US-Taliban peace talks: Agreement drafted on counter terrorism and troops withdrawal

On February 20, WION Global Summit - Unleashing the Power of South Asia, was held in Dubai, UAE. WION is a Global English News Channel, which was launched by Indian News Media Company Zee Media Corporation Limited (ZMCL), bringing world news with a South Asian view dedicated to an audience with values and beliefs that are as global, social, visual, and tech-savvy by nature.&nbsp;

I was honoured to be part of a panel discussion - “Future of South Asia: Strategic Balances &amp; Alliances”, alongside distinguished members Shaurya Doval, Director of India Foundation, Namal Rajapaksa, Member of Parliament from Sri Lanka, Michael Kugelman, Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia at the US-based Woodrow Wilson Center, and Hasanul Haq Inu, Bangladesh's former Minister of Information. The panel was moderated by international journalist, TV show host, and author, Riz Khan. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The diversity of voices on the panel was reflective of the rich diversity South Asia is known for. Sadly, due to a history of political tensions in the region, we have never seen the realisation of the true potential of this diversity in bringing stability and prosperity to South Asia. The protracted conflict of nearly 40 years in Afghanistan is one of the major deterrents to the region’s development. I believe that 2019 has thus far been and will continue to be a pivotal year for Afghanistan but also the region, as a whole, from a standpoint of security, economic, and political issues.

The level of true regional cooperation, as well as the support of the international community on the most pressing issues facing South Asia, will determine the fate of the region. Representing the Afghan perspective on the panel at the WION Global Summit, I will, here, highlight the three main issues I spoke about. &nbsp; &nbsp;

First, free and fair elections have been considered a cornerstone of development and progress in Afghanistan. When held properly, the psychosocial impacts of elections are incredibly positive for citizens who see them as a sign that their nation is moving forward, that the transition of power is accountable, and that they can exercise their constitutional right of choosing their leaders.

The most recent elections were held for the Wolesi Jirga (Lower House of Parliament) on October 20, 2018, the final results of which are yet to be announced due to a host of issues ranging from security to allegations of widespread electoral fraud. Commissioners of the Independent Election Commission and the Independent Electoral Complaints Commission were removed by President Ashraf Ghani following the accusation that they were engaged in electoral fraud. He just appointed 12 new commissioners in a consultative process that involved several political leaders, including candidates for the upcoming Presidential elections. &nbsp;

Security challenges continue to hinder the democratic process in Afghanistan. Several candidates were assassinated and some were even injured in the voting process, yet it did not stop Afghans from casting their vote.&nbsp;

Lack of transparency, mismanagement of the process,&nbsp;fraud and bribery are a norm and have been woven into our social fabric. Criminal activities such as fraud and bribery are often also interlinked with the insurgency in Afghanistan. If these activities continue to be a norm, they will have a spillover effect into the region. During the panel discussion, I argued that South Asian nations must do their part in holding Afghanistan accountable for transparency because bad practice spreads very fast and the negative implications can easily transfer to the region. &nbsp;

Second, I focused on an issue that has taken the international community and the media by a storm, the peace process in Afghanistan. However, when the two negotiating sides are the United States and the Taliban, Afghans are left to wonder how they will benefit from the peace process but more importantly what it means for Afghans.

It is not viable to have peace negotiations without the consensus of the Afghan people and the inclusion of the Afghan government. If Taliban wants to negotiate a peace deal, they must speak with those who are vigilant and concerned about their reintegration into society - the shop keepers, businessmen, athletes, journalists, artists, musicians, government officials and the Afghan women.&nbsp;

My recommendation to the international community is to keep in mind that this must be an ‘Afghan-owned’ peace process which must embrace all Afghans and – only Afghans. This will not just benefit Afghanistan, but will also have a positive impact on the region and global community. &nbsp;

Lastly, I spoke about the economic stability of Afghanistan. Due to the political, security, and economic transitions in 2014, Afghanistan’s economy took a major hit and unemployment increased to an alarming rate of around 40 per cent. Since then, intensive government reforms, as well as private sector growth, have led to an improved business climate. However, there are major hindrances to economic growth in the country, such as political uncertainty, corruption and security challenges.&nbsp;

Afghanistan has been actively engaged in regional economic cooperation so as to improve its economy but also assist in bringing stability to the region. However, the marked positive economic impact of these projects, such as Chahbahar Port, Lapis Lazuli Corridor and the Air Corridor programme, will not come immediately. In order for Afghanistan to become a donor-free economy, it will need the support of South Asian countries, particularly in terms of investment in the private sector as well as more active engagement in trade. Bringing economic stability to Afghanistan in indubitably one of the most effective methods for countering the insurgency, particularly in impoverished communities that turn to negative coping mechanisms such as joining insurgent movements to support their families.&nbsp;

They say a rising tide lifts all boats and this could ring more true for South Asia. The countries in the region must understand that their fate is intertwined with Afghanistan’s. A strategic alliance and cooperation between Afghanistan and South Asian countries in areas of mutual interest, be it economic, security, education, or sociocultural, will help the region realise&nbsp;its truest potentials. &nbsp;&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

On February 20, WION Global Summit - Unleashing the Power of South Asia, was held in Dubai, UAE. WION is a Global English News Channel, which was launched by Indian News Media Company Zee Media Corporation Limited (ZMCL), bringing world news with a South Asian view dedicated to an audience with values and beliefs that are as global, social, visual, and tech-savvy by nature.

On February 20, WION Global Summit - Unleashing the Power of South Asia, was held in Dubai, UAE. WION is a Global English News Channel, which was launched by Indian News Media Company Zee Media Corporation Limited (ZMCL), bringing world news with a South Asian view dedicated to an audience with values and beliefs that are as global, social, visual, and tech-savvy by nature. I was honoured to be part of a panel discussion - “Future of South Asia: Strategic Balances & Alliances”, alongside distinguished members Shaurya Doval, Director of India Foundation, Namal Rajapaksa, Member of Parliament from Sri Lanka, Michael Kugelman, Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia at the US-based Woodrow Wilson Center, and Hasanul Haq Inu, Bangladesh's former Minister of Information. The panel was moderated by international journalist, TV show host, and author, Riz Khan. The diversity of voices on the panel was reflective of the rich diversity South Asia is known for. Sadly, due to a history of political tensions in the region, we have never seen the realisation of the true potential of this diversity in bringing stability and prosperity to South Asia. The protracted conflict of nearly 40 years in Afghanistan is one of the major deterrents to the region’s development. I believe that 2019 has thus far been and will continue to be a pivotal year for Afghanistan but also the region, as a whole, from a standpoint of security, economic, and political issues. The level of true regional cooperation, as well as the support of the international community on the most pressing issues facing South Asia, will determine the fate of the region. Representing the Afghan perspective on the panel at the WION Global Summit, I will, here, highlight the three main issues I spoke about. First, free and fair elections have been considered a cornerstone of development and progress in Afghanistan. When held properly, the psychosocial impacts of elections are incredibly positive for citizens who see them as a sign that their nation is moving forward, that the transition of power is accountable, and that they can exercise their constitutional right of choosing their leaders. The most recent elections were held for the Wolesi Jirga (Lower House of Parliament) on October 20, 2018, the final results of which are yet to be announced due to a host of issues ranging from security to allegations of widespread electoral fraud. Commissioners of the Independent Election Commission and the Independent Electoral Complaints Commission were removed by President Ashraf Ghani following the accusation that they were engaged in electoral fraud. He just appointed 12 new commissioners in a consultative process that involved several political leaders, including candidates for the upcoming Presidential elections. Security challenges continue to hinder the democratic process in Afghanistan. Several candidates were assassinated and some were even injured in the voting process, yet it did not stop Afghans from casting their vote. Lack of transparency, mismanagement of the process, fraud and bribery are a norm and have been woven into our social fabric. Criminal activities such as fraud and bribery are often also interlinked with the insurgency in Afghanistan. If these activities continue to be a norm, they will have a spillover effect into the region. During the panel discussion, I argued that South Asian nations must do their part in holding Afghanistan accountable for transparency because bad practice spreads very fast and the negative implications can easily transfer to the region. Second, I focused on an issue that has taken the international community and the media by a storm, the peace process in Afghanistan. However, when the two negotiating sides are the United States and the Taliban, Afghans are left to wonder how they will benefit from the peace process but more importantly what it means for Afghans. It is not viable to have peace negotiations without the consensus of the Afghan people and the inclusion of the Afghan government. If Taliban wants to negotiate a peace deal, they must speak with those who are vigilant and concerned about their reintegration into society - the shop keepers, businessmen, athletes, journalists, artists, musicians, government officials and the Afghan women. My recommendation to the international community is to keep in mind that this must be an ‘Afghan-owned’ peace process which must embrace all Afghans and – only Afghans. This will not just benefit Afghanistan, but will also have a positive impact on the region and global community. Lastly, I spoke about the economic stability of Afghanistan. Due to the political, security, and economic transitions in 2014, Afghanistan’s economy took a major hit and unemployment increased to an alarming rate of around 40 per cent. Since then, intensive government reforms, as well as private sector growth, have led to an improved business climate. However, there are major hindrances to economic growth in the country, such as political uncertainty, corruption and security challenges. Afghanistan has been actively engaged in regional economic cooperation so as to improve its economy but also assist in bringing stability to the region. However, the marked positive economic impact of these projects, such as Chahbahar Port, Lapis Lazuli Corridor and the Air Corridor programme, will not come immediately. In order for Afghanistan to become a donor-free economy, it will need the support of South Asian countries, particularly in terms of investment in the private sector as well as more active engagement in trade. Bringing economic stability to Afghanistan in indubitably one of the most effective methods for countering the insurgency, particularly in impoverished communities that turn to negative coping mechanisms such as joining insurgent movements to support their families. They say a rising tide lifts all boats and this could ring more true for South Asia. The countries in the region must understand that their fate is intertwined with Afghanistan’s. A strategic alliance and cooperation between Afghanistan and South Asian countries in areas of mutual interest, be it economic, security, education, or sociocultural, will help the region realise its truest potentials. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Fates intertwined: Afghanistan can help South Asia rise

