary of taking that and extrapolating off that and saying they're now on board with the peace process," said Jason Campbell, who was the Pentagon's Afghanistan country director until last year.

PULLOUT PRESSURE

Pakistani sources suggest that the driver behind their country's support for the talks is not US aid but growing concerns over the regional economic shockwaves that could follow an abrupt US pullout from Afghanistan.

Those concerns have been strengthened by Trump's surprise decision in December to withdraw completely from Syria, despite objections from the Pentagon.

There are only about 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan at the moment, but their presence ensures a continuous flow of US financial assistance to Afghanistan.

Islamabad, running short of foreign exchange reserves and in talks with the International Monetary Fund over what would be its 13th bailout since the 1980s, says it cannot afford to see Afghanistan slide into chaos just as Pakistan is trying to attract foreign investors to shore up its own economy.

"That is our main worry in all of this," said a senior official who is closely involved in cross-border relations.

"We have enough economic issues of our own to deal with already."

One of the most notable public signs of Pakistan's willingness to aid the negotiations was the release of Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

Now the newly appointed chief negotiator, Baradar is expected to fly from Pakistan to attend the next round of negotiations in Doha on February 25.

Dan Feldman, a former US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said he believed Washington was still hesitant to become too hopeful about Pakistan's change in posture.

"There is cautious appreciation for the fact that Pakistan has seemingly done more than before to be helpful," Feldman said, before adding that it did not "suggest a sea change in Pakistan's position."

Pakistan, long at odds with the United States over the war in Afghanistan, has begun to play a behind-the-scenes but central role in supporting US peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, including by facilitating travel to negotiations, US officials and Taliban sources tell Reuters.

Pakistan, long at odds with the United States over the war in Afghanistan, has begun to play a behind-the-scenes but central role in supporting US peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, including by facilitating travel to negotiations, US officials and Taliban sources tell Reuters. The Pakistani assistance, which has not been reported in such detail before, also includes exerting pressure on Taliban leaders who fail to cooperate, including by detaining members of the militants' families, the insurgents say. The Pakistani role in the peace negotiations is a delicate one, with Islamabad seeking to avoid demonstrating the kind of broad influence over the Taliban that Washington has long accused it of having. Sources caution its help could be temporary. The Taliban also do not want to appear beholden to Islamabad, which has long denied US accusations that it provides safe haven and assistance to insurgents as a way to preserve influence in neighboring Afghanistan throughout its more than 17-year-old war. President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled his intention to wind down America's longest conflict, declaring this week in his State of the Union address that "great nations do not fight endless wars." One senior US official, who declined to be identified, said of Pakistan's role in the talks: "We know it just wouldn't be possible without their support." "They've facilitated some movement and travel to the discussions in Doha," the official said. Trump's administration has accelerated talks for a political settlement in Afghanistan. US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad held six days of talks - perhaps the most productive to date - with the Taliban in Doha last month and is due to meet Taliban representatives again on February 25. Taliban sources said Pakistan's role in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table was instrumental. In one instance, Islamabad sent a message to the militants through religious leaders that they had to talk to the United States or risk a cut-off in ties. They detained Taliban members' families as a way to pressure them, a Taliban leader told Reuters. "I haven't seen Pakistan so serious before," the senior Taliban leader said. The Taliban leader, who declined to be named, said Pakistan had kept "unprecedented pressure" on the militants and their close relatives over the past few months. "They made it clear to us that we (Taliban) have to talk to the US and Afghan government," the Taliban leader said. US General Joseph Votel, who leads the US military's Central Command, hinted at some kind of Pakistani assistance in a Senate hearing this week, saying Islamabad had "played a more helpful role." To be sure, current and former US officials still are highly skeptical of Islamabad and do not see any steps by Pakistan that could not be easily reversed. Washington appears for now to be sticking to a total freeze in US assistance to Islamabad imposed over a year ago over its alleged support to the Taliban. Trump at the time accused Islamabad of rewarding past US aid with "nothing but lies & deceit." "There's some self-interest obviously involved here ... I would be wary of taking that and extrapolating off that and saying they're now on board with the peace process," said Jason Campbell, who was the Pentagon's Afghanistan country director until last year. PULLOUT PRESSURE Pakistani sources suggest that the driver behind their country's support for the talks is not US aid but growing concerns over the regional economic shockwaves that could follow an abrupt US pullout from Afghanistan. Those concerns have been strengthened by Trump's surprise decision in December to withdraw completely from Syria, despite objections from the Pentagon. There are only about 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan at the moment, but their presence ensures a continuous flow of US financial assistance to Afghanistan. Islamabad, running short of foreign exchange reserves and in talks with the International Monetary Fund over what would be its 13th bailout since the 1980s, says it cannot afford to see Afghanistan slide into chaos just as Pakistan is trying to attract foreign investors to shore up its own economy. "That is our main worry in all of this," said a senior official who is closely involved in cross-border relations. "We have enough economic issues of our own to deal with already." One of the most notable public signs of Pakistan's willingness to aid the negotiations was the release of Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. Now the newly appointed chief negotiator, Baradar is expected to fly from Pakistan to attend the next round of negotiations in Doha on February 25. Dan Feldman, a former US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said he believed Washington was still hesitant to become too hopeful about Pakistan's change in posture. "There is cautious appreciation for the fact that Pakistan has seemingly done more than before to be helpful," Feldman said, before adding that it did not "suggest a sea change in Pakistan's position."

Once spoiler, Pakistan starts behind-scenes aid to US-Taliban talks

An Afghan delegation led by former president Hamid Karzai and representatives of the Taliban say&nbsp;that they would continue their peace talks following two days of negotiations in Russia.&nbsp;

About 40 Afghan politicians, excluding government officials, met on February 5-6 in Moscow.

The two sides, in a joint statement, said that they agreed to hold another meeting "as soon as possible" in Qatar, reported Afghanistan's Tolo News.

The declaration stated that all parties in the conference have agreed that a dignified and lasting peace is the aspiration of all the people of Afghanistan and this principle has been achieved in Moscow.

The joint statement also reiterated that in view of the current sensitive situation, the intra-Afghan dialogue must continue on regular basis.

The parties in the conference considered these talks a positive step towards ending the imposed war on Afghanistan."All parties have agreed that systematic reforms be put in place in all national institutions including the security sector after a peace deal is signed. All parties agreed that the cooperation of regional countries and major countries are essential to determine lasting and nationwide peace in Afghanistan," read the joint declaration.

The declaration further stated, "All parties agreed that the values such as respect for the principles of Islam in all parts of the system, the principle that Afghanistan is a common home to all Afghans, support to a powerful centralized government with all Afghan ethnicities having a role in it, protecting national sovereignty and promoting social justice, to keep Afghanistan neutral in all regional and international conflicts, protecting Afghanistan’s national and religious values and undertaking a unified and single policy."

The declaration also asserted that all parties agreed that to determine lasting peace in Afghanistan, several steps are need to be taken, including complete withdrawal of foreign forces from the country, asking all countries to avoid interfering in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, providing assurance to the international community that Afghanistan will not be used against any other nation, protection of social, economic, political and educational rights of the Afghan women in line with Islamic principles.

"All parties agreed that in order to create the atmosphere of trust and promote peace, in the first step, it is important that these items are taken into consideration, tackling the issue of all those inmates who are old, or suffering incurable diseases or have completed their prison sentences and the removal of leaders of the Taliban from the UN blacklist, opening of an official political office in Qatar for acceleration of peace talks," the declaration further stated.

Several leaders from Afghanistan mainstream politics to Taliban including former Vice President Mohammad Yunus Qanuni, former Balkh governor and Jamiat-e-Islami member Atta Mohammad Noor, Jamiat-e-Islami member Mohammad Ismail Khan, second deputy chief executive and Wahday party member Mohammad Mohaqiq, head of National Islamic Front of Afghanistan Sayed Hamid Gailani, and son of former president Sebghatullah Mujaddedi, Zabihullah Mujaddedi, along with the representatives of Taliban attended the talk.

The Moscow talks came after officials from over 40 countries attended the International Contact Group meeting in London, this week, including US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and President Ashraf Ghani’s Special Representative on Regional Affairs for Consensus on Peace Umer Daudzai, to announce their support to the Afghan peace process.&nbsp;

An Afghan delegation led by former president Hamid Karzai and representatives of the Taliban say that they would continue their peace talks following two days of negotiations in Russia.

An Afghan delegation led by former president Hamid Karzai and representatives of the Taliban say that they would continue their peace talks following two days of negotiations in Russia. About 40 Afghan politicians, excluding government officials, met on February 5-6 in Moscow. The two sides, in a joint statement, said that they agreed to hold another meeting "as soon as possible" in Qatar, reported Afghanistan's Tolo News. The declaration stated that all parties in the conference have agreed that a dignified and lasting peace is the aspiration of all the people of Afghanistan and this principle has been achieved in Moscow. The joint statement also reiterated that in view of the current sensitive situation, the intra-Afghan dialogue must continue on regular basis. The parties in the conference considered these talks a positive step towards ending the imposed war on Afghanistan."All parties have agreed that systematic reforms be put in place in all national institutions including the security sector after a peace deal is signed. All parties agreed that the cooperation of regional countries and major countries are essential to determine lasting and nationwide peace in Afghanistan," read the joint declaration. The declaration further stated, "All parties agreed that the values such as respect for the principles of Islam in all parts of the system, the principle that Afghanistan is a common home to all Afghans, support to a powerful centralized government with all Afghan ethnicities having a role in it, protecting national sovereignty and promoting social justice, to keep Afghanistan neutral in all regional and international conflicts, protecting Afghanistan’s national and religious values and undertaking a unified and single policy." The declaration also asserted that all parties agreed that to determine lasting peace in Afghanistan, several steps are need to be taken, including complete withdrawal of foreign forces from the country, asking all countries to avoid interfering in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, providing assurance to the international community that Afghanistan will not be used against any other nation, protection of social, economic, political and educational rights of the Afghan women in line with Islamic principles. "All parties agreed that in order to create the atmosphere of trust and promote peace, in the first step, it is important that these items are taken into consideration, tackling the issue of all those inmates who are old, or suffering incurable diseases or have completed their prison sentences and the removal of leaders of the Taliban from the UN blacklist, opening of an official political office in Qatar for acceleration of peace talks," the declaration further stated. Several leaders from Afghanistan mainstream politics to Taliban including former Vice President Mohammad Yunus Qanuni, former Balkh governor and Jamiat-e-Islami member Atta Mohammad Noor, Jamiat-e-Islami member Mohammad Ismail Khan, second deputy chief executive and Wahday party member Mohammad Mohaqiq, head of National Islamic Front of Afghanistan Sayed Hamid Gailani, and son of former president Sebghatullah Mujaddedi, Zabihullah Mujaddedi, along with the representatives of Taliban attended the talk. The Moscow talks came after officials from over 40 countries attended the International Contact Group meeting in London, this week, including US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and President Ashraf Ghani’s Special Representative on Regional Affairs for Consensus on Peace Umer Daudzai, to announce their support to the Afghan peace process.

Afghan politicians, Taliban say talks to continue

Russia is ready to help the United States advance its negotiations with the Taliban on withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, the RIA news agency cited Russia`s foreign ministry as saying on Thursday.&nbsp;

The comments came a day after Russia hosted peace talks in Moscow between the Taliban and opposition Afghan politicians.&nbsp;

A Taliban official at the talks said no timetable had been agreed with the US government for the partial withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, and that negotiations were underway.

Russia is ready to help the United States advance its negotiations with the Taliban on withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, the RIA news agency cited Russia`s foreign ministry as saying on Thursday.