Describing the ongoing talks with the Taliban in Doha as an "incredibly complicated" negotiation, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hoped that there is sufficient progress in the deliberations for him to travel in the next couple of weeks to move it further.

The United States was trying to "find pockets" where there was "sufficient agreement" that everyone could begin to move forward, Pompeo told a farmers' gathering in Iowa on Monday, at a time when Special US Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and his team was holding talks with the Taliban in Qatar's capital.

"I have a team on the ground right now trying to negotiate with the Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, trying to find a way to achieve an Afghanistan that's not at war, that's not engaged in violence, that doesn't present a threat to the United States of America, that will respect the fundamental basic rights for every Afghan citizen -- women, children -- across the full spectrum," he said.

Pompeo was responding to a question from farmers after his address at the "Future Farmers of America" event in Iowa.

"That is a complicated problem, and if you add in the regional players -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, all who have an interest in Afghanistan -- it's an incredibly complicated negotiation," he asserted.

At the same time, he said Khalilzad, who was leading American efforts in this regard, was on the ground, trying to "find pockets where there's sufficient agreement that everyone can begin to move forward, take all the various complex pieces and bring them together" to hopefully get an agreement.

Pompeo said the Afghan agreement would be "based on fundamental understandings about different interests and incentives" that the parties had so that this agreement would hold and stay.

"In this case, if we could do this, if we could pull off a resolution in Afghanistan, boy, the good that we could do for the world. I hope Ambassador Khalilzad makes progress," he said.

"I am hoping he (Khalilzad) makes enough progress and I can travel there in a couple weeks and help move it along a little bit myself," Pompeo said.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Describing the ongoing talks with the Taliban in Doha as an "incredibly complicated" negotiation, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hoped that there is sufficient progress in the deliberations for him to travel in the next couple of weeks to move it further.

Describing the ongoing talks with the Taliban in Doha as an "incredibly complicated" negotiation, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hoped that there is sufficient progress in the deliberations for him to travel in the next couple of weeks to move it further. The United States was trying to "find pockets" where there was "sufficient agreement" that everyone could begin to move forward, Pompeo told a farmers' gathering in Iowa on Monday, at a time when Special US Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and his team was holding talks with the Taliban in Qatar's capital. "I have a team on the ground right now trying to negotiate with the Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, trying to find a way to achieve an Afghanistan that's not at war, that's not engaged in violence, that doesn't present a threat to the United States of America, that will respect the fundamental basic rights for every Afghan citizen -- women, children -- across the full spectrum," he said. Pompeo was responding to a question from farmers after his address at the "Future Farmers of America" event in Iowa. "That is a complicated problem, and if you add in the regional players -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, all who have an interest in Afghanistan -- it's an incredibly complicated negotiation," he asserted. At the same time, he said Khalilzad, who was leading American efforts in this regard, was on the ground, trying to "find pockets where there's sufficient agreement that everyone can begin to move forward, take all the various complex pieces and bring them together" to hopefully get an agreement. Pompeo said the Afghan agreement would be "based on fundamental understandings about different interests and incentives" that the parties had so that this agreement would hold and stay. "In this case, if we could do this, if we could pull off a resolution in Afghanistan, boy, the good that we could do for the world. I hope Ambassador Khalilzad makes progress," he said. "I am hoping he (Khalilzad) makes enough progress and I can travel there in a couple weeks and help move it along a little bit myself," Pompeo said.

Talks with Taliban an incredibly complicated negotiation: US Secretary of State Pompeo

At a time when US president Donald Trump is holding peace talks with the Taliban terrorists and has decided to withdraw 7,000 troops in the next few months, at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed in one of the deadliest terrorist attacks carried out by the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in Pulwama. &nbsp;

While Indian security forces have killed the three main terrorists behind the Pulwama attack and the Indian government is weighing all possible options to dismantle terror outfits operating against India from across the border, this attack has once again reinforced the fact that the language of peace cannot be an effective tool to deal with terrorists. &nbsp; &nbsp;

In fact, ever since the Trump administration started peace talks with the Taliban, there were apprehensions in India, the US and elsewhere that such efforts would only embolden the Taliban. 
 
Sure, it was during the Obama administration that the US decided to hold talks with the Taliban and during the 2016 presidential election campaign, Trump too promised to end the war in Afghanistan.

Interestingly, the Trump Administration’s South Asia Policy released in 2017 underscored the need for US troops to stay on in Afghanistan. In fact, on the issue of promoting peace, security, stability and development in Afghanistan, Trump’s South Asia Policy mentioned that the US will deploy more troops in Afghanistan without fixing a timeline for the return of US forces.&nbsp;

However, over a year later in July 2018, President Trump shifted his position on Afghanistan issue with the intention of clinching a deal with the Taliban. It would give the US a morally legitimate reason to withdraw its troops.&nbsp;

At the same time, Russia and China’s efforts to hold talks with the Taliban was seen by the US as a major geo-strategic threat to its interests in the region.&nbsp;

While the possible re-emergence of the Taliban is being seen as the onset of another phase of darkness for that blighted country, for India, which has always supported the “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled,” process with participation of the elected government in Kabul, peace talks between the US and the Taliban and Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops, now pose serious security challenges.

Ever since reconstruction work began in Afghanistan, India has invested over $3 billion building roads, hospitals, schools, providing training, arms and fighter aircraft to the Afghan armed forces.&nbsp;

Taliban’s arrival on the centre stage will not only put India’s economic interests at stake in Afghanistan, it will also pose a huge security threat to India because Pakistan’s prominence in Afghanistan will increase and Islamabad could use the Taliban against Indians there. &nbsp;

Since Russia has also moved to improve ties with Pakistan and is more than keen to play an important role in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, as evident from Moscow’s own peace talks with the Taliban last year, the possible emergence of a strategic China-Russia-Pakistan axis along the Taliban, could jeopardise India’s position.&nbsp;

The Pulwama attack has only validated India’s security concerns. Counter-terrorism experts in the US have argued that it has highlighted the utter failure of the Trump administration in pressurising Pakistan to act against terrorist organisations operating from its soil.

They have also argued that the ISI must have helped JeM in carrying out the Pulwama attack. Afghanistan has also complained to the UN Security Council against Pakistan’s recent engagement with the Taliban.

While US National Security Adviser John Bolton has told his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval that America supports India’s right to self-defence, with both sides reaffirming to work together to ensure that Pakistan ceases to be a safe haven for the JeM and other terror outfits, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration fulfills such promises.&nbsp;

At the same time, the Indian government needs to give up the tag of a soft-power state and take long-lasting punitive action against terrorist organisations and the country whose only aim is to destabilise India.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-its-effects-on-india-2723612">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

At a time when US president Donald Trump is holding peace talks with the Taliban terrorists and has decided to withdraw 7,000 troops in the next few months, at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed in one of the deadliest terrorist attacks carried out by the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in Pulwama.

At a time when US president Donald Trump is holding peace talks with the Taliban terrorists and has decided to withdraw 7,000 troops in the next few months, at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed in one of the deadliest terrorist attacks carried out by the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in Pulwama. While Indian security forces have killed the three main terrorists behind the Pulwama attack and the Indian government is weighing all possible options to dismantle terror outfits operating against India from across the border, this attack has once again reinforced the fact that the language of peace cannot be an effective tool to deal with terrorists. In fact, ever since the Trump administration started peace talks with the Taliban, there were apprehensions in India, the US and elsewhere that such efforts would only embolden the Taliban. Sure, it was during the Obama administration that the US decided to hold talks with the Taliban and during the 2016 presidential election campaign, Trump too promised to end the war in Afghanistan. Interestingly, the Trump Administration’s South Asia Policy released in 2017 underscored the need for US troops to stay on in Afghanistan. In fact, on the issue of promoting peace, security, stability and development in Afghanistan, Trump’s South Asia Policy mentioned that the US will deploy more troops in Afghanistan without fixing a timeline for the return of US forces. However, over a year later in July 2018, President Trump shifted his position on Afghanistan issue with the intention of clinching a deal with the Taliban. It would give the US a morally legitimate reason to withdraw its troops. At the same time, Russia and China’s efforts to hold talks with the Taliban was seen by the US as a major geo-strategic threat to its interests in the region. While the possible re-emergence of the Taliban is being seen as the onset of another phase of darkness for that blighted country, for India, which has always supported the “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled,” process with participation of the elected government in Kabul, peace talks between the US and the Taliban and Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops, now pose serious security challenges. Ever since reconstruction work began in Afghanistan, India has invested over $3 billion building roads, hospitals, schools, providing training, arms and fighter aircraft to the Afghan armed forces. Taliban’s arrival on the centre stage will not only put India’s economic interests at stake in Afghanistan, it will also pose a huge security threat to India because Pakistan’s prominence in Afghanistan will increase and Islamabad could use the Taliban against Indians there. Since Russia has also moved to improve ties with Pakistan and is more than keen to play an important role in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, as evident from Moscow’s own peace talks with the Taliban last year, the possible emergence of a strategic China-Russia-Pakistan axis along the Taliban, could jeopardise India’s position. The Pulwama attack has only validated India’s security concerns. Counter-terrorism experts in the US have argued that it has highlighted the utter failure of the Trump administration in pressurising Pakistan to act against terrorist organisations operating from its soil. They have also argued that the ISI must have helped JeM in carrying out the Pulwama attack. Afghanistan has also complained to the UN Security Council against Pakistan’s recent engagement with the Taliban. While US National Security Adviser John Bolton has told his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval that America supports India’s right to self-defence, with both sides reaffirming to work together to ensure that Pakistan ceases to be a safe haven for the JeM and other terror outfits, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration fulfills such promises. At the same time, the Indian government needs to give up the tag of a soft-power state and take long-lasting punitive action against terrorist organisations and the country whose only aim is to destabilise India. (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.)

US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and its effects on India

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

United States Special Representative for<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/russia-firms-up-foothold-in-afghanistan-as-us-eyes-exit-195664"> Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad</a> will be back in the region during which he will be visiting six countries - Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The visit from 10th February to 28th February, according to a State Department release is "part of an overall effort to facilitate a peace process that protects US national security interests and brings all Afghan parties together in an intra-Afghan dialogue through which they can determine a path for their country’s future."

The State Department added, "He will meet with our allies and partners to discuss mutual efforts to advance that goal and will consult with the Afghan government throughout the trip."

The US will be keen to focus on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-says-us-promised-to-halve-its-troops-in-afghanistan-by-april-report-195635">intra-Afghan dialogue given the fact </a>that Moscow just hosted a dialogue involving the Taliban and opposition leaders including former President Hamid Karzai, former national security advisor Haneef Atmar and ex-governor of Balkh province Ata Mohammad Noor.

On February 25th, Zalmay will be meeting the Taliban.

The Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid earlier this &nbsp;month speaking exclusively to WION had said, "A meeting has been arranged on February 25th," while explaining "from the initial agreement we reached with the United States, they seem to have shown readiness to leave Afghanistan and put an end to their occupation."

Last month a number of parleys between US special envoy and Taliban took place which seemed to suggest both are working on a pact, the details of which are not known.

Speaking at an event last Friday in Washington, Zalmay said overall goal is "not to seek out withdrawal agreement" but a "peace agreement." He hoped to reach an agreement before the July vote in the landlocked South Asian country.

The last time when he visited the region in January, Zalmay started his visit from New Delhi and had met external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj and foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale during which India raised the issue of destabilising role Pakistan in the region. India also called on the US to safeguard current political and constitutional structure in the country.

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.

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. The visit from 10th February to 28th February, according to a State Department release is "part of an overall effort to facilitate a peace process that protects US national security interests and brings all Afghan parties together in an intra-Afghan dialogue through which they can determine a path for their country’s future." The State Department added, "He will meet with our allies and partners to discuss mutual efforts to advance that goal and will consult with the Afghan government throughout the trip." The US will be keen to focus on intra-Afghan dialogue given the fact that Moscow just hosted a dialogue involving the Taliban and opposition leaders including former President Hamid Karzai, former national security advisor Haneef Atmar and ex-governor of Balkh province Ata Mohammad Noor. On February 25th, Zalmay will be meeting the Taliban. The Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid earlier this month speaking exclusively to WION had said, "A meeting has been arranged on February 25th," while explaining "from the initial agreement we reached with the United States, they seem to have shown readiness to leave Afghanistan and put an end to their occupation." Last month a number of parleys between US special envoy and Taliban took place which seemed to suggest both are working on a pact, the details of which are not known. Speaking at an event last Friday in Washington, Zalmay said overall goal is "not to seek out withdrawal agreement" but a "peace agreement." He hoped to reach an agreement before the July vote in the landlocked South Asian country. The last time when he visited the region in January, Zalmay started his visit from New Delhi and had met external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj and foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale during which India raised the issue of destabilising role Pakistan in the region. India also called on the US to safeguard current political and constitutional structure in the country.

US representative Zalmay Khalilzad to be back to focus on intra-Afghan dialogue

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

US president made it clear, that even though his administration is in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/the-proper-wall-never-got-built-i-will-get-it-built-says-trump-during-state-of-the-union-address-195465">talks with the Taliban</a> for the pact to bring stability in the country, US troops are not going to fully leave the south Asian country.

Speaking during his second <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/the-proper-wall-never-got-built-i-will-get-it-built-says-trump-during-state-of-the-union-address-195465">State of the Union address (SOTU)</a>, Trump said, "In Afghanistan, my administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan groups, including the Taliban. As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. And we will indeed focus on counterterrorism."

Sounding cautious, he said,"We do not know whether we will achieve an agreement" but "we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at least try for peace" and "the other side would like to do the same thing."

This will come as a relief for New Delhi that sees complete withdrawal as increasing Pakistan's influence in Kabul, which Islamabad has been trying since decades.

During US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad's India visit, New Delhi had made it clear that it has security and economic interest in the country and called Washington to safeguard existing political and constitutional structure in the country.

Earlier on Tuesday, US secretary of state, Michael Pompeo spoke with Afghan President Ghani and reaffirmed American commitment "to achieving a lasting peace in Afghanistan."

In a statement released by the US state department, it was said that the "Secretary underscored Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad’s role in facilitating an inclusive peace process."

Pompeo also focused on intra-Afghan dialogue in which Afghan govt can sit together with the Taliban for a political settlement. The state department said that the secretary "emphasized the importance of an intra-Afghan dialogue and the role of a ceasefire in ending the violence and creating the conditions for the Afghan government, other Afghan leaders and the Taliban to sit together and negotiate a political settlement"

US president made it clear, that even though his administration is in talks with the Taliban for the pact to bring stability in the country, US troops are not going to fully leave the south Asian country.