Russia is ready to help the United States advance its negotiations with the Taliban on withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, the RIA news agency cited Russia`s foreign ministry as saying on Thursday. The comments came a day after Russia hosted peace talks in Moscow between the Taliban and opposition Afghan politicians. A Taliban official at the talks said no timetable had been agreed with the US government for the partial withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, and that negotiations were underway.

Russia offers to help US on Afghan peace talks with Taliban: RIA

After 17 years of war, Afghanistan is on the cusp of peace. The kind of peace Ronald Reagan spoke about — not the absence of conflict, but the ability to manage conflict by peaceful means. The Americans are pushing forth with a ceasefire agreement. The Russians are holding an intra-Afghan dialogue. Simultaneous attempts are underway. It’s the course that suits all sides.

All but two. The Government of Afghanistan and the Government of India. One has been left out of the peace talks, the second remains reluctant to join them.

Let’s begin with India. Some things have remained constant in the evolving matrix of Indian foreign policy. One is the assertion that talks and terror don’t go hand in hand. The second is India’s refusal to send troops to a foreign land without a United Nations mandate. Exceptions have been made, but Afghanistan may not qualify for that just yet. It’s an election year in India. Talking to the Taliban is just the kind of foreign policy hot potato any government would avoid, especially this one.

You could call it dithering. You could say India is weighing its options. You could also say that India is waiting to see how the chips fall. Delhi has tested the waters. In a major departure from policy, it sent two “unofficial representatives” to Moscow last year to “observe” the peace talks. But it’s not something the government wants to discuss. When the Army Chief in India said we should talk to the Taliban without preconditions, the government pretended the episode never took place. Radio silence. Some off-the-record reactions called it the Army Chief’s “personal opinion”.

The fact is that India is too deeply invested in Afghanistan, both in terms of money and diplomatic capital. India is Afghanistan’s biggest regional donor. Development assistance from New Delhi to Kabul stands at more than $2 billion. India started pouring in help right after the fall of the Taliban regime.&nbsp;

Over the years, India has built infrastructure — roads, dams, schools, hospitals, a cricket stadium and the country’s new Parliament (with a library now made famous by the American President). India is seen as a friendly nation with ties to all ethnic groups. India can leverage this, but not without recognising the party that rules Kabul. That could soon be the Taliban.

They’re now being treated as legitimate stakeholders. The Afghan politicians call them “one of us”. The outsiders are only too happy to accept, bury the hatchet and move on. Look at the peace talks and those brokering them.

The US wants to exit Afghanistan after having fought a long, frustrating and costly war. $45 billion every year, says President Donald Trump. He wants out and in his desperation trusts the Taliban to espouse peace and keep their word. The Pakistanis want these talks. They have nurtured the Taliban at the risk of upsetting the world and now want to seize their chance to play kingmakers in the strategically vital neighbourhood. The Russians are still coming to terms with their unceremonious exit a few decades ago, have revived their presence, and now want peace to safeguard their Central Asian assets.&nbsp;

And of course, the Taliban themselves. They control more than 60 per cent of Afghan territory. They want foreign forces to exit their land. They’re talking on their terms and have already secured the promise of America’s exit without giving anything in return. The Taliban strikes in Afghanistan haven’t abated with progress in the talks.

India has maintained that peace in Afghanistan should be an Afghan-led process. India is the only one still sticking to that position, apart from President Ghani who is out on a limb. He wants to be part of the peace talks but the Taliban won’t have him. They don’t recognise this government. They call it America’s puppet, not worth talking to. He wants the Americans to stay, he’s offering concessions, but Donald Trump would have none of it. The US President says his country is done with nation-building. Nobody is betting on the incumbent Afghan government.

Meanwhile, the Taliban have reached out to New Delhi. They’re offering dialogue, promising to safeguard India’s investments in Chabahar, even promising to protect minorities, including Hindus and Sikhs, in Afghanistan. They’re sounding like a political party. They seem to want to morph into one and seek legitimacy to rule a country they already pretty much control.

The choice before India is not really a choice. It’s a question of when rather than if. It’s a tough question in an election year. And the Modi government seems to be in no hurry to answer it. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-afghan-peace-talks-why-india-won-t-spell-its-stand-just-yet-2716946">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

&nbsp;

After 17 years of war, Afghanistan is on the cusp of peace. The kind of peace Ronald Reagan spoke about — not the absence of conflict, but the ability to manage conflict by peaceful means.

After 17 years of war, Afghanistan is on the cusp of peace. The kind of peace Ronald Reagan spoke about — not the absence of conflict, but the ability to manage conflict by peaceful means. The Americans are pushing forth with a ceasefire agreement. The Russians are holding an intra-Afghan dialogue. Simultaneous attempts are underway. It’s the course that suits all sides. All but two. The Government of Afghanistan and the Government of India. One has been left out of the peace talks, the second remains reluctant to join them. Let’s begin with India. Some things have remained constant in the evolving matrix of Indian foreign policy. One is the assertion that talks and terror don’t go hand in hand. The second is India’s refusal to send troops to a foreign land without a United Nations mandate. Exceptions have been made, but Afghanistan may not qualify for that just yet. It’s an election year in India. Talking to the Taliban is just the kind of foreign policy hot potato any government would avoid, especially this one. You could call it dithering. You could say India is weighing its options. You could also say that India is waiting to see how the chips fall. Delhi has tested the waters. In a major departure from policy, it sent two “unofficial representatives” to Moscow last year to “observe” the peace talks. But it’s not something the government wants to discuss. When the Army Chief in India said we should talk to the Taliban without preconditions, the government pretended the episode never took place. Radio silence. Some off-the-record reactions called it the Army Chief’s “personal opinion”. The fact is that India is too deeply invested in Afghanistan, both in terms of money and diplomatic capital. India is Afghanistan’s biggest regional donor. Development assistance from New Delhi to Kabul stands at more than $2 billion. India started pouring in help right after the fall of the Taliban regime. Over the years, India has built infrastructure — roads, dams, schools, hospitals, a cricket stadium and the country’s new Parliament (with a library now made famous by the American President). India is seen as a friendly nation with ties to all ethnic groups. India can leverage this, but not without recognising the party that rules Kabul. That could soon be the Taliban. They’re now being treated as legitimate stakeholders. The Afghan politicians call them “one of us”. The outsiders are only too happy to accept, bury the hatchet and move on. Look at the peace talks and those brokering them. The US wants to exit Afghanistan after having fought a long, frustrating and costly war. $45 billion every year, says President Donald Trump. He wants out and in his desperation trusts the Taliban to espouse peace and keep their word. The Pakistanis want these talks. They have nurtured the Taliban at the risk of upsetting the world and now want to seize their chance to play kingmakers in the strategically vital neighbourhood. The Russians are still coming to terms with their unceremonious exit a few decades ago, have revived their presence, and now want peace to safeguard their Central Asian assets. And of course, the Taliban themselves. They control more than 60 per cent of Afghan territory. They want foreign forces to exit their land. They’re talking on their terms and have already secured the promise of America’s exit without giving anything in return. The Taliban strikes in Afghanistan haven’t abated with progress in the talks. India has maintained that peace in Afghanistan should be an Afghan-led process. India is the only one still sticking to that position, apart from President Ghani who is out on a limb. He wants to be part of the peace talks but the Taliban won’t have him. They don’t recognise this government. They call it America’s puppet, not worth talking to. He wants the Americans to stay, he’s offering concessions, but Donald Trump would have none of it. The US President says his country is done with nation-building. Nobody is betting on the incumbent Afghan government. Meanwhile, the Taliban have reached out to New Delhi. They’re offering dialogue, promising to safeguard India’s investments in Chabahar, even promising to protect minorities, including Hindus and Sikhs, in Afghanistan. They’re sounding like a political party. They seem to want to morph into one and seek legitimacy to rule a country they already pretty much control. The choice before India is not really a choice. It’s a question of when rather than if. It’s a tough question in an election year. And the Modi government seems to be in no hurry to answer it. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Afghan peace talks: Why India won’t spell its stand just yet

Decades after the Soviet Union's disastrous venture into Afghanistan, Russia is emerging as a major player in the region with ties to the Taliban and Afghan politicians as US troops withdraw from the country.

This week Moscow brought together the Taliban and powerful Afghan politicians for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/talks-hosted-by-russia-will-not-help-in-the-peace-process-afghanistan-194573">two days of unprecedented talks</a> Tuesday and Wednesday, the insurgents' most significant engagement with Afghan leaders in recent memory.

In incredible scenes broadcast around the world, former president Hamid Karzai and other leaders shared prayers and meals with the Taliban while discussing the future of the conflict-riven country at a hotel that belongs to the Kremlin.

"This is a turning point," Andrei Serenko, an expert at the Centre for Contemporary Afghan Studies, told AFP.

"From reacting to other players' initiatives, Russia has switched to generating its own initiatives in the region."

Washington's decision to draw down troops from Afghanistan in a bid to extricate itself from the nearly 18-year war can become both a boon and bane for Russia, analysts say.

On the one hand, Moscow will burnish its credentials as a major player and mediator in the region; on the other hand, the US withdrawal will increase risks of instability and violence in Central Asia, seen as Moscow's sphere of influence.

"Russia is returning to Afghanistan using it as a platform for confrontation with the United States," independent expert Arkady Dubnov told AFP.&nbsp;

Dubnov added that Russia was vitally interested in seeing stability and security in the impoverished country's northern provinces.&nbsp;

While he said Moscow would not send troops to the country given the Soviet Union's painful experience in Afghanistan, Russia could provide other forms of assistance.&nbsp;

"If there's a request from the leadership, money and arms supplies cannot be ruled out," Dubnov added.&nbsp;

'A more involved role'&nbsp;

The Soviet Union's 1979-1989 invasion of Afghanistan has deeply scarred the nation.&nbsp;

The 10-year conflict, which saw Moscow intervene in support of the Afghan communist government, claimed the lives of more than 14,000 Soviet troops and has come to be seen in Russia as a huge foreign policy blunder. &nbsp;

"A more involved role for Moscow has surprised many, mostly due to Russia's bloody history in Afghanistan," said The Soufan Center, a non-profit security analysis group.

Despite the presence of US troops and support for the government of Ashraf Ghani, Washington may find itself marginalised in the country as regional powers like Russia come to the centre stage, the group said.&nbsp;

While Moscow has sought to distance itself from the conference, calling it an initiative of the Afghan diasporas, few doubt the Kremlin's deep involvement.

Representatives of the Kabul government were not present at the conference. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

Instead, the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan under a ruthless interpretation of Sharia law between 1996 and 2001, sat down for talks with Ghani's rivals including Mohammad Haneef Atmar as the country prepares to hold presidential elections in July.

"Moscow does not believe in Ghani's future," said Serenko of the Centre for Contemporary Afghan Studies, suggesting Russia was backing Atmar in the run-up to the polls.

'Romance with Taliban'&nbsp;

Serenko also said Moscow used this week's conference to legitimise its long-held ties with the Taliban which Russia still designates as a terrorist group.&nbsp;

"For the past ten years Russia has been romantically involved with the Taliban. Now this romance has been made public," Serenko said.

"Today the Taliban, who only respect force, and Russians speak the same language."

The Moscow meeting came a week after the insurgents held separate peace talks with American negotiators in Doha, where Ghani was again not invited to the table.&nbsp;

Ghani's allies in Washington insist Afghans should lead the peace process, and ostensibly the months-long push by the US to engage the Taliban has been aimed at convincing them to negotiate with Kabul.&nbsp;

The Russian government also held a meeting on Afghanistan in November.

Some frown upon Russia's involvement.&nbsp;

"By getting the Afghan opposition to talk to the Taliban, Moscow risks fracturing an already fragile yet fledgeling peace process-and provoking a fresh crisis within an Afghan government already riven by deep divisions," Michael Kugelman, an analyst at the Wilson Center in Washington, told AFP.