US president made it clear, that even though his administration is in talks with the Taliban for the pact to bring stability in the country, US troops are not going to fully leave the south Asian country. Speaking during his second State of the Union address (SOTU), Trump said, "In Afghanistan, my administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan groups, including the Taliban. As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. And we will indeed focus on counterterrorism." Sounding cautious, he said,"We do not know whether we will achieve an agreement" but "we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at least try for peace" and "the other side would like to do the same thing." This will come as a relief for New Delhi that sees complete withdrawal as increasing Pakistan's influence in Kabul, which Islamabad has been trying since decades. During US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad's India visit, New Delhi had made it clear that it has security and economic interest in the country and called Washington to safeguard existing political and constitutional structure in the country. Earlier on Tuesday, US secretary of state, Michael Pompeo spoke with Afghan President Ghani and reaffirmed American commitment "to achieving a lasting peace in Afghanistan." In a statement released by the US state department, it was said that the "Secretary underscored Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad’s role in facilitating an inclusive peace process." Pompeo also focused on intra-Afghan dialogue in which Afghan govt can sit together with the Taliban for a political settlement. The state department said that the secretary "emphasized the importance of an intra-Afghan dialogue and the role of a ceasefire in ending the violence and creating the conditions for the Afghan government, other Afghan leaders and the Taliban to sit together and negotiate a political settlement"

Will reduce troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism in Afghanistan: Trump in State of the Union address

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

With the rapidly <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/talks-hosted-by-russia-will-not-help-in-the-peace-process-afghanistan-194573">developing situation in Afghanistan</a>, India had made it clear to US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad who was on his maiden Delhi visit last month that it doesnt favor any interim arrangements&nbsp;and reminded him about its deep economic and security interest in the south Asian country.&nbsp;

In the recent Taliban-US talks, there have been calls of an<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/trump-says-afghanistan-talks-proceeding-well-194171"> interim administration and many </a>expect if a peace pact is agreed, Kabul might see an interim government.

India while understanding Washington's keenness to withdraw from Afghanistan, called for safeguarding the existing political and constitutional structure.

Zalmay after his New Delhi visit, later visited Afghanistan, China and Pakistan.

New Delhi, which is constructing number of infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, informed Zalmay that continuation of its projects depends on how the situation evolves in Afghanistan.

With a development assistance of $3 billion, India is Afghanistan's largest doner. It is also connecting Afghanistan via Chabahar port and the India-Afghanistan air corridor which was launched in 2017. It had built the Afghan parliament and India-Afghan friendship dam in Herat and is currently constructing 218 km road from Zaranj to Delaram, 220kV DC transmission line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul and a 220/110/20 kV sub-station at Chimtala.&nbsp;

Top sources have told Wion, that India might not be visible but is acting in its security interest and doesnt see any reason for acting in haste.&nbsp;

India continues to work behind the scenes and is in touch with Moscow, Tehran, Bejing and all the central Asian countries regarding the situation in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Recently India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj visited&nbsp;Samarkand in Uzbekistan and took part in the first India-Central Asia dialogues in which the situation in Afghanistan was discussed.

Inside Afghanistan also India is in touch with Pashtun leaders and other Afghan leaders. Sources in Afghanistan have confirmed, that barring Taliban, New Delhi is engaged with everyone.

Afghan Nation Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib and former Afghan President Hamid Karzai were in Delhi recently.&nbsp;

In 2018, at the Moscow talks on Afghanistan, India participated "non-officially" and sent two former envoys - former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha and ex-Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan TCA Raghavan. Taliban was also present in the meet.

Last week, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar in his weekly briefing had said, "We will participate in all formats of talks which could bring peace and security in that region."

Asked if "participation in all formats" means even if Taliban is present, MEA spokesperson said, "It is speculative. It depends from meeting to meeting. Let us see for which meetings we are being invited and then we will take a decision as to what level and what capacity we participate".

With the rapidly developing situation in Afghanistan, India had made it clear to US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad who was on his maiden Delhi visit last month that it doesnt favor any interim arrangements and reminded him about its deep economic and security interest in the south Asian country.

With the rapidly developing situation in Afghanistan, India had made it clear to US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad who was on his maiden Delhi visit last month that it doesnt favor any interim arrangements and reminded him about its deep economic and security interest in the south Asian country. In the recent Taliban-US talks, there have been calls of an interim administration and many expect if a peace pact is agreed, Kabul might see an interim government. India while understanding Washington's keenness to withdraw from Afghanistan, called for safeguarding the existing political and constitutional structure. Zalmay after his New Delhi visit, later visited Afghanistan, China and Pakistan. New Delhi, which is constructing number of infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, informed Zalmay that continuation of its projects depends on how the situation evolves in Afghanistan. With a development assistance of $3 billion, India is Afghanistan's largest doner. It is also connecting Afghanistan via Chabahar port and the India-Afghanistan air corridor which was launched in 2017. It had built the Afghan parliament and India-Afghan friendship dam in Herat and is currently constructing 218 km road from Zaranj to Delaram, 220kV DC transmission line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul and a 220/110/20 kV sub-station at Chimtala. Top sources have told Wion, that India might not be visible but is acting in its security interest and doesnt see any reason for acting in haste. India continues to work behind the scenes and is in touch with Moscow, Tehran, Bejing and all the central Asian countries regarding the situation in Afghanistan. Recently India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj visited Samarkand in Uzbekistan and took part in the first India-Central Asia dialogues in which the situation in Afghanistan was discussed. Inside Afghanistan also India is in touch with Pashtun leaders and other Afghan leaders. Sources in Afghanistan have confirmed, that barring Taliban, New Delhi is engaged with everyone. Afghan Nation Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib and former Afghan President Hamid Karzai were in Delhi recently. In 2018, at the Moscow talks on Afghanistan, India participated "non-officially" and sent two former envoys - former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha and ex-Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan TCA Raghavan. Taliban was also present in the meet. Last week, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar in his weekly briefing had said, "We will participate in all formats of talks which could bring peace and security in that region." Asked if "participation in all formats" means even if Taliban is present, MEA spokesperson said, "It is speculative. It depends from meeting to meeting. Let us see for which meetings we are being invited and then we will take a decision as to what level and what capacity we participate".

During US special envoy Khalilzad's visit, India dismissed idea of interim government in Afghanistan

Russia will host the Taliban and Afghan politicians <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/will-participate-in-all-formats-of-talks-that-bring-peace-india-on-afghan-peace-process-194136">opposed to President Ashraf Ghani </a>on Tuesday, Russian and Taliban sources said, promoting its role of power broker in what a US official called an attempt to "muddle" the US-backed peace process.

Moscow snubbed the Afghan government, sources said, to ensure the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/kabul-control-slips-in-afghanistan-amid-us-talks-with-taliban-194042"> participation of the Taliban</a> who refuse to hold talks with Ghani's representatives to end the 17-year-old Afghan war, branding them puppets of the United States.

"Senior Taliban leaders and prominent Afghan politicians will travel to Moscow for a day-long summit. At this sensitive stage, it was best to not have Afghan government officials at the table," said a Russian official on condition of anonymity.

The Russian embassy in Kabul was not available for comment.

The Moscow talks underline the increasing role Russia is playing in Afghanistan, decades after Soviet forces withdrew from the country, with business investment plans, diplomatic and cultural outreach and small military support for the central government.

They also come as the Afghan government is struggling to recover control of districts lost to the Taliban.

The latest quarterly report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted that the control of Afghanistan's territory and population "became somewhat more contested (and) Afghan government control or influence continued to decline".

The news of Russia hosting Ghani's critics, including former President Hamid Karzai who believes Russia can play a decisive role in ending America’s longest war, has angered Kabul and US officials.

"Russia is again trying to muddle the US-backed peace process and the political situation of Afghanistan," said a senior US official, adding that Russia's repeated overtures towards the Taliban and Ghani's critics proved its determination to belittle the government.

Prominent outspoken critics of Ghani, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Mohammad Ismail Khan and Atta Mohammad Noor, who fought against the Soviets after their 1979 invasion, will travel to Moscow.

Sohail Shahin, a spokesman for the Taliban political office in Qatar, said a delegation led by Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, a senior political leader, would travel to Moscow for what he said would be a two-day meeting.

Last November, Moscow hosted a multilateral summit to try to find ways to end the war, drawing delegates from a body appointed by the Western-backed government, the Taliban and officials from a dozen nations, including the United States.

Analysts said Russia wants to maintain good relations with the Taliban, who are fighting to restore strict Islamic rule after their 2001 ouster.

"Russia knows that Ghani's government was established with American support that is why they are not giving importance to it," said Wadir Safi, a political science professor at Kabul University.

"The Moscow meeting can cause hurdles to the ongoing peace talks if it is not in close cooperation with the US peace efforts."

Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in January her country welcomed Washington’s peace initiative, but US special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad’s attempts to convince the Taliban to sit down to talks with the Kabul government have failed.

The United States has some 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission and a separate counter-terrorism effort largely directed at groups such as al Qaeda and Islamic State.

The next round of peace talks between Khalizad and the Taliban's newly appointed political leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is scheduled for Qatar on February 25th.

Russia will host the Taliban and Afghan politicians opposed to President Ashraf Ghani on Tuesday, Russian and Taliban sources said, promoting its role of power broker in what a US official called an attempt to "muddle" the US-backed peace process.

Russia will host the Taliban and Afghan politicians opposed to President Ashraf Ghani on Tuesday, Russian and Taliban sources said, promoting its role of power broker in what a US official called an attempt to "muddle" the US-backed peace process. Moscow snubbed the Afghan government, sources said, to ensure the participation of the Taliban who refuse to hold talks with Ghani's representatives to end the 17-year-old Afghan war, branding them puppets of the United States. "Senior Taliban leaders and prominent Afghan politicians will travel to Moscow for a day-long summit. At this sensitive stage, it was best to not have Afghan government officials at the table," said a Russian official on condition of anonymity. The Russian embassy in Kabul was not available for comment. The Moscow talks underline the increasing role Russia is playing in Afghanistan, decades after Soviet forces withdrew from the country, with business investment plans, diplomatic and cultural outreach and small military support for the central government. They also come as the Afghan government is struggling to recover control of districts lost to the Taliban. The latest quarterly report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted that the control of Afghanistan's territory and population "became somewhat more contested (and) Afghan government control or influence continued to decline". The news of Russia hosting Ghani's critics, including former President Hamid Karzai who believes Russia can play a decisive role in ending America’s longest war, has angered Kabul and US officials. "Russia is again trying to muddle the US-backed peace process and the political situation of Afghanistan," said a senior US official, adding that Russia's repeated overtures towards the Taliban and Ghani's critics proved its determination to belittle the government. Prominent outspoken critics of Ghani, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Mohammad Ismail Khan and Atta Mohammad Noor, who fought against the Soviets after their 1979 invasion, will travel to Moscow. Sohail Shahin, a spokesman for the Taliban political office in Qatar, said a delegation led by Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, a senior political leader, would travel to Moscow for what he said would be a two-day meeting. Last November, Moscow hosted a multilateral summit to try to find ways to end the war, drawing delegates from a body appointed by the Western-backed government, the Taliban and officials from a dozen nations, including the United States. Analysts said Russia wants to maintain good relations with the Taliban, who are fighting to restore strict Islamic rule after their 2001 ouster. "Russia knows that Ghani's government was established with American support that is why they are not giving importance to it," said Wadir Safi, a political science professor at Kabul University. "The Moscow meeting can cause hurdles to the ongoing peace talks if it is not in close cooperation with the US peace efforts." Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in January her country welcomed Washington’s peace initiative, but US special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad’s attempts to convince the Taliban to sit down to talks with the Kabul government have failed. The United States has some 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission and a separate counter-terrorism effort largely directed at groups such as al Qaeda and Islamic State. The next round of peace talks between Khalizad and the Taliban's newly appointed political leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is scheduled for Qatar on February 25th.

Russia to host Taliban, Afghan politicians opposed to President Ghani: Sources

India has said it is "closely following the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/kabul-control-slips-in-afghanistan-amid-us-talks-with-taliban-194042">developments related to peace</a> and reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan which have been undertaken by different stakeholders" and it will participate in "all formats of talks" which could "bring peace and security in the region."

Reacting to a question on recent developments in Afghan peace process, Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said,"India supports efforts which can achieve an inclusive political settlement. In this context, it is an important presidential election in Afghanistan which takes place as per schedule."

Last week after the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-not-stay-longer-than-necessary-in-afghanistan-nato-chief-193642">United States-Taliban talks in Doha</a>, it was announced that both sides may soon come up with a pact that may see American forces leave Afghanistan after 17 years.

While reiterating its official stand on the Afghan peace process, Kumar said, "We continue to support Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled process."

In 2018 at the Moscow talks on Afghanistan, India participated "non-officially" and sent two former envoys-- former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha and former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan TCA Raghavan. Taliban was also present at the meet.

Asked if "participation in all formats" means even if Taliban is present, MEA spokesperson said, "it is speculative. It depends from meeting to meeting. Let us see for which meetings we are being invited and then we will take a decision as to what level and what capacity we participate".

India doesn't engage with the Taliban as an official policy. Russia is again planning another Moscow format talks on Afghanistan with the presence of Taliban which India expects it will be invited.&nbsp;

Raveesh also highlighted the issue of terror emanating from neighbouring countries without taking names and said: "we also feel that for enduring peace and stability in Afghanistan terrorist safe havens and sanctuaries need to be eliminated."

According to the US intelligence community report terror attacks in Afghanistan and India may increase due to Islamabad's resistance to act on terror groups on its territory.

India has said it is "closely following the developments related to peace and reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan which have been undertaken by different stakeholders" and it will participate in "all formats of talks" which could "bring peace and security in the region.

India has said it is "closely following the developments related to peace and reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan which have been undertaken by different stakeholders" and it will participate in "all formats of talks" which could "bring peace and security in the region." Reacting to a question on recent developments in Afghan peace process, Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said,"India supports efforts which can achieve an inclusive political settlement. In this context, it is an important presidential election in Afghanistan which takes place as per schedule." Last week after the United States-Taliban talks in Doha, it was announced that both sides may soon come up with a pact that may see American forces leave Afghanistan after 17 years. While reiterating its official stand on the Afghan peace process, Kumar said, "We continue to support Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled process." In 2018 at the Moscow talks on Afghanistan, India participated "non-officially" and sent two former envoys-- former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha and former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan TCA Raghavan. Taliban was also present at the meet. Asked if "participation in all formats" means even if Taliban is present, MEA spokesperson said, "it is speculative. It depends from meeting to meeting. Let us see for which meetings we are being invited and then we will take a decision as to what level and what capacity we participate". India doesn't engage with the Taliban as an official policy. Russia is again planning another Moscow format talks on Afghanistan with the presence of Taliban which India expects it will be invited. Raveesh also highlighted the issue of terror emanating from neighbouring countries without taking names and said: "we also feel that for enduring peace and stability in Afghanistan terrorist safe havens and sanctuaries need to be eliminated." According to the US intelligence community report terror attacks in Afghanistan and India may increase due to Islamabad's resistance to act on terror groups on its territory.

Will participate in all formats of talks that bring peace: India on Afghan peace process

According to the reports, the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban negotiator Maulana Abdul Ghani Baradar negotiated a deal in Doha for the withdrawal of foreign troops from war-ravaged Afghanistan within 18 months.&nbsp;

This week, the US Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, warned about the possibility of an increase in the attacks by Taliban, Daesh/IS, TTP, and Al-Qaeda on the Afghan state and foreign forces.

At this moment, nobody is certain about the future of political uncertainty and peace process in Afghanistan. However, it seems that US President Donald Trump is quite right in his analysis of the Af-Pak policy. The US has given more than $33.4 billion to Pakistani army for the war on terror in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

On the contrary, the Pakistani army facilitated the safe passage of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora mountains, Afghanistan to a residential army colony in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

In order to take leverage of the strategic depth in Afghanistan, the Pakistani army formally established diplomatic relations with the Taliban and helped Saudi Arabia and UAE to tie formal diplomatic relations with the Taliban.&nbsp;

Pakistani army did not hesitate to invite China against the US strategic interests in this region too. &nbsp;

Afghanistan has been always considered geopolitical chessboard, where the US, Afghan state, Taliban, the Pakistani army, and regional powers like Iran, India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE are involved. In post-9/11 scenarios, despite several rounds of Afghan general elections, neither the roots of robust democracy took place nor did the Afghan national army and Afghan national police succeeded in taking back Taliban-controlled areas.