But organisers of the Moscow conference said Russia's perceived neutrality during Washington's war in Afghanistan made the country well-suited for the mediation.

"During the past 18 years, Russia has proved that it supported neither side in the conflict," said Ghulam Mohammad Jalal, one of the conference's organisers.

"That is why it has earned in Afghan society the status of a neutral country with a neutral position."

Decades after the Soviet Union's disastrous venture into Afghanistan, Russia is emerging as a major player in the region with ties to the Taliban and Afghan politicians as US troops withdraw from the country.

Decades after the Soviet Union's disastrous venture into Afghanistan, Russia is emerging as a major player in the region with ties to the Taliban and Afghan politicians as US troops withdraw from the country. This week Moscow brought together the Taliban and powerful Afghan politicians for two days of unprecedented talks Tuesday and Wednesday, the insurgents' most significant engagement with Afghan leaders in recent memory. In incredible scenes broadcast around the world, former president Hamid Karzai and other leaders shared prayers and meals with the Taliban while discussing the future of the conflict-riven country at a hotel that belongs to the Kremlin. "This is a turning point," Andrei Serenko, an expert at the Centre for Contemporary Afghan Studies, told AFP. "From reacting to other players' initiatives, Russia has switched to generating its own initiatives in the region." Washington's decision to draw down troops from Afghanistan in a bid to extricate itself from the nearly 18-year war can become both a boon and bane for Russia, analysts say. On the one hand, Moscow will burnish its credentials as a major player and mediator in the region; on the other hand, the US withdrawal will increase risks of instability and violence in Central Asia, seen as Moscow's sphere of influence. "Russia is returning to Afghanistan using it as a platform for confrontation with the United States," independent expert Arkady Dubnov told AFP. Dubnov added that Russia was vitally interested in seeing stability and security in the impoverished country's northern provinces. While he said Moscow would not send troops to the country given the Soviet Union's painful experience in Afghanistan, Russia could provide other forms of assistance. "If there's a request from the leadership, money and arms supplies cannot be ruled out," Dubnov added. 'A more involved role' The Soviet Union's 1979-1989 invasion of Afghanistan has deeply scarred the nation. The 10-year conflict, which saw Moscow intervene in support of the Afghan communist government, claimed the lives of more than 14,000 Soviet troops and has come to be seen in Russia as a huge foreign policy blunder. "A more involved role for Moscow has surprised many, mostly due to Russia's bloody history in Afghanistan," said The Soufan Center, a non-profit security analysis group. Despite the presence of US troops and support for the government of Ashraf Ghani, Washington may find itself marginalised in the country as regional powers like Russia come to the centre stage, the group said. While Moscow has sought to distance itself from the conference, calling it an initiative of the Afghan diasporas, few doubt the Kremlin's deep involvement. Representatives of the Kabul government were not present at the conference. Instead, the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan under a ruthless interpretation of Sharia law between 1996 and 2001, sat down for talks with Ghani's rivals including Mohammad Haneef Atmar as the country prepares to hold presidential elections in July. "Moscow does not believe in Ghani's future," said Serenko of the Centre for Contemporary Afghan Studies, suggesting Russia was backing Atmar in the run-up to the polls. 'Romance with Taliban' Serenko also said Moscow used this week's conference to legitimise its long-held ties with the Taliban which Russia still designates as a terrorist group. "For the past ten years Russia has been romantically involved with the Taliban. Now this romance has been made public," Serenko said. "Today the Taliban, who only respect force, and Russians speak the same language." The Moscow meeting came a week after the insurgents held separate peace talks with American negotiators in Doha, where Ghani was again not invited to the table. Ghani's allies in Washington insist Afghans should lead the peace process, and ostensibly the months-long push by the US to engage the Taliban has been aimed at convincing them to negotiate with Kabul. The Russian government also held a meeting on Afghanistan in November. Some frown upon Russia's involvement. "By getting the Afghan opposition to talk to the Taliban, Moscow risks fracturing an already fragile yet fledgeling peace process-and provoking a fresh crisis within an Afghan government already riven by deep divisions," Michael Kugelman, an analyst at the Wilson Center in Washington, told AFP. But organisers of the Moscow conference said Russia's perceived neutrality during Washington's war in Afghanistan made the country well-suited for the mediation. "During the past 18 years, Russia has proved that it supported neither side in the conflict," said Ghulam Mohammad Jalal, one of the conference's organisers. "That is why it has earned in Afghan society the status of a neutral country with a neutral position."

As US eyes exit from Afghanistan, Russia begins to step into that vacuum

A <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/us-peace-talks-the-tensions-within-the-taliban-195361">Taliban</a> official said on Wednesday that the United States had promised to withdraw half of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of April during talks last month, RIA news agency reported, more than past estimates of the planned pull-out.

There was no immediate reaction from the Pentagon or the US Department of State to the comments from a member of a Taliban delegation visiting Moscow.

But they came a day after President Donald Trump told Americans his administration had accelerated talks for a political settlement in Afghanistan and would be able to reduce US troops there as negotiations advance to end America’s longest war.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghans-hope-for-peace-but-fear-bloodshed-as-us-taliban-talk-193222">US and Taliban delegations </a>met in Qatar in January and are due to meet again in February.

A US official at last month's meeting said significant progress was made, though more talks were needed on US demands for a Taliban ceasefire before any withdrawal and other issues.

"Yes, the Americans told us (last month) that they would withdraw half of their troops from the beginning of February to the end of April," Abdul Salam Hanafi was quoted as saying by Russian news agency RIA.

Hanafi said Washington and the Taliban had also agreed that all foreign troops would eventually leave and that Afghanistan would never be used as a base for attacks on the United States.

"The timeline (of the withdrawal) will be discussed at future meetings," Hanafi said.

The Taliban militants are in Moscow for talks with Afghan opposition politicians, including former President Hamid Karzai - discussions that the current Afghan government has said is not in the country's best interests.

A US official said in December that Trump was planning to withdraw more than 5,000, or more than a third, of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

A Taliban official said on Wednesday that the United States had promised to withdraw half of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of April during talks last month, RIA news agency reported, more than past estimates of the planned pull-out.

A Taliban official said on Wednesday that the United States had promised to withdraw half of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of April during talks last month, RIA news agency reported, more than past estimates of the planned pull-out. There was no immediate reaction from the Pentagon or the US Department of State to the comments from a member of a Taliban delegation visiting Moscow. But they came a day after President Donald Trump told Americans his administration had accelerated talks for a political settlement in Afghanistan and would be able to reduce US troops there as negotiations advance to end America’s longest war. US and Taliban delegations met in Qatar in January and are due to meet again in February. A US official at last month's meeting said significant progress was made, though more talks were needed on US demands for a Taliban ceasefire before any withdrawal and other issues. "Yes, the Americans told us (last month) that they would withdraw half of their troops from the beginning of February to the end of April," Abdul Salam Hanafi was quoted as saying by Russian news agency RIA. Hanafi said Washington and the Taliban had also agreed that all foreign troops would eventually leave and that Afghanistan would never be used as a base for attacks on the United States. "The timeline (of the withdrawal) will be discussed at future meetings," Hanafi said. The Taliban militants are in Moscow for talks with Afghan opposition politicians, including former President Hamid Karzai - discussions that the current Afghan government has said is not in the country's best interests. A US official said in December that Trump was planning to withdraw more than 5,000, or more than a third, of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

Taliban says US promised to halve its troops in Afghanistan by April: Report

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-takes-centre-stage-as-kabul-cut-out-of-peace-talks-195302">Taliban demanded a new constitution</a> for Afghanistan and promised an "inclusive Islamic system" to govern the war-torn country at a rare gathering with senior Afghan politicians in Russia Tuesday that excluded the Kabul government.&nbsp;

The insurgents' manifesto, outlined in Moscow before some of Afghanistan's most influential leaders, comes a week after the Taliban held unprecedented six-day talks with US negotiators in Doha about ending the 17-year war.

The Doha and Moscow discussions, though entirely separate, both excluded the government in Kabul, where President Ashraf Ghani is seen as increasingly sidelined from key negotiations for peace in his country.

The Moscow meeting -- the Taliban's most significant with Afghan politicians in recent memory -- saw the insurgents praying together with sworn enemies including former president Hamid Karzai as they discussed their vision for the future.

"The Kabul government constitution is invalid. It has been imported from the West and is an obstacle to peace," Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, who headed the Taliban delegation, told attendees at a central Moscow hotel.

"It is conflicted. We want an Islamic constitution," he said, adding that the new charter would be drafted by Islamic scholars.

No representatives from the Kabul government were invited to Moscow but some of Ghani's chief rivals -- including Karzai as well as opponents in an election slated for July -- were in attendance.

Ghani's allies in Washington insist Afghans should lead the peace process, and the months-long push by the US to engage the Taliban has ostensibly been aimed at convincing them to negotiate with the government in Kabul.

Those efforts culminated in six days of talks between the US and the Taliban in January where both sides touted "progress" -- stoking Afghan fears that America could cut a deal to withdraw its troops before a lasting peace with Kabul is reached.

Ghani has repeatedly said that all Afghans should agree on the need to end hostilities and an eventual withdrawal of foreign forces, but that he would not "surrender to a temporary peace deal".

'Inclusive Islamic system'&nbsp;

The Taliban consider Ghani and his administration to be US puppets, and have refused offers to talk a truce.

Stanikzai said the insurgents, who ruled Afghanistan under a ruthless interpretation of Sharia law between 1996 and 2001, did not want a "monopoly of power" but "an inclusive Islamic system".

They also promised to stamp out Afghanistan's poppy cultivation and take steps to prevent civilian casualties in a conflict that has killed and wounded hundreds of thousands.

Two women attended the roundtable conference. The Taliban closed girls' schools and banned women from working under their regime, but have indicated they could loosen some guidelines in line with Sharia law.

"I think all sides are ready for a compromise. It is a good start," said Muhammad Ghulam Jalal, the head of an Afghan diaspora group who hosted the meeting.

But images of Karzai and other powerful leaders attending prayer lead by a Taliban figure and dining with the militants invoked anger in Afghanistan.

"If you guys can eat together, laugh and pray together, hug each other why you are still killing innocent Afghans?" one Facebook user posted.

The Taliban are scheduled to hold another round of peace talks with the US in Doha on February 25.

The Taliban demanded a new constitution for Afghanistan and promised an "inclusive Islamic system" to govern the war-torn country at a rare gathering with senior Afghan politicians in Russia Tuesday that excluded the Kabul government.