With the active support from Pakistani army, the Taliban not just survived over the years but also attacked the foreign forces and Afghan army bases in the last 17 years. According to Afghanistan deputy defence minister Hilaluddin Helal, there are currently 21 terrorist organisation with the strength of around 50200 militants, where Taliban is the biggest with 38000 militants. However, Daesh/IS has more than 2000 militants, which includes 70 per cent Pakistani, 6 per cent Uzbekistani, 4 per cent Chechens and 3 per cent Arabs.&nbsp;

Indeed, the Pakistani army is over joyous in the aftermath of the withdrawal of foreign forces and increased legitimacy of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But it would be highly premature to celebrate their political mileage at this moment because Afghan state, Afghan national army and Afghan police forces are still in place with the support of the US and regional players (Iran, India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE) in the peacebuilding efforts and infrastructure development process in Afghanistan. &nbsp;

The history tells us that the Pakistani army relationship with Taliban has been full of ups and down. Some of the major incidents include the Taliban refusal to protect the Bamiyan Buddha and furthermore, it never agreed to recognise the Durand line between Afghanistan and North-West Frontier Pakistan - &nbsp;a colonial legacy indeed. The Taliban opened a political office in Doha, participated in a conference in Moscow, and above all is cultivating relationships with regional powers including Iran, Uzbekistan, Russia, China and the US. &nbsp;

In the long run, the Afghan economy will rely on the foreign aid and official developmental assistance by the regional powers. In order to boost bilateral trade with Afghanistan, many regional countries started air cargo transportation, while the Chabahar port will facilitate alternative trade routes to Afghanistan.

Consequently, the bilateral trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan has reached the lowest level in the last 17 years. Pakistan’s external financing has significantly dropped by over 60 per cent in the shape of loans and grants from July, 2018 to December, 2018, under the leadership of prime minister Imran Khan.&nbsp;

According to the UK-based advisory service Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the real GDP growth to average 2.9 per cent per year from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The economic success story of Bangladesh proves that the root of Pakistani macroeconomic problems is not economic, but predominantly Pakistani army’s obsession with strategic and military adventurism under which terrorism is an instrument to exploit the so-called strategic depth in the Afghan theatre.&nbsp;

In short, harbouring and sponsoring terrorist groups has always been a policy of the successive selected governments under the diktat of Pakistan army.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The Pakistani army has been a common source of concern for both Afghanistan and India. In order to understand its dominance in the Pakistani political system, one needs to remember that the Pakistani army has ruled for more than 33 years out of 70 years. Pakistani defence allocation in general budget constitutes over 34 per cent without any audit and scrutiny.&nbsp;

Indeed, the Pakistani army is more a&nbsp;problem rather than the solution. Therefore, Indian interests in Afghanistan are two-fold, directed towards Afghan led-peace process on the one hand, while reducing the abilities of the Pakistani army to operate cross-border terrorism on the other.

Indeed, regional powers have a common concern with regards to Daesh/IS, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al-Qaeda, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), and Taliban. In the growing face of any one of these terrorist groups in the Afghan, the theatre would bring a whole new level of action and reactions. On these backdrops, one needs to ask these critical questions: How to build an inclusive, pluralistic Afghan state, whose future hinges on democracy, economic development and human rights? Can Taliban and Afghan state devise a mechanism to work together? In the absence of foreign forces, how effective the Pakistani army would be in Afghan state affairs? &nbsp;

India’s Afghanistan policy is oriented towards Afghan-led, Afghan-controlled, Afghan-owned peace process, which in reality will be a true representative of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. Since 2002, India has given over $3 billion foreign aid to Afghanistan.&nbsp;

In order to strengthen the Afghan army, India has promised to give four Mi-25 attack helicopters before July, 2019. India has built roads, schools. Dams (Salma dam and proposed Shahtoot dam), and even Afghan parliament. Indian developmental assistance can be summarised in five categories - infrastructure development, economic development, humanitarian assistance, connectivity and capacity building projects.&nbsp;

In conclusion, perhaps the best possible Indian approach to the Afghan crisis lies in the combination of both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. India-Central Asia-Afghan trilateral meet and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) can be very effective platforms to strengthen the Afghan state. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

According to the reports, the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban negotiator Maulana Abdul Ghani Baradar negotiated a deal in Doha for the withdrawal of foreign troops from war-ravaged Afghanistan within 18 months.

According to the reports, the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban negotiator Maulana Abdul Ghani Baradar negotiated a deal in Doha for the withdrawal of foreign troops from war-ravaged Afghanistan within 18 months. This week, the US Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, warned about the possibility of an increase in the attacks by Taliban, Daesh/IS, TTP, and Al-Qaeda on the Afghan state and foreign forces. At this moment, nobody is certain about the future of political uncertainty and peace process in Afghanistan. However, it seems that US President Donald Trump is quite right in his analysis of the Af-Pak policy. The US has given more than $33.4 billion to Pakistani army for the war on terror in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the Pakistani army facilitated the safe passage of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora mountains, Afghanistan to a residential army colony in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In order to take leverage of the strategic depth in Afghanistan, the Pakistani army formally established diplomatic relations with the Taliban and helped Saudi Arabia and UAE to tie formal diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Pakistani army did not hesitate to invite China against the US strategic interests in this region too. Afghanistan has been always considered geopolitical chessboard, where the US, Afghan state, Taliban, the Pakistani army, and regional powers like Iran, India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE are involved. In post-9/11 scenarios, despite several rounds of Afghan general elections, neither the roots of robust democracy took place nor did the Afghan national army and Afghan national police succeeded in taking back Taliban-controlled areas. With the active support from Pakistani army, the Taliban not just survived over the years but also attacked the foreign forces and Afghan army bases in the last 17 years. According to Afghanistan deputy defence minister Hilaluddin Helal, there are currently 21 terrorist organisation with the strength of around 50200 militants, where Taliban is the biggest with 38000 militants. However, Daesh/IS has more than 2000 militants, which includes 70 per cent Pakistani, 6 per cent Uzbekistani, 4 per cent Chechens and 3 per cent Arabs. Indeed, the Pakistani army is over joyous in the aftermath of the withdrawal of foreign forces and increased legitimacy of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But it would be highly premature to celebrate their political mileage at this moment because Afghan state, Afghan national army and Afghan police forces are still in place with the support of the US and regional players (Iran, India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE) in the peacebuilding efforts and infrastructure development process in Afghanistan. The history tells us that the Pakistani army relationship with Taliban has been full of ups and down. Some of the major incidents include the Taliban refusal to protect the Bamiyan Buddha and furthermore, it never agreed to recognise the Durand line between Afghanistan and North-West Frontier Pakistan - a colonial legacy indeed. The Taliban opened a political office in Doha, participated in a conference in Moscow, and above all is cultivating relationships with regional powers including Iran, Uzbekistan, Russia, China and the US. In the long run, the Afghan economy will rely on the foreign aid and official developmental assistance by the regional powers. In order to boost bilateral trade with Afghanistan, many regional countries started air cargo transportation, while the Chabahar port will facilitate alternative trade routes to Afghanistan. Consequently, the bilateral trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan has reached the lowest level in the last 17 years. Pakistan’s external financing has significantly dropped by over 60 per cent in the shape of loans and grants from July, 2018 to December, 2018, under the leadership of prime minister Imran Khan. According to the UK-based advisory service Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the real GDP growth to average 2.9 per cent per year from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The economic success story of Bangladesh proves that the root of Pakistani macroeconomic problems is not economic, but predominantly Pakistani army’s obsession with strategic and military adventurism under which terrorism is an instrument to exploit the so-called strategic depth in the Afghan theatre. In short, harbouring and sponsoring terrorist groups has always been a policy of the successive selected governments under the diktat of Pakistan army. The Pakistani army has been a common source of concern for both Afghanistan and India. In order to understand its dominance in the Pakistani political system, one needs to remember that the Pakistani army has ruled for more than 33 years out of 70 years. Pakistani defence allocation in general budget constitutes over 34 per cent without any audit and scrutiny. Indeed, the Pakistani army is more a problem rather than the solution. Therefore, Indian interests in Afghanistan are two-fold, directed towards Afghan led-peace process on the one hand, while reducing the abilities of the Pakistani army to operate cross-border terrorism on the other. Indeed, regional powers have a common concern with regards to Daesh/IS, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al-Qaeda, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), and Taliban. In the growing face of any one of these terrorist groups in the Afghan, the theatre would bring a whole new level of action and reactions. On these backdrops, one needs to ask these critical questions: How to build an inclusive, pluralistic Afghan state, whose future hinges on democracy, economic development and human rights? Can Taliban and Afghan state devise a mechanism to work together? In the absence of foreign forces, how effective the Pakistani army would be in Afghan state affairs? India’s Afghanistan policy is oriented towards Afghan-led, Afghan-controlled, Afghan-owned peace process, which in reality will be a true representative of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. Since 2002, India has given over $3 billion foreign aid to Afghanistan. In order to strengthen the Afghan army, India has promised to give four Mi-25 attack helicopters before July, 2019. India has built roads, schools. Dams (Salma dam and proposed Shahtoot dam), and even Afghan parliament. Indian developmental assistance can be summarised in five categories - infrastructure development, economic development, humanitarian assistance, connectivity and capacity building projects. In conclusion, perhaps the best possible Indian approach to the Afghan crisis lies in the combination of both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. India-Central Asia-Afghan trilateral meet and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) can be very effective platforms to strengthen the Afghan state. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

India’s Afghanistan policy: What needs to be done

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks.

White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again. Negotiations are going to continue.''

But the Arab divide is looming large on the Afghan peace talks.

The United Arab Emirates Ambassador to India Dr Ahmed Albanna lashed out at Qatar for hosting "terrorists". Doha last week hosted the US Taliban talks.

He said, "Qataris are hosting terrorist and exporting terrorist from there country. Terrorist are graduates of Guantanamo."

Adding, "Qatar supports extremism and continues to interfere in internal affairs of other states. Qatar represents a threat"

It's interesting to add that Abu Dhabi had also hosted US-Taliban talks.&nbsp;

UAE along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Senegal, Jordan, Djibouti severed ties with Qatar in 2017. Currently, Qatari planes and ships are denied airspace and sea route to these countries.

The Afghan peace talks are expected to pave way for American troops to leave the country after 17 years. Stakes seem to be high and experts say dealing with Taliban will require a lot of patience.&nbsp;

India's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Amar Sinha reacting to US Taliban Pact told WION, "We have seen only the outlines of a framework agreement and have also heard US Special Representative say that "nothing is agreed till everything is agreed". &nbsp;But we all know "the devil &nbsp;is in the details."

Speaking to WION, Michael Kugelman South Asia senior associate at The Wilson Centre said, "It’s a big deal because it represents the first formal attempt to chart a way forward. There have been many meetings between the US and Taliban in the past, but not until now have they formally pledged to address each other’s demands. Could all this progress come crashing down? Certainly. At the end of the day, if the Taliban doesn’t like what’s on the table, it could easily break off the dialogue and fully redirect its attention to the battlefield. That’s why the talks that take place in the coming days will need to be carried out carefully."

India is cautiously watching the developments but so far hasn't reacted. The Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib was in Delhi in early January.

India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj met the Afghan foreign minister Salahuddin Rabbani in Samarkand, Uzbekistan a few weeks ago on the sidelines of first India Central Asia dialogue.&nbsp;

Talking about India, Kugelman said, "For India, these talks are a reminder that its say in Afghanistan’s future, at least for now, is limited. India is a key regional player. But for now, it is left on the outside looking in and hoping that the result, whatever it is, doesn’t risk further instability for its Afghan friend."

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks. White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again.

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks. White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again. Negotiations are going to continue.'' But the Arab divide is looming large on the Afghan peace talks. The United Arab Emirates Ambassador to India Dr Ahmed Albanna lashed out at Qatar for hosting "terrorists". Doha last week hosted the US Taliban talks. He said, "Qataris are hosting terrorist and exporting terrorist from there country. Terrorist are graduates of Guantanamo." Adding, "Qatar supports extremism and continues to interfere in internal affairs of other states. Qatar represents a threat" It's interesting to add that Abu Dhabi had also hosted US-Taliban talks. UAE along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Senegal, Jordan, Djibouti severed ties with Qatar in 2017. Currently, Qatari planes and ships are denied airspace and sea route to these countries. The Afghan peace talks are expected to pave way for American troops to leave the country after 17 years. Stakes seem to be high and experts say dealing with Taliban will require a lot of patience. India's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Amar Sinha reacting to US Taliban Pact told WION, "We have seen only the outlines of a framework agreement and have also heard US Special Representative say that "nothing is agreed till everything is agreed". But we all know "the devil is in the details." Speaking to WION, Michael Kugelman South Asia senior associate at The Wilson Centre said, "It’s a big deal because it represents the first formal attempt to chart a way forward. There have been many meetings between the US and Taliban in the past, but not until now have they formally pledged to address each other’s demands. Could all this progress come crashing down? Certainly. At the end of the day, if the Taliban doesn’t like what’s on the table, it could easily break off the dialogue and fully redirect its attention to the battlefield. That’s why the talks that take place in the coming days will need to be carried out carefully." India is cautiously watching the developments but so far hasn't reacted. The Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib was in Delhi in early January. India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj met the Afghan foreign minister Salahuddin Rabbani in Samarkand, Uzbekistan a few weeks ago on the sidelines of first India Central Asia dialogue. Talking about India, Kugelman said, "For India, these talks are a reminder that its say in Afghanistan’s future, at least for now, is limited. India is a key regional player. But for now, it is left on the outside looking in and hoping that the result, whatever it is, doesn’t risk further instability for its Afghan friend."

Priority is to end Afghan war, peace negotiations will continue: White House

Afghans harboured tentative hopes Sunday that talks between the US and Taliban leaders could end decades of conflict, despite fears an American withdrawal might unleash even more violence.

American negotiators and the Taliban said Saturday the two sides had made substantial progress in the most recent round of talks in Qatar, promising to meet again to continue seeking a deal that could pave the way for official peace negotiations.

The length and apparent progress in the ongoing talks are unprecedented, signalling that both Washington and the Taliban might see a path forward.

Hopes were rising on Twitter. "We r feeling the breeze of #peace coming," tweeted Afghan user Haris Sherzad.

Civilians in Kabul, who have paid a disproportionate price in casualties since the US invasion of 2001, were more cautious.&nbsp;

"I don't believe the Taliban will make peace," Kabul resident Rajab Ali told AFP.

"But if we have peace it will be so great. There is nothing better than peace," he added.&nbsp;

The goal of the talks is ostensibly to find a way to bring the Taliban to the table for official peace negotiations with Kabul. However, the militants steadfastly refuse to engage with the government, which has yet to release any statement on the talks after complaining of being cut out of the process.

Meanwhile, the US has expressed a clear desire to end its longest war.&nbsp;

"This will be peace between the Taliban and US, not the people of Afghanistan," wrote Facebook user Jamshid Ayoubi. "We will be left alone to the mercy of extremists once again."&nbsp;

Kabul residents said a deal between the militants and the government was vital to bringing an end to 17 years of bloodshed. &nbsp;

"It will never be stable if Taliban and the government keep fighting each other and killing Afghans," resident Sharbatullah told AFP.

'Time for us to leave'

The Taliban are widely believed to want to return to power and reimpose their own strict interpretation of sharia law. &nbsp;

They have shown no interest in sharing power with the current government in Kabul, and already have the upper hand on the battlefield, where Afghan forces are taking what experts have described as "unsustainable" losses.

Earlier this week President Ashraf Ghani revealed that some 45,000 Afghan security forces have been killed since he took power in September 2014 -- a staggering rate of more than 28 every day.

If Washington exits before a peace deal is in place there are fears the already-plummeting morale of Afghan security forces will shatter and that they will break along ethnic lines, igniting a full-scale civil war or even usher in a new era of Taliban rule.

"A hasty withdrawal of foreign troops will be interpreted as a victory for the Taliban and other religious extremists across the region," warned one Facebook user, Hamed Haidari.

"Time for us to leave this country. You will see extremists flood the country once again."

"Darker days await Afghanistan," wrote user Ashraf Sultani. &nbsp;

"Once the US is out, the Taliban will issue a fatwa for continuation of their war, and the country will plunge into another bloody civil war again."

Afghans harboured tentative hopes Sunday that talks between the US and Taliban leaders could end decades of conflict, despite fears an American withdrawal might unleash even more violence.