The Taliban demanded a new constitution for Afghanistan and promised an "inclusive Islamic system" to govern the war-torn country at a rare gathering with senior Afghan politicians in Russia Tuesday that excluded the Kabul government. The insurgents' manifesto, outlined in Moscow before some of Afghanistan's most influential leaders, comes a week after the Taliban held unprecedented six-day talks with US negotiators in Doha about ending the 17-year war. The Doha and Moscow discussions, though entirely separate, both excluded the government in Kabul, where President Ashraf Ghani is seen as increasingly sidelined from key negotiations for peace in his country. The Moscow meeting -- the Taliban's most significant with Afghan politicians in recent memory -- saw the insurgents praying together with sworn enemies including former president Hamid Karzai as they discussed their vision for the future. "The Kabul government constitution is invalid. It has been imported from the West and is an obstacle to peace," Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, who headed the Taliban delegation, told attendees at a central Moscow hotel. "It is conflicted. We want an Islamic constitution," he said, adding that the new charter would be drafted by Islamic scholars. No representatives from the Kabul government were invited to Moscow but some of Ghani's chief rivals -- including Karzai as well as opponents in an election slated for July -- were in attendance. Ghani's allies in Washington insist Afghans should lead the peace process, and the months-long push by the US to engage the Taliban has ostensibly been aimed at convincing them to negotiate with the government in Kabul. Those efforts culminated in six days of talks between the US and the Taliban in January where both sides touted "progress" -- stoking Afghan fears that America could cut a deal to withdraw its troops before a lasting peace with Kabul is reached. Ghani has repeatedly said that all Afghans should agree on the need to end hostilities and an eventual withdrawal of foreign forces, but that he would not "surrender to a temporary peace deal". 'Inclusive Islamic system' The Taliban consider Ghani and his administration to be US puppets, and have refused offers to talk a truce. Stanikzai said the insurgents, who ruled Afghanistan under a ruthless interpretation of Sharia law between 1996 and 2001, did not want a "monopoly of power" but "an inclusive Islamic system". They also promised to stamp out Afghanistan's poppy cultivation and take steps to prevent civilian casualties in a conflict that has killed and wounded hundreds of thousands. Two women attended the roundtable conference. The Taliban closed girls' schools and banned women from working under their regime, but have indicated they could loosen some guidelines in line with Sharia law. "I think all sides are ready for a compromise. It is a good start," said Muhammad Ghulam Jalal, the head of an Afghan diaspora group who hosted the meeting. But images of Karzai and other powerful leaders attending prayer lead by a Taliban figure and dining with the militants invoked anger in Afghanistan. "If you guys can eat together, laugh and pray together, hug each other why you are still killing innocent Afghans?" one Facebook user posted. The Taliban are scheduled to hold another round of peace talks with the US in Doha on February 25.

Taliban demands new constitution for Afghanistan at rare talks

Two Afghan journalists were killed on Tuesday night when gunmen entered a radio station and opened fire, authorities said.

The presenter and reporter, both males in their 20s, died at the scene, said Semin Hussaini, director of Radio Hamsada.

It was not known if they were on air at the time and both police and Hussaini said they no idea of the motive for the attack in Taloqan, capital of the northern province of Takhar.

Theirs was the second killing of journalists in Afghanistan this year. Last month the Taliban kidnapped and later killed government worker and part-time journalist Javid Noori.

Jawad Hejri, spokesman for the Takhar governor, said the gunmen fled without being identified and police were investigating.

Taliban and other Islamist insurgents have repeatedly targeted Afghan journalists, killing 15 in 2018, the deadliest year yet for the country's media, according to Reporters Without Borders.

The Paris-based media rights group said the three most dangerous countries for journalists to work in were Afghanistan, Syria and Mexico.

Two Afghan journalists were killed on Tuesday night when gunmen entered a radio station and opened fire, authorities said. The presenter and reporter, both males in their 20s, died at the scene, said Semin Hussaini, director of Radio Hamsada.

Two Afghan journalists were killed on Tuesday night when gunmen entered a radio station and opened fire, authorities said. The presenter and reporter, both males in their 20s, died at the scene, said Semin Hussaini, director of Radio Hamsada. It was not known if they were on air at the time and both police and Hussaini said they no idea of the motive for the attack in Taloqan, capital of the northern province of Takhar. Theirs was the second killing of journalists in Afghanistan this year. Last month the Taliban kidnapped and later killed government worker and part-time journalist Javid Noori. Jawad Hejri, spokesman for the Takhar governor, said the gunmen fled without being identified and police were investigating. Taliban and other Islamist insurgents have repeatedly targeted Afghan journalists, killing 15 in 2018, the deadliest year yet for the country's media, according to Reporters Without Borders. The Paris-based media rights group said the three most dangerous countries for journalists to work in were Afghanistan, Syria and Mexico.

Two Afghan journalists killed as gunmen open fire in radio station

The head of a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-demand-new-constitution-for-afghanistan-at-rare-talks-195428">Taliban delegation</a> visiting Moscow said on Tuesday that Afghanistan peace talks with the United States last month had been a success, the Interfax news agency reported.

The United States held peace negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar that ended with signs of progress towards the withdrawal of thousands of foreign troops from Afghanistan and an end to more than 17 years of war.

The head of the delegation, who is in Russia for talks between Taliban militants and opposition politicians, was quoted as saying no agreement had been reached with Washington on a timeframe for a troop pullout, but that he hoped it would happen soon.

A top US general said that talks between the United States and Taliban were in their "very, very early" stages and the Afghan government, so far excluded from talks, would have to be part of the solution.

"I would characterize where we are in the process as very, very early in the process," US General Joseph Votel, head of the US military's Central Command, told a Senate hearing.

"We clearly recognize that they (Afghan government) have to be a part of this solution and must be in the negotiation aspects of this, we can't do that on their behalf."

Votel also said that the United States would need to continue to support Afghan security forces financially even if US troops withdrew from Afghanistan.

The head of a Taliban delegation visiting Moscow said on Tuesday that Afghanistan peace talks with the United States last month had been a success, the Interfax news agency reported.

The head of a Taliban delegation visiting Moscow said on Tuesday that Afghanistan peace talks with the United States last month had been a success, the Interfax news agency reported. The United States held peace negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar that ended with signs of progress towards the withdrawal of thousands of foreign troops from Afghanistan and an end to more than 17 years of war. The head of the delegation, who is in Russia for talks between Taliban militants and opposition politicians, was quoted as saying no agreement had been reached with Washington on a timeframe for a troop pullout, but that he hoped it would happen soon. A top US general said that talks between the United States and Taliban were in their "very, very early" stages and the Afghan government, so far excluded from talks, would have to be part of the solution. "I would characterize where we are in the process as very, very early in the process," US General Joseph Votel, head of the US military's Central Command, told a Senate hearing. "We clearly recognize that they (Afghan government) have to be a part of this solution and must be in the negotiation aspects of this, we can't do that on their behalf." Votel also said that the United States would need to continue to support Afghan security forces financially even if US troops withdrew from Afghanistan.

Taliban calls recent Afghanistan peace talks with US successful: Report

By Michael Semple

When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days. Instead, the two sides talked for six days. By the end of the week, many Afghans hoped there might even be a ceasefire announcement.

Eventually, an exhausted Khalilzad flew to Kabul, to brief the Afghan government and political leaders that there was progress but no final deal. Members of the Taliban told researchers working with me that the negotiators were cautiously optimistic. They had concluded that a peace deal might actually be attainable.

But, in the following days, contradictory narratives circulated among the Taliban about what peace might look like, and the price they were prepared to pay for it. These narratives provided a timely reminder that preparing an armed movement to embrace an end to the violent conflict is an immense political challenge, for the leaders of that movement, for mediators and for the battlefield enemies.

A victory narrative

The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are predominantly millennials and many carry phones and post on Facebook. They took up the positive tone and celebrated the prospect that the war would end and peace would come. Theirs was an uncomplicated message, with no political caveats.&nbsp;

This was a remarkable development as, until now, Taliban popular discourse had typically portrayed “peace” as a foreign conspiracy to undermine the legitimate jihad.

As an indicator of the Taliban mood, on the day after Khalilzad’s departure, an audio of a tarana, or ballad, was widely circulated on WhatsApp. It articulates a narrative of victory, envisaging a Taliban army, in their signature white turbans, sweeping across the country.

Taliban veterans described to me a gulf in perceptions, with uninformed juniors thinking the war is about to end, while senior figures know that there is no deal.

According to the Taliban victory narrative, by agreeing to negotiate with the Taliban, the Americans have accepted that they have been defeated in Afghanistan and just want to extricate their troops safely. Because the Afghan government in Kabul is entirely dependent on external support, the Taliban can easily topple it. Hardliners push this victory narrative to argue they don’t even need any further negotiations, as the Americans are bound to leave anyway.

Meanwhile, in their official internal briefings to the fighters, circulated as audio messages over WhatsApp that I have heard, Taliban spokesmen maintained a calculated ambiguity, compatible with both the victory narrative and that of a negotiated peace. The spokesmen confirmed in these messages that the Taliban delegation had discussed withdrawal of foreign troops, which is the main Taliban demand. But they denied reports that there had been any agreement on a ceasefire or to include the Afghan government in talks, both of which contradict the victory narrative. And they confirmed that talks would resume after consultation with the Afghan Taliban’s leadership, based in Pakistan.

How to compromise

The dilemma underlying these contrasting Taliban narratives concerns the legitimacy and necessity of compromise at the end of a war. The potential peace deal taking shape in Afghanistan would involve a ceasefire, a negotiation about the future of governance among the Afghan parties and an incremental withdrawal of US troops.

For the Taliban, even this simple framework represents a compromise. Until now, they have pledged to fight until the last foreign troops leave, refused to negotiate with the Afghan government and ruled out any power-sharing arrangement.

After the Doha round of talks in January, the Taliban negotiators seem ready to contemplate some degree of compromise, but have had to refer to the leadership – whose decision-making is deliberately opaque. My ongoing research into Taliban political culture indicates that the leadership has assembled a long list of arguments against the very notion of a negotiated settlement.

They feel compromise is unnecessary because the US will inevitably withdraw its troops before the 2020 US election, with or without a deal. The Taliban leadership is also concerned that hint of a compromise would undermine the jihadi spirit which motivates their troops. A compromise could split the movement or make it impossible to resume the conflict if a deal fell apart. They also fear appearing to betray the blood of the martyrs sacrificed in the hope of total victory.

The Taliban has championed the idea of an emirate as a political system vesting all power and authority with their supreme leader. Power-sharing would amount to a renunciation of this idea of emirate. Less spoken about, but historically a key consideration for the Taliban leadership, is the issue of jihadi solidarity. Any deal would mean renunciation of the al-Qaeda relationship. Almost two decades ago, the then Taliban emir, Mullah Omar, refused to give up Osama bin Laden to the Americans. Breaking solidarity with al-Qaeda and fellow mujahideen would still be a bitter pill for a Taliban leader.

Different pressures

The leadership’s final argument is one around pressure. The Taliban embraced talks because they felt under political pressure from Pakistan and countries in the region to sit down. The leadership may calculate that, by showing up for talks, they have done enough to mitigate that pressure and that blaming the US for the lack of a deal may be an acceptable outcome.

Whether there is now any real progress towards peace depends, in large part, on how these arguments are resolved within the Taliban movement. That the leadership has acknowledged that its representatives are engaged in serious talks is a significant step forward. But the leadership itself has not yet embraced compromise, nor has it taken any steps to prepare the movement for a settlement short of total victory.

The default position for the Taliban leadership would be to let talks drag on for a while and then double down on the strategy of jihad until victory by launching a spring offensive. However, what has changed since Khalilzad launched his peace initiative in October 2018 is that more Taliban have come to contemplate an end to the war and even some senior figures have concluded that this can only be achieved by compromise.

Afghanistan is still probably a long way away from a peace deal. But the shift in Taliban calculus is a helpful foundation for the next stage of peacemaking. 
&nbsp; 
(Michael Semple is Visiting Research Professor, Queen's University Belfast)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/afghanistan-the-tensions-inside-the-taliban-over-recent-us-peace-talks-110734">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 
&nbsp;

By Michael Semple When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days.

By Michael Semple When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days. Instead, the two sides talked for six days. By the end of the week, many Afghans hoped there might even be a ceasefire announcement. Eventually, an exhausted Khalilzad flew to Kabul, to brief the Afghan government and political leaders that there was progress but no final deal. Members of the Taliban told researchers working with me that the negotiators were cautiously optimistic. They had concluded that a peace deal might actually be attainable. But, in the following days, contradictory narratives circulated among the Taliban about what peace might look like, and the price they were prepared to pay for it. These narratives provided a timely reminder that preparing an armed movement to embrace an end to the violent conflict is an immense political challenge, for the leaders of that movement, for mediators and for the battlefield enemies. A victory narrative The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are predominantly millennials and many carry phones and post on Facebook. They took up the positive tone and celebrated the prospect that the war would end and peace would come. Theirs was an uncomplicated message, with no political caveats. This was a remarkable development as, until now, Taliban popular discourse had typically portrayed “peace” as a foreign conspiracy to undermine the legitimate jihad. As an indicator of the Taliban mood, on the day after Khalilzad’s departure, an audio of a tarana, or ballad, was widely circulated on WhatsApp. It articulates a narrative of victory, envisaging a Taliban army, in their signature white turbans, sweeping across the country. Taliban veterans described to me a gulf in perceptions, with uninformed juniors thinking the war is about to end, while senior figures know that there is no deal. According to the Taliban victory narrative, by agreeing to negotiate with the Taliban, the Americans have accepted that they have been defeated in Afghanistan and just want to extricate their troops safely. Because the Afghan government in Kabul is entirely dependent on external support, the Taliban can easily topple it. Hardliners push this victory narrative to argue they don’t even need any further negotiations, as the Americans are bound to leave anyway. Meanwhile, in their official internal briefings to the fighters, circulated as audio messages over WhatsApp that I have heard, Taliban spokesmen maintained a calculated ambiguity, compatible with both the victory narrative and that of a negotiated peace. The spokesmen confirmed in these messages that the Taliban delegation had discussed withdrawal of foreign troops, which is the main Taliban demand. But they denied reports that there had been any agreement on a ceasefire or to include the Afghan government in talks, both of which contradict the victory narrative. And they confirmed that talks would resume after consultation with the Afghan Taliban’s leadership, based in Pakistan. How to compromise The dilemma underlying these contrasting Taliban narratives concerns the legitimacy and necessity of compromise at the end of a war. The potential peace deal taking shape in Afghanistan would involve a ceasefire, a negotiation about the future of governance among the Afghan parties and an incremental withdrawal of US troops. For the Taliban, even this simple framework represents a compromise. Until now, they have pledged to fight until the last foreign troops leave, refused to negotiate with the Afghan government and ruled out any power-sharing arrangement. After the Doha round of talks in January, the Taliban negotiators seem ready to contemplate some degree of compromise, but have had to refer to the leadership – whose decision-making is deliberately opaque. My ongoing research into Taliban political culture indicates that the leadership has assembled a long list of arguments against the very notion of a negotiated settlement. They feel compromise is unnecessary because the US will inevitably withdraw its troops before the 2020 US election, with or without a deal. The Taliban leadership is also concerned that hint of a compromise would undermine the jihadi spirit which motivates their troops. A compromise could split the movement or make it impossible to resume the conflict if a deal fell apart. They also fear appearing to betray the blood of the martyrs sacrificed in the hope of total victory. The Taliban has championed the idea of an emirate as a political system vesting all power and authority with their supreme leader. Power-sharing would amount to a renunciation of this idea of emirate. Less spoken about, but historically a key consideration for the Taliban leadership, is the issue of jihadi solidarity. Any deal would mean renunciation of the al-Qaeda relationship. Almost two decades ago, the then Taliban emir, Mullah Omar, refused to give up Osama bin Laden to the Americans. Breaking solidarity with al-Qaeda and fellow mujahideen would still be a bitter pill for a Taliban leader. Different pressures The leadership’s final argument is one around pressure. The Taliban embraced talks because they felt under political pressure from Pakistan and countries in the region to sit down. The leadership may calculate that, by showing up for talks, they have done enough to mitigate that pressure and that blaming the US for the lack of a deal may be an acceptable outcome. Whether there is now any real progress towards peace depends, in large part, on how these arguments are resolved within the Taliban movement. That the leadership has acknowledged that its representatives are engaged in serious talks is a significant step forward. But the leadership itself has not yet embraced compromise, nor has it taken any steps to prepare the movement for a settlement short of total victory. The default position for the Taliban leadership would be to let talks drag on for a while and then double down on the strategy of jihad until victory by launching a spring offensive. However, what has changed since Khalilzad launched his peace initiative in October 2018 is that more Taliban have come to contemplate an end to the war and even some senior figures have concluded that this can only be achieved by compromise. Afghanistan is still probably a long way away from a peace deal. But the shift in Taliban calculus is a helpful foundation for the next stage of peacemaking. (Michael Semple is Visiting Research Professor, Queen's University Belfast) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US peace talks: The tensions within Taliban

Women who lived under the harsh rule of the Taliban urged senior Afghan politicians to ensure their hard-won freedoms are not bargained away when they talk peace with the insurgents on Tuesday.

The Afghan <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-women-fear-cost-of-peace-will-be-their-freedom-194296">Women's Network said their rights</a> should not be used as a "political tool" in dealings with the Taliban, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/as-taliban-talks-gather-pace-afghan-women-fear-turning-back-clock-191933">who barred women from schools and jobs</a> and drastically curtailed their personal liberties when they ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.

Their appeal comes as the Taliban meets with a high-ranking Afghan delegation in Moscow, and a week after the insurgents held unprecedented talks with United States negotiators.

The Taliban said the Moscow meeting — their most significant with Afghan politicians in recent memory — would discuss the withdrawal of foreign troops, peace terms and its vision for governance.

The two-day gathering is separate from the US-Taliban negotiations in Doha in January, that ended with both sides touting "progress" and a draft framework which could pave the way for peace talks.

No representative from President Ashraf Ghani's government — which the Taliban considers a US puppet — was invited to either occasion, angering officials in Kabul.

Afghan women, also largely excluded from the table, fear seeing their hard-won rights eroded if negotiators seek a hasty truce with the Taliban.

&nbsp;"Women should not be used as a political tool by these politicians.&nbsp; 
If they (Taliban) return and impose restrictions on women, we will not accept that," Mashal Roshan, a coordinator from the Kabul-based women's network, told AFP.

"In the past 17 years, Afghan women have gained some hard-won achievements. We don't want to lose that. It's our right to go to school and to work, and everyone should respect that."&nbsp;

In a statement ahead of the Moscow meet, the network said they would not accept peace at the cost of their freedoms and urged delegates to defend the rights of half of Afghanistan's 35 million people.

"There is no need to reinterpret Afghan women's lives," the statement said. 
Under their brutal interpretation of Sharia law, the Taliban confined women to their homes, only allowing them outside with a male escort and hidden beneath a burqa.

Girls were banned from schools and colleges and women prohibited from the workplace save in a few areas such as medicine.

The militants have indicated they would provide a safe environment for women's work and education under an "Islamic system" they have proposed for Afghanistan's future.

But the involvement of the Taliban in any government frightens many women, who recall the stifling restrictions under the Islamic insurgents.

&nbsp;Ghani and de facto prime minister Abdullah Abdullah have urged the Taliban to negotiate with Kabul, saying all Afghans should agree on the need for peace and troop withdrawal.

The Taliban are expected to meet with US negotiators again later in the month.

Women who lived under the harsh rule of the Taliban urged senior Afghan politicians to ensure their hard-won freedoms are not bargained away when they talk peace with the insurgents on Tuesday.

Women who lived under the harsh rule of the Taliban urged senior Afghan politicians to ensure their hard-won freedoms are not bargained away when they talk peace with the insurgents on Tuesday. The Afghan Women's Network said their rights should not be used as a "political tool" in dealings with the Taliban, who barred women from schools and jobs and drastically curtailed their personal liberties when they ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Their appeal comes as the Taliban meets with a high-ranking Afghan delegation in Moscow, and a week after the insurgents held unprecedented talks with United States negotiators. The Taliban said the Moscow meeting — their most significant with Afghan politicians in recent memory — would discuss the withdrawal of foreign troops, peace terms and its vision for governance. The two-day gathering is separate from the US-Taliban negotiations in Doha in January, that ended with both sides touting "progress" and a draft framework which could pave the way for peace talks. No representative from President Ashraf Ghani's government — which the Taliban considers a US puppet — was invited to either occasion, angering officials in Kabul. Afghan women, also largely excluded from the table, fear seeing their hard-won rights eroded if negotiators seek a hasty truce with the Taliban. "Women should not be used as a political tool by these politicians. If they (Taliban) return and impose restrictions on women, we will not accept that," Mashal Roshan, a coordinator from the Kabul-based women's network, told AFP. "In the past 17 years, Afghan women have gained some hard-won achievements. We don't want to lose that. It's our right to go to school and to work, and everyone should respect that." In a statement ahead of the Moscow meet, the network said they would not accept peace at the cost of their freedoms and urged delegates to defend the rights of half of Afghanistan's 35 million people. "There is no need to reinterpret Afghan women's lives," the statement said. Under their brutal interpretation of Sharia law, the Taliban confined women to their homes, only allowing them outside with a male escort and hidden beneath a burqa. Girls were banned from schools and colleges and women prohibited from the workplace save in a few areas such as medicine. The militants have indicated they would provide a safe environment for women's work and education under an "Islamic system" they have proposed for Afghanistan's future. But the involvement of the Taliban in any government frightens many women, who recall the stifling restrictions under the Islamic insurgents. Ghani and de facto prime minister Abdullah Abdullah have urged the Taliban to negotiate with Kabul, saying all Afghans should agree on the need for peace and troop withdrawal. The Taliban are expected to meet with US negotiators again later in the month.

We are not a 'political tool': Afghan women on Taliban talks

President Ashraf Ghani is being pushed to the sidelines as the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-taliban-cancel-peace-talks-with-us-citing-agenda-disagreement-189134"> Taliban ignores</a> his overtures for peace and negotiates instead with his friends, and enemies, over the future of Afghanistan.

From Doha to Moscow, the insurgents are meeting an array of envoys with competing interests in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-taliban-reject-talks-with-us-in-pakistan-191358">Afghanistan</a>, from the United States eager to withdraw their troops to political leaders in Kabul jostling for power.

Experts say regional powers — including US foes Iran and Russia — are angling for an audience with the Taliban, who are already outlining their vision for Islamic rule once foreign troops leave.

The elephant in the room is Ghani, whose US-backed administration has not been invited to the table, despite a failed year-long effort to spark a dialogue with the Taliban.

"The sad irony is that Afghanistan's government is in danger of getting written out of the script of its own peace process," analyst Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Center in Washington, DC, told AFP.

Ghani's allies in Washington insist Afghans should lead the peace process, and ostensibly the months-long push by the US to engage the Taliban has been aimed at convincing them to negotiate with the government in Kabul.

Those efforts culminated in an unprecedented six days of talks between the US and the Taliban in Doha in January.

The marathon negotiations ended with both sides touting "progress" — spurring Afghan fears the US could cut a deal with the militants to withdraw its forces before a lasting peace with Kabul is reached.

"It's a major snub because, without the Americans, the government in Kabul cannot survive," said Gilles Dorronsoro, a French researcher specialising in Afghanistan.

A week later, the Taliban agreed to a rare sit-down in Russia with some of Ghani's biggest political rivals.

The talks in Moscow hosted by an Afghan diaspora group in Russia — which are separate from the US negotiations — start Tuesday and would canvass the "end of occupation, enduring peace in homeland and establishment of an intra-Afghan Islamic system of governance", the Taliban said.

Frozen out for a second time, a furious Ghani vowed he would not be an idle spectator as his country's future was debated abroad.

"Even if I have one drop of blood in my body, I am not going to surrender to a temporary peace deal," he railed in a speech Sunday, as details of the Moscow conference broke.

The frustration and sense of betrayal in Kabul is palpable.

Amrullah Saleh, a Ghani ally, accused those Afghan leaders travelling to Moscow for the Taliban talks — including former president Hamid Karzai — of "begging to terrorists".

"A smile to the enemy is a blow to the national spirit," Saleh said.

"We appreciate the efforts, but any peace talks about Afghanistan should be under the umbrella of the Afghan government," Afghanistan's de facto prime minister Abdullah Abdullah said after the Doha talks.

'A new war'

The Taliban, who brutally ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, has always refused to break bread with Ghani and Kabul, who they view as US stooges.

Instead, the insurgents are marching ahead with their diplomatic agenda.&nbsp;

The talks in Moscow would see an "opening of channels to reaching an understanding" with Afghan leaders outside government, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said.

Such a meeting between the Taliban and Afghan politicians — including Karzai, who was appointed by the US — is almost unheard of.

Ghani's rivals could see an opportunity in these various Taliban talks to undermine his leadership, analysts say, ahead of presidential elections slated for July.

The Taliban outreach is also drawing a host of rival powers into its orbit, all keen that any finale to the war suits their strategic ambitions.

Many of these present "a fundamental clash of vision and interests" for Afghanistan, said Davood Moradian, director of the Kabul-based Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies.

The US, Afghanistan, and India seek a stable democracy and a bulwark against terrorism, he said. The Taliban and Pakistan, conversely, seek an Islamic authority in Kabul.

A broader second group of "legitimate stakeholders and opportunistic spoilers" — including regional powers like Russia, China, and Iran — have their eyes keenly on waning US influence in the region, Moradian added.

Dorronsoro said the US-Taliban talks, which continue later this month, were an "acknowledgement of defeat" by Washington of its military campaign in the country that would not be missed by rivals Russia and Iran, who have also engaged with the insurgents.

The departure of US forces — if achieved under a deal with the Taliban — could draw the region into a "new war" for dominance in Afghanistan.

"India, Pakistan, Iran... everyone will choose sides. Today, nothing is clear. Everyone is in the process of positioning themselves," Dorronsoro said.

President Ashraf Ghani is being pushed to the sidelines as the Taliban ignores his overtures for peace and negotiates instead with his friends, and enemies, over the future of Afghanistan.

President Ashraf Ghani is being pushed to the sidelines as the Taliban ignores his overtures for peace and negotiates instead with his friends, and enemies, over the future of Afghanistan. From Doha to Moscow, the insurgents are meeting an array of envoys with competing interests in Afghanistan, from the United States eager to withdraw their troops to political leaders in Kabul jostling for power. Experts say regional powers — including US foes Iran and Russia — are angling for an audience with the Taliban, who are already outlining their vision for Islamic rule once foreign troops leave. The elephant in the room is Ghani, whose US-backed administration has not been invited to the table, despite a failed year-long effort to spark a dialogue with the Taliban. "The sad irony is that Afghanistan's government is in danger of getting written out of the script of its own peace process," analyst Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Center in Washington, DC, told AFP. Ghani's allies in Washington insist Afghans should lead the peace process, and ostensibly the months-long push by the US to engage the Taliban has been aimed at convincing them to negotiate with the government in Kabul. Those efforts culminated in an unprecedented six days of talks between the US and the Taliban in Doha in January. The marathon negotiations ended with both sides touting "progress" — spurring Afghan fears the US could cut a deal with the militants to withdraw its forces before a lasting peace with Kabul is reached. "It's a major snub because, without the Americans, the government in Kabul cannot survive," said Gilles Dorronsoro, a French researcher specialising in Afghanistan. A week later, the Taliban agreed to a rare sit-down in Russia with some of Ghani's biggest political rivals. The talks in Moscow hosted by an Afghan diaspora group in Russia — which are separate from the US negotiations — start Tuesday and would canvass the "end of occupation, enduring peace in homeland and establishment of an intra-Afghan Islamic system of governance", the Taliban said. Frozen out for a second time, a furious Ghani vowed he would not be an idle spectator as his country's future was debated abroad. "Even if I have one drop of blood in my body, I am not going to surrender to a temporary peace deal," he railed in a speech Sunday, as details of the Moscow conference broke. The frustration and sense of betrayal in Kabul is palpable. Amrullah Saleh, a Ghani ally, accused those Afghan leaders travelling to Moscow for the Taliban talks — including former president Hamid Karzai — of "begging to terrorists". "A smile to the enemy is a blow to the national spirit," Saleh said. "We appreciate the efforts, but any peace talks about Afghanistan should be under the umbrella of the Afghan government," Afghanistan's de facto prime minister Abdullah Abdullah said after the Doha talks. 'A new war' The Taliban, who brutally ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, has always refused to break bread with Ghani and Kabul, who they view as US stooges. Instead, the insurgents are marching ahead with their diplomatic agenda. The talks in Moscow would see an "opening of channels to reaching an understanding" with Afghan leaders outside government, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said. Such a meeting between the Taliban and Afghan politicians — including Karzai, who was appointed by the US — is almost unheard of. Ghani's rivals could see an opportunity in these various Taliban talks to undermine his leadership, analysts say, ahead of presidential elections slated for July. The Taliban outreach is also drawing a host of rival powers into its orbit, all keen that any finale to the war suits their strategic ambitions. Many of these present "a fundamental clash of vision and interests" for Afghanistan, said Davood Moradian, director of the Kabul-based Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies. The US, Afghanistan, and India seek a stable democracy and a bulwark against terrorism, he said. The Taliban and Pakistan, conversely, seek an Islamic authority in Kabul. A broader second group of "legitimate stakeholders and opportunistic spoilers" — including regional powers like Russia, China, and Iran — have their eyes keenly on waning US influence in the region, Moradian added. Dorronsoro said the US-Taliban talks, which continue later this month, were an "acknowledgement of defeat" by Washington of its military campaign in the country that would not be missed by rivals Russia and Iran, who have also engaged with the insurgents. The departure of US forces — if achieved under a deal with the Taliban — could draw the region into a "new war" for dominance in Afghanistan. "India, Pakistan, Iran... everyone will choose sides. Today, nothing is clear. Everyone is in the process of positioning themselves," Dorronsoro said.

Taliban takes centre stage as Kabul cut out of peace talks

Former President Hamid Karzai on Sunday said talks between Afghan government and the Taliban representatives will promote in creating a national and regional consensus for peace.

Karzai&nbsp;will attend the upcoming peace talks in Moscow slated to be held on held on February 5 and 6.

Tolo News quoted Karzai as saying that the Moscow talks are of major importance in terms of changing the aspirations of the Afghan people regaining peace in the region.

Karzai further added that he will be attending the meeting in order to complete his obligation towards his country and its people of reaching a deal that could end the 17-year old conflict in Afghanistan.

"In view of recent peace efforts by the US, we hope that Moscow meeting proves effective towards creating a national and regional consensus for peace," Karzai said.

"The peace process should also lead to the protection of rights and liberties of the Afghan people, women’s right to education and their economic, social &amp; political rights," the former President added.

Apart from Karzai, the meeting would be attended by former Vice President Mohammad Yunus Qanuni, former Balkh governor and Jamiat-e-Islami member Atta Mohammad Noor, Jamiat-e-Islami member Mohammad Ismail Khan, second deputy chief executive and Wahday party member Mohammad Mohaqiq, head of National Islamic Front of Afghanistan Sayed Hamid Gailani, and son of former president Sebghatullah Mujaddedi, Zabihullah Mujaddedi, along with the representatives of Taliban.

The Moscow talks came after officials from over 40 countries attended the International Contact Group meeting in London, this week, including US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and President Ashraf Ghani’s Special Representative on Regional Affairs for Consensus on Peace Umer Daudzai, to announce their support to the Afghan peace process.

Former President Hamid Karzai on Sunday said talks between Afghan government and the Taliban representatives will promote in creating a national and regional consensus for peace.

Former President Hamid Karzai on Sunday said talks between Afghan government and the Taliban representatives will promote in creating a national and regional consensus for peace. Karzai will attend the upcoming peace talks in Moscow slated to be held on held on February 5 and 6. Tolo News quoted Karzai as saying that the Moscow talks are of major importance in terms of changing the aspirations of the Afghan people regaining peace in the region. Karzai further added that he will be attending the meeting in order to complete his obligation towards his country and its people of reaching a deal that could end the 17-year old conflict in Afghanistan. "In view of recent peace efforts by the US, we hope that Moscow meeting proves effective towards creating a national and regional consensus for peace," Karzai said. "The peace process should also lead to the protection of rights and liberties of the Afghan people, women’s right to education and their economic, social & political rights," the former President added. Apart from Karzai, the meeting would be attended by former Vice President Mohammad Yunus Qanuni, former Balkh governor and Jamiat-e-Islami member Atta Mohammad Noor, Jamiat-e-Islami member Mohammad Ismail Khan, second deputy chief executive and Wahday party member Mohammad Mohaqiq, head of National Islamic Front of Afghanistan Sayed Hamid Gailani, and son of former president Sebghatullah Mujaddedi, Zabihullah Mujaddedi, along with the representatives of Taliban. The Moscow talks came after officials from over 40 countries attended the International Contact Group meeting in London, this week, including US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and President Ashraf Ghani’s Special Representative on Regional Affairs for Consensus on Peace Umer Daudzai, to announce their support to the Afghan peace process.

'Moscow talks first step towards inter-Afghan dialogue', says former Afghan President Karzai

In the last few years the term ‘last helicopter’ has been synonymous with US withdrawal of its remaining rump military and civil elements from any expeditionary deployment abroad.

It originated with the final stages of the US pullout from Saigon, reportedly from atop the US embassy building by helicopter, at the end of the Vietnam War.

That is why when reports poured in last week of a possible US-Taliban deal over a full US pullout from Afghanistan, the first thoughts reflected on the potential of the last helicopter flying away from Kabul and ending the 17-year US involvement in that country.

The question is whether such an eventuality is anywhere near fructification.

The US, Taliban, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan (the last three being the only ones, which recognised the once existent Taliban government) have over the last few months been negotiating a possible deal, which will allow a full US pullout from its involvement in Afghanistan.

“Meetings here were more productive than they have been in the past. We made significant progress on vital issues,” Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special representative for Afghan reconciliation, tweeted after six days of talks with the Taliban in Qatar in which Saudi Arabia and UAE were not present. Presence of some Pakistani representation remains unconfirmed.

The Afghan National Unity Government (NUG) led by President Ashraf Ghani is marked by its absence at the supposed conflict termination talks, primarily because of Taliban objections. It is too early to make any big deductions from the leaked and stated results, which appear at best tentative.

But the fact that some progress has been made in the six days of negotiations at Qatar is obvious because, at the end of it, Zalmay Khalilzad headed to Kabul for discussions with President Ashraf Ghani.

There are several issues that remain sticking points. It starts with the absence of the NUG itself, as the Taliban refuses to talk with its representatives, possibly out of fear of revealing weaknesses and legitimising an entity it opposes tooth and nail.

Ashraf Ghani has made genuine and sincere efforts to be a part of the negotiations. The Taliban also knows that the NUG’s absence will force the US to remain uncertain.

The Taliban is deeply suspicious of US intent. As a non-state entity, it is difficult to negotiate with, as it is not bound by conventions and rules; there can be no certainty that the Taliban will honour an accord in total.

The presence of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE is the guarantee that the US seeks for implementation of a negotiated settlement.

It appears that the two sides may have agreed to a framework deal, which may then lead to a more committed intra-Afghan dialogue. The relative seriousness of the Taliban commitment to talks is reflected by the presence of Baradar Akhund, now considered as the virtual deputy in the Taliban hierarchy.

What probably will hold back the talks from progressing to a breakthrough level is the Taliban strategy of continuing to fight while negotiating. The US, hamstrung by a 17-year-old costly war, is unable to urge the Taliban to enter a ceasefire before talks.

It does remind one of a similar situation existing in the Indo-Pak environment, where the Indian government has steadfastly refused to talk with Pakistan that backs proxy terror against it.

The Taliban possibly appreciates that the greater its domination of the security environment, the more it can squeeze from the US. In fact, there could be expectations of a renewed annual spring offensive in 2019, which usually results in a large number of casualties to the Afghan security forces that have been on an average losing 7,000-8,000 men annually in the last few years.

Conceptually, US strategy has harped on operations being fought and led by Afghans themselves, but it has consistently refused to adequately arm them with weapons considered appropriate to stem the Taliban’s frequent offensives.

A full US withdrawal without adequate safeguards of a better armed and equipped Afghan security forces, is the surest opening to civil war with only one anticipated end.

The other issue on which the talks would be focused on is the duration for a complete withdrawal. A progressive drawdown will give President Donald Trump the political leverage he seeks and yet continue the support to the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the NUG.

The US can make a quick exit without an agreement and leave behind a mess, which will only aid in advancing the interests of organisations such as ISIS that remains perched somewhere observing the situation and ready to exploit the slightest opportunity. It could then be a repeat of the conflict termination witnessed in Iraq with resultant chaos and emergence of the ISIS.

Daniel Coats, US Director of National Intelligence, has expressed his apprehensions about the situation in South Asia due to the upcoming Indian and Afghanistan elections and in particular, has reflected on the relative insecurity of nuclear resources within Pakistan.

The duration till May 2019 and a little beyond is being considered by the international community as a period of uncertainty.

With the state of Pakistan’s economy and its reluctance to rein in all extremist elements, the underlying message in Coats’reflections also points to the possibility of turbulence within Pakistan.

This, in the light of intended US withdrawal, is likely to be viewed as advantage Taliban.

India finds itself out of the mainstream parleys and Pakistan has thrived in driving uncertainty by first calling for Indian involvement (recall Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmud Qureshi’s earlier statement about the need for India to be a part of the negotiations) and then working against the same.

In the light of this, should India open some form of engagement with the Taliban to develop options for a post-US Afghanistan? Prudence does point towards following such a course, but given the current strong position the Taliban finds itself in, it is uncertain whether it will wish to upset the cards, all of which seems to be falling in its favour.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-last-copter-from-afghanistan-2715735">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

In the last few years the term ‘last helicopter’ has been synonymous with US withdrawal of its remaining rump military and civil elements from any expeditionary deployment abroad.

In the last few years the term ‘last helicopter’ has been synonymous with US withdrawal of its remaining rump military and civil elements from any expeditionary deployment abroad. It originated with the final stages of the US pullout from Saigon, reportedly from atop the US embassy building by helicopter, at the end of the Vietnam War. That is why when reports poured in last week of a possible US-Taliban deal over a full US pullout from Afghanistan, the first thoughts reflected on the potential of the last helicopter flying away from Kabul and ending the 17-year US involvement in that country. The question is whether such an eventuality is anywhere near fructification. The US, Taliban, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan (the last three being the only ones, which recognised the once existent Taliban government) have over the last few months been negotiating a possible deal, which will allow a full US pullout from its involvement in Afghanistan. “Meetings here were more productive than they have been in the past. We made significant progress on vital issues,” Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special representative for Afghan reconciliation, tweeted after six days of talks with the Taliban in Qatar in which Saudi Arabia and UAE were not present. Presence of some Pakistani representation remains unconfirmed. The Afghan National Unity Government (NUG) led by President Ashraf Ghani is marked by its absence at the supposed conflict termination talks, primarily because of Taliban objections. It is too early to make any big deductions from the leaked and stated results, which appear at best tentative. But the fact that some progress has been made in the six days of negotiations at Qatar is obvious because, at the end of it, Zalmay Khalilzad headed to Kabul for discussions with President Ashraf Ghani. There are several issues that remain sticking points. It starts with the absence of the NUG itself, as the Taliban refuses to talk with its representatives, possibly out of fear of revealing weaknesses and legitimising an entity it opposes tooth and nail. Ashraf Ghani has made genuine and sincere efforts to be a part of the negotiations. The Taliban also knows that the NUG’s absence will force the US to remain uncertain. The Taliban is deeply suspicious of US intent. As a non-state entity, it is difficult to negotiate with, as it is not bound by conventions and rules; there can be no certainty that the Taliban will honour an accord in total. The presence of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE is the guarantee that the US seeks for implementation of a negotiated settlement. It appears that the two sides may have agreed to a framework deal, which may then lead to a more committed intra-Afghan dialogue. The relative seriousness of the Taliban commitment to talks is reflected by the presence of Baradar Akhund, now considered as the virtual deputy in the Taliban hierarchy. What probably will hold back the talks from progressing to a breakthrough level is the Taliban strategy of continuing to fight while negotiating. The US, hamstrung by a 17-year-old costly war, is unable to urge the Taliban to enter a ceasefire before talks. It does remind one of a similar situation existing in the Indo-Pak environment, where the Indian government has steadfastly refused to talk with Pakistan that backs proxy terror against it. The Taliban possibly appreciates that the greater its domination of the security environment, the more it can squeeze from the US. In fact, there could be expectations of a renewed annual spring offensive in 2019, which usually results in a large number of casualties to the Afghan security forces that have been on an average losing 7,000-8,000 men annually in the last few years. Conceptually, US strategy has harped on operations being fought and led by Afghans themselves, but it has consistently refused to adequately arm them with weapons considered appropriate to stem the Taliban’s frequent offensives. A full US withdrawal without adequate safeguards of a better armed and equipped Afghan security forces, is the surest opening to civil war with only one anticipated end. The other issue on which the talks would be focused on is the duration for a complete withdrawal. A progressive drawdown will give President Donald Trump the political leverage he seeks and yet continue the support to the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the NUG. The US can make a quick exit without an agreement and leave behind a mess, which will only aid in advancing the interests of organisations such as ISIS that remains perched somewhere observing the situation and ready to exploit the slightest opportunity. It could then be a repeat of the conflict termination witnessed in Iraq with resultant chaos and emergence of the ISIS. Daniel Coats, US Director of National Intelligence, has expressed his apprehensions about the situation in South Asia due to the upcoming Indian and Afghanistan elections and in particular, has reflected on the relative insecurity of nuclear resources within Pakistan. The duration till May 2019 and a little beyond is being considered by the international community as a period of uncertainty. With the state of Pakistan’s economy and its reluctance to rein in all extremist elements, the underlying message in Coats’reflections also points to the possibility of turbulence within Pakistan. This, in the light of intended US withdrawal, is likely to be viewed as advantage Taliban. India finds itself out of the mainstream parleys and Pakistan has thrived in driving uncertainty by first calling for Indian involvement (recall Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmud Qureshi’s earlier statement about the need for India to be a part of the negotiations) and then working against the same. In the light of this, should India open some form of engagement with the Taliban to develop options for a post-US Afghanistan? Prudence does point towards following such a course, but given the current strong position the Taliban finds itself in, it is uncertain whether it will wish to upset the cards, all of which seems to be falling in its favour. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Last copter from Afghanistan: Taliban chooses to continue fighting while negotiating with the US

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani lashed out at the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-to-meet-afghan-opposition-in-moscow-official-194864">Taliban on Sunday</a> saying, "those who are forcefully bringing others to negotiate should not say that the army is not required to reinstate peace in the country".

“Those who are forcefully bringing others to negotiate must not talk about dissolving our “lions” (army); if they are so brave, then they must come and fight on the battlefield instead of carrying out suicide (attacks) and explosions,” Ghani said.

Tolo News quoted Ghani as saying in the Afghan capital, during an event to honour commandos, after they were freed last week from a Taliban prison. &nbsp;

The remarks by the Afghan President came after senior Taliban leader Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, in a video stated that after the United States pulls out half of its armed forces from Afghanistan, there would be no need for an army to stabilise peace in the region.

The video was released by the Taliban representative post the recent Doha talks over Afghan peace reconciliation took place between officials from the United States and the Taliban.

In response to the video, President Ghani said: ''A peace that our security and defence forces do not guarantee is not acceptable to us.''

''Our security and defence forces are not one-day forces, one year and one decade and a generation, but forces that fight for hundreds of generations,” Ghani added.

On Saturday, during an interview with CNN President Ghani’s special envoy Umer Daudzai said that the rapid withdrawal of US troops from the country would only create a "vacuum and increase bloodshed". &nbsp;&nbsp;

Daudzai informed CNN that while the peace talks in Qatar have brought "clarity", neither side has fully agreed to anything.

In the latest bid, Russia will be hosting peace talks in its capital city on Tuesday, February 5, amid reports that the Taliban have refused to meet with Afghan government representatives at the meet.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani lashed out at the Taliban on Sunday saying, "those who are forcefully bringing others to negotiate should not say that the army is not required to reinstate peace in the country".

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani lashed out at the Taliban on Sunday saying, "those who are forcefully bringing others to negotiate should not say that the army is not required to reinstate peace in the country". “Those who are forcefully bringing others to negotiate must not talk about dissolving our “lions” (army); if they are so brave, then they must come and fight on the battlefield instead of carrying out suicide (attacks) and explosions,” Ghani said. Tolo News quoted Ghani as saying in the Afghan capital, during an event to honour commandos, after they were freed last week from a Taliban prison. The remarks by the Afghan President came after senior Taliban leader Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, in a video stated that after the United States pulls out half of its armed forces from Afghanistan, there would be no need for an army to stabilise peace in the region. The video was released by the Taliban representative post the recent Doha talks over Afghan peace reconciliation took place between officials from the United States and the Taliban. In response to the video, President Ghani said: ''A peace that our security and defence forces do not guarantee is not acceptable to us.'' ''Our security and defence forces are not one-day forces, one year and one decade and a generation, but forces that fight for hundreds of generations,” Ghani added. On Saturday, during an interview with CNN President Ghani’s special envoy Umer Daudzai said that the rapid withdrawal of US troops from the country would only create a "vacuum and increase bloodshed". Daudzai informed CNN that while the peace talks in Qatar have brought "clarity", neither side has fully agreed to anything. In the latest bid, Russia will be hosting peace talks in its capital city on Tuesday, February 5, amid reports that the Taliban have refused to meet with Afghan government representatives at the meet.

Afghan President Ghani slams Taliban's remarks on dissolving army

The Taliban said Sunday it will send a delegation to Russia for a rare meeting with <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/more-security-operations-in-kandahar-planned-to-clear-it-of-taliban-afghan-acting-defence-minister-194563">Afghan opposition leaders</a>, just days after peace talks with the United States that excluded the Kabul government.

The two-day sit-down in Moscow, starting Tuesday, will be attended by some of President Ashraf Ghani's chief political rivals, but none of the government envoys tasked with Taliban negotiations.

Ghani has appealed to the insurgents to talk after being frozen out of six days of discussions between the Taliban and the United States in Doha last month that sealed the outlines of a peace deal.

Instead the Taliban, which refuses to recognise Ghani's government, will sit down in Moscow with some of the president's main opponents to discuss the country's future -- stirring frustrations in Kabul.

"It shows the peak of depression, and begging to terrorists," said Amrullah Saleh, who is running as vice-president on Ghani's ticket in elections slated for July.

"A smile to the enemy is a blow to the national spirit," he posted on his Facebook page on Sunday.

Among those who have confirmed their attendance in Moscow is Haneef Atmar, who is running against Ghani in the elections. Former warlord Atta Muhammad Noor and former Afghan president Hamid Karzai -- both Ghani rivals -- are also attending.

Noor on Sunday said the meeting was "a pathway towards strengthening the peace efforts led by the US" while Atmar described it as "an important step towards intra-Afghan peace talks".

A government-appointed council tasked with Taliban engagement said Sunday it was not invited to Moscow. &nbsp;

A senior Taliban official told AFP they would send a delegation, but described the meeting as non-political and "arranged by some organizations based in Moscow".

The Russian Embassy in Kabul issued a statement late Saturday on behalf of the "Afghan Society of Russia". The group said it had invited "influential figures" to the dialogue in the President Hotel in Moscow.

"We are ready to play our role in bringing peace to Afghanistan," the statement read.&nbsp;

It is not clear what role, if any, Russia has in the summit. A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Kabul could not be reached for comment.

The Taliban are scheduled to hold another round of peace talks with the US in Doha on February 25.

The insurgents said discussions were "on the right path" -- fuelling speculation of a breakthrough in the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan.

US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad spoke of a "draft framework" for a deal but warned major hurdles -- including any US withdrawal -- remain.

Ghani has refused to accept a "temporary" deal.

"Even if I have one drop of blood in my body, I am not going to surrender to a temporary peace deal," he told Afghan commandos in Kabul on Sunday.

"Our goal is to have a peace that comes with dignity."

The Taliban said Sunday it will send a delegation to Russia for a rare meeting with Afghan opposition leaders, just days after peace talks with the United States that excluded the Kabul government.

The Taliban said Sunday it will send a delegation to Russia for a rare meeting with Afghan opposition leaders, just days after peace talks with the United States that excluded the Kabul government. The two-day sit-down in Moscow, starting Tuesday, will be attended by some of President Ashraf Ghani's chief political rivals, but none of the government envoys tasked with Taliban negotiations. Ghani has appealed to the insurgents to talk after being frozen out of six days of discussions between the Taliban and the United States in Doha last month that sealed the outlines of a peace deal. Instead the Taliban, which refuses to recognise Ghani's government, will sit down in Moscow with some of the president's main opponents to discuss the country's future -- stirring frustrations in Kabul. "It shows the peak of depression, and begging to terrorists," said Amrullah Saleh, who is running as vice-president on Ghani's ticket in elections slated for July. "A smile to the enemy is a blow to the national spirit," he posted on his Facebook page on Sunday. Among those who have confirmed their attendance in Moscow is Haneef Atmar, who is running against Ghani in the elections. Former warlord Atta Muhammad Noor and former Afghan president Hamid Karzai -- both Ghani rivals -- are also attending. Noor on Sunday said the meeting was "a pathway towards strengthening the peace efforts led by the US" while Atmar described it as "an important step towards intra-Afghan peace talks". A government-appointed council tasked with Taliban engagement said Sunday it was not invited to Moscow. A senior Taliban official told AFP they would send a delegation, but described the meeting as non-political and "arranged by some organizations based in Moscow". The Russian Embassy in Kabul issued a statement late Saturday on behalf of the "Afghan Society of Russia". The group said it had invited "influential figures" to the dialogue in the President Hotel in Moscow. "We are ready to play our role in bringing peace to Afghanistan," the statement read. It is not clear what role, if any, Russia has in the summit. A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Kabul could not be reached for comment. The Taliban are scheduled to hold another round of peace talks with the US in Doha on February 25. The insurgents said discussions were "on the right path" -- fuelling speculation of a breakthrough in the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan. US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad spoke of a "draft framework" for a deal but warned major hurdles -- including any US withdrawal -- remain. Ghani has refused to accept a "temporary" deal. "Even if I have one drop of blood in my body, I am not going to surrender to a temporary peace deal," he told Afghan commandos in Kabul on Sunday. "Our goal is to have a peace that comes with dignity."

Taliban to meet Afghan opposition in Moscow: Official

Afghan and NATO forces are planning to launch more operations in Kandahar to clear it of the Taliban, said Afghanistan's acting Defence Minister Assadullah Khalid after touring the province along with NATO forces commander General Scott Miller.

Khalid, after a meeting with Scott Miller, said, "The purpose of our today’s (Friday) visit is to assess the security situation and the military operations which have been launched in Maiwand and Ghorak districts as well as the operations which will be launched in other areas in the near future."Khalid and Miller met Afghan National Army and Police force members as well as the provincial Police Chief Gen.

Tadeen Khan, Kandahar tribal elders and commanders leading the military operations against militants and discussed issues relating to security and the operations, reported TOLO NewsThis was Miller's second visit to Kandahar after being appointed on September 2.

The NATO chief first visited the province last October when former Kandahar police chief General Abdul Raziq was assassinated in an attack by an armed man.

Recently, the United States and Taliban agreed in principle to chalk out a framework for a deal that could eventually end the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan.

There are currently around 14,000 US troops and 16,000 personnel from NATO and its allies in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Afghan and NATO forces are planning to launch more operations in Kandahar to clear it of the Taliban, said Afghanistan's acting Defence Minister Assadullah Khalid after touring the province along with NATO forces commander General Scott Miller.

Afghan and NATO forces are planning to launch more operations in Kandahar to clear it of the Taliban, said Afghanistan's acting Defence Minister Assadullah Khalid after touring the province along with NATO forces commander General Scott Miller. Khalid, after a meeting with Scott Miller, said, "The purpose of our today’s (Friday) visit is to assess the security situation and the military operations which have been launched in Maiwand and Ghorak districts as well as the operations which will be launched in other areas in the near future."Khalid and Miller met Afghan National Army and Police force members as well as the provincial Police Chief Gen. Tadeen Khan, Kandahar tribal elders and commanders leading the military operations against militants and discussed issues relating to security and the operations, reported TOLO NewsThis was Miller's second visit to Kandahar after being appointed on September 2. The NATO chief first visited the province last October when former Kandahar police chief General Abdul Raziq was assassinated in an attack by an armed man. Recently, the United States and Taliban agreed in principle to chalk out a framework for a deal that could eventually end the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan. There are currently around 14,000 US troops and 16,000 personnel from NATO and its allies in Afghanistan.

More security operations in Kandahar planned to clear it of Taliban: Afghan acting Defence Minister

US President Donald Trump is serious about getting out of Afghanistan, the Taliban told AFP Friday, outlining the "Islamic system" comprising "all Afghans" that the group says it hopes to establish under any peace deal.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid spoke to AFP via WhatsApp a day after the US said talks with the militants are "on the right path", fuelling speculation of a breakthrough in the 17-year conflict.

The US president's apparent eagerness to pull troops out has weighed on the negotiations, which culminated with six straight days of meetings in Qatar last week.

"An agreement was reached on a principle framework... Which, if implemented, and if the Americans take honest steps and stick to it truthfully, then God willing we are hopeful that the Americans will end the occupation of Afghanistan," Mujahid said.

"It appears that Trump is serious," the Taliban spokesman continued. US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad also spoke this week of a "draft framework" for a deal, though he warned that major hurdles -- including any US withdrawal -- remain.

Experts have hailed the development as a milestone in the conflict. But it has prompted concerns from Afghans and observers who feared foreign troops could withdraw before a lasting peace is reached between the insurgents and the government in Kabul.

The Taliban took over Afghanistan in 1996, imposing their brutal interpretation of Shariah law on the country until they were toppled in the US invasion of 2001.

They have since fought an insurgency demanding foreign troops leave and an Islamic state be re-established.

Mujahid said a foreign withdrawal was the first goal.

"Secondly, we want the establishment of an Islamic system," he continued, dampening tentative hopes among Afghans that the insurgents would agree to participate in the existing democratic system built since 2001.

He said they would establish such a system through "negotiations with different political sides, even if they have so far been under the umbrella of the invaders".

If the government in Kabul will not stand in the way, he added, "then of course there will be no need for war".

Mujahid said the insurgents are not seeking to monopolise power. "Inshallah (God willing) all Afghans, including different political sides" can take part, he told AFP.

Such a system would be based on the principle of shura, or council, with Islamic experts making decisions and "representatives of people and scholars" contributing.

Mujahid said the group was "100 percent hopeful" of establishing such a system.

He admitted that the Taliban regime of the 1990s experienced "a lot of economic, social and security problems" -- a key one being how to separate men from women.

Under the Taliban women were largely confined to their homes, venturing outside only with a male escort and hidden beneath a burqa. Girls education was banned and women were prohibited from the workplace save in some few areas such as medicine.

Now, the militants "don't oppose the education of women", Mujahid said. "We will try to provide a safe environment for the education and work of women," he told AFP, adding "whatever is permissible for women in Islamic Sharia will be allowed".

Many women have spoken to AFP of their fears that a peace deal could come at the cost of the few, hard-won rights they have managed to establish in the deeply patriarchal, conservative country since 2001.

Mujahid said the next round of talks with the US will again take place in Doha starting February 25.

The US has said talks will continue, but not confirmed any date. Khalilzad tweeted late Thursday that both sides had made "significant progress on two vital issues: counter terrorism and troop withdrawal".

But that "doesn't mean we're done", he continued, adding work continues on both issues as well as a ceasefire and convincing the Taliban to speak to the Afghan government -- all issues on which attempts at peace negotiations have foundered in the past.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump is serious about getting out of Afghanistan, the Taliban told AFP Friday, outlining the "Islamic system" comprising "all Afghans" that the group says it hopes to establish under any peace deal.

US President Donald Trump is serious about getting out of Afghanistan, the Taliban told AFP Friday, outlining the "Islamic system" comprising "all Afghans" that the group says it hopes to establish under any peace deal. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid spoke to AFP via WhatsApp a day after the US said talks with the militants are "on the right path", fuelling speculation of a breakthrough in the 17-year conflict. The US president's apparent eagerness to pull troops out has weighed on the negotiations, which culminated with six straight days of meetings in Qatar last week. "An agreement was reached on a principle framework... Which, if implemented, and if the Americans take honest steps and stick to it truthfully, then God willing we are hopeful that the Americans will end the occupation of Afghanistan," Mujahid said. "It appears that Trump is serious," the Taliban spokesman continued. US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad also spoke this week of a "draft framework" for a deal, though he warned that major hurdles -- including any US withdrawal -- remain. Experts have hailed the development as a milestone in the conflict. But it has prompted concerns from Afghans and observers who feared foreign troops could withdraw before a lasting peace is reached between the insurgents and the government in Kabul. The Taliban took over Afghanistan in 1996, imposing their brutal interpretation of Shariah law on the country until they were toppled in the US invasion of 2001. They have since fought an insurgency demanding foreign troops leave and an Islamic state be re-established. Mujahid said a foreign withdrawal was the first goal. "Secondly, we want the establishment of an Islamic system," he continued, dampening tentative hopes among Afghans that the insurgents would agree to participate in the existing democratic system built since 2001. He said they would establish such a system through "negotiations with different political sides, even if they have so far been under the umbrella of the invaders". If the government in Kabul will not stand in the way, he added, "then of course there will be no need for war". Mujahid said the insurgents are not seeking to monopolise power. "Inshallah (God willing) all Afghans, including different political sides" can take part, he told AFP. Such a system would be based on the principle of shura, or council, with Islamic experts making decisions and "representatives of people and scholars" contributing. Mujahid said the group was "100 percent hopeful" of establishing such a system. He admitted that the Taliban regime of the 1990s experienced "a lot of economic, social and security problems" -- a key one being how to separate men from women. Under the Taliban women were largely confined to their homes, venturing outside only with a male escort and hidden beneath a burqa. Girls education was banned and women were prohibited from the workplace save in some few areas such as medicine. Now, the militants "don't oppose the education of women", Mujahid said. "We will try to provide a safe environment for the education and work of women," he told AFP, adding "whatever is permissible for women in Islamic Sharia will be allowed". Many women have spoken to AFP of their fears that a peace deal could come at the cost of the few, hard-won rights they have managed to establish in the deeply patriarchal, conservative country since 2001. Mujahid said the next round of talks with the US will again take place in Doha starting February 25. The US has said talks will continue, but not confirmed any date. Khalilzad tweeted late Thursday that both sides had made "significant progress on two vital issues: counter terrorism and troop withdrawal". But that "doesn't mean we're done", he continued, adding work continues on both issues as well as a ceasefire and convincing the Taliban to speak to the Afghan government -- all issues on which attempts at peace negotiations have foundered in the past.

Trump 'serious' about Afghan withdrawal: Taliban

taliban

Taliban, News on Taliban, stories on Taliban, articles on Taliban, Taliban stories at Wion, Taliban news, Taliban latest news