Afghans harboured tentative hopes Sunday that talks between the US and Taliban leaders could end decades of conflict, despite fears an American withdrawal might unleash even more violence. American negotiators and the Taliban said Saturday the two sides had made substantial progress in the most recent round of talks in Qatar, promising to meet again to continue seeking a deal that could pave the way for official peace negotiations. The length and apparent progress in the ongoing talks are unprecedented, signalling that both Washington and the Taliban might see a path forward. Hopes were rising on Twitter. "We r feeling the breeze of #peace coming," tweeted Afghan user Haris Sherzad. Civilians in Kabul, who have paid a disproportionate price in casualties since the US invasion of 2001, were more cautious. "I don't believe the Taliban will make peace," Kabul resident Rajab Ali told AFP. "But if we have peace it will be so great. There is nothing better than peace," he added. The goal of the talks is ostensibly to find a way to bring the Taliban to the table for official peace negotiations with Kabul. However, the militants steadfastly refuse to engage with the government, which has yet to release any statement on the talks after complaining of being cut out of the process. Meanwhile, the US has expressed a clear desire to end its longest war. "This will be peace between the Taliban and US, not the people of Afghanistan," wrote Facebook user Jamshid Ayoubi. "We will be left alone to the mercy of extremists once again." Kabul residents said a deal between the militants and the government was vital to bringing an end to 17 years of bloodshed. "It will never be stable if Taliban and the government keep fighting each other and killing Afghans," resident Sharbatullah told AFP. 'Time for us to leave' The Taliban are widely believed to want to return to power and reimpose their own strict interpretation of sharia law. They have shown no interest in sharing power with the current government in Kabul, and already have the upper hand on the battlefield, where Afghan forces are taking what experts have described as "unsustainable" losses. Earlier this week President Ashraf Ghani revealed that some 45,000 Afghan security forces have been killed since he took power in September 2014 -- a staggering rate of more than 28 every day. If Washington exits before a peace deal is in place there are fears the already-plummeting morale of Afghan security forces will shatter and that they will break along ethnic lines, igniting a full-scale civil war or even usher in a new era of Taliban rule. "A hasty withdrawal of foreign troops will be interpreted as a victory for the Taliban and other religious extremists across the region," warned one Facebook user, Hamed Haidari. "Time for us to leave this country. You will see extremists flood the country once again." "Darker days await Afghanistan," wrote user Ashraf Sultani. "Once the US is out, the Taliban will issue a fatwa for continuation of their war, and the country will plunge into another bloody civil war again."

Afghans hope for peace but fear bloodshed as US, Taliban talk

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.'&nbsp;

This was tom-tommed as a big shift from the government of India's long-standing policy that the peace process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, Afghan-controlled and with the participation of the government in Kabul. It made a splash because the Taliban was talking to the US ahead of the latter's plan to pull out from its 17-year-long military engagement in Afghanistan which has cost over a trillion dollars and claimed tens of thousands of lives besides turning it into a terrorist hub.&nbsp;

However, General Rawat was only taking forward the ball set rolling exactly two months before. The policy shift was already public by November 8, when two former diplomats, Amar Sinha and TCA Raghavan went to Russia for the Moscow format of talks on the Afghan peace process. Technically, Sinha and Raghavan did not represent Government of India (GoI) – their participation was “non-official”, in Track II mode. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Raghavan, who was India's High Commissioner to Pakistan, is Director-General of the GoI think tank, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). Sinha, a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, was Ambassador to Afghanistan. There was nothing really unofficial about their non-official presence in the Moscow format of talks where the Taliban and Afghanistan's High Peace Council delegations were also present.&nbsp;

By the time General Rawat stood up to say his piece, official India had already held at least one round of non-official talks. Just a day before General Rawat spoke, the Taliban had called off talks with the US as they did not want the Afghan government to be in the talks. The Taliban did this a day before the fourth round of talks with US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. &nbsp;

Besides the US, Russia and China, the Taliban's old supporters, namely, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan were also back in the game as stakeholders in the peace process. Iran also joined the game. It went claimed “influence” over the Taliban and offered to use that influence in India's favour.&nbsp;

In the nearly two decades since the Taliban hosted the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar -- when external affairs minister Jaswant Singh went to Taliban territory to get the hostages released in return for two Pakistani terrorists – GoI has also developed lines to the Taliban. &nbsp;

It is obvious that the Taliban holds the whip hand in the Afghan peace process. It is set on talking to the US – on its own terms – because the US is the occupation force to be sent packing. US General Austin Miller's narrow escape from the October 18 shooting, which killed Kandahar police chief General Abdul Raziq among others in a room, seems to have convinced the Americans that they can no longer continue their military occupation. This is underscored by the perception that the Taliban “allowed” General Miller to “escape” – to let the US know that they can pick their targets when they choose to. &nbsp;

With the US bowing to the Taliban's terms, others, including India, cannot risk lagging behind. The Taliban's tough talk and a tougher line on talking terms is suspected to be based on the covert support of some powerful country. That apart, there is a growing perception, including in New Delhi, that the Taliban is involved in many behind-the-scene engagements; and, these are what enable it to call the shots. &nbsp;

Thus, negotiating India's place in the peace process is as much a diplomatic and strategic minefield as Afghanistan was during the worst phase of America's war in that country.&nbsp;

&nbsp; 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.' This was tom-tommed as a big shift from the government of India's long-standing policy that the peace process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, Afghan-controlled and with the participation of the government in Kabul. It made a splash because the Taliban was talking to the US ahead of the latter's plan to pull out from its 17-year-long military engagement in Afghanistan which has cost over a trillion dollars and claimed tens of thousands of lives besides turning it into a terrorist hub. However, General Rawat was only taking forward the ball set rolling exactly two months before. The policy shift was already public by November 8, when two former diplomats, Amar Sinha and TCA Raghavan went to Russia for the Moscow format of talks on the Afghan peace process. Technically, Sinha and Raghavan did not represent Government of India (GoI) – their participation was “non-official”, in Track II mode. Raghavan, who was India's High Commissioner to Pakistan, is Director-General of the GoI think tank, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). Sinha, a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, was Ambassador to Afghanistan. There was nothing really unofficial about their non-official presence in the Moscow format of talks where the Taliban and Afghanistan's High Peace Council delegations were also present. By the time General Rawat stood up to say his piece, official India had already held at least one round of non-official talks. Just a day before General Rawat spoke, the Taliban had called off talks with the US as they did not want the Afghan government to be in the talks. The Taliban did this a day before the fourth round of talks with US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Besides the US, Russia and China, the Taliban's old supporters, namely, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan were also back in the game as stakeholders in the peace process. Iran also joined the game. It went claimed “influence” over the Taliban and offered to use that influence in India's favour. In the nearly two decades since the Taliban hosted the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar -- when external affairs minister Jaswant Singh went to Taliban territory to get the hostages released in return for two Pakistani terrorists – GoI has also developed lines to the Taliban. It is obvious that the Taliban holds the whip hand in the Afghan peace process. It is set on talking to the US – on its own terms – because the US is the occupation force to be sent packing. US General Austin Miller's narrow escape from the October 18 shooting, which killed Kandahar police chief General Abdul Raziq among others in a room, seems to have convinced the Americans that they can no longer continue their military occupation. This is underscored by the perception that the Taliban “allowed” General Miller to “escape” – to let the US know that they can pick their targets when they choose to. With the US bowing to the Taliban's terms, others, including India, cannot risk lagging behind. The Taliban's tough talk and a tougher line on talking terms is suspected to be based on the covert support of some powerful country. That apart, there is a growing perception, including in New Delhi, that the Taliban is involved in many behind-the-scene engagements; and, these are what enable it to call the shots. Thus, negotiating India's place in the peace process is as much a diplomatic and strategic minefield as Afghanistan was during the worst phase of America's war in that country. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What lies behind the Taliban's tough line

Ahead of a new round of peace talks with the US, Taliban has summoned its political envoys to Pakistan for an internal summit with its leaders in Pakistan.&nbsp;

The Taliban's key political leadership is in Pakistan for a conference even as the US is making fresh moves towards bringing the terror group to the negotiating table.

A six-member Taliban team landed in Pakistan on Monday evening on the directives of Taliban chief Haibatullah Akhunzada.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump yesterday wrote a letter to Imran Khan asking for help in Afghan peace talks.&nbsp;

Sources say the team from the Taliban's Doha office will hold consultations with Taliban leaders in the country ahead of a possible new round of talks with the US to initiate a peace process in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

The development comes even as a US diplomat heading America's peace moves with the terror group is in the country.&nbsp;

Zalmay Khalilzad, the chief US diplomat leading the peace process is in Pakistan as part of his eight-nation tour.&nbsp;

Khalilzad has already spoken to senior Taliban officials as he tries to bring them to the negotiating table.

The Taliban leaders' visit to Pakistan also comes close on the heels of Trump's letter to prime minister Imran Khan seeking his country's help to end the two-decade-long conflict in Afghanistan.

Trump has in the past berated the Pakistani leadership for failing the u.S. In Afghanistan. Last month, he slammed Islamabad, saying Pakistan had not done &nbsp;"a damn thing" for the US.&nbsp;

Ahead of a new round of peace talks with the US, Taliban has summoned its political envoys to Pakistan for an internal summit with its leaders in Pakistan. The Taliban's key political leadership is in Pakistan for a conference even as the US is making fresh moves towards bringing the terror group to the negotiating table.

Ahead of a new round of peace talks with the US, Taliban has summoned its political envoys to Pakistan for an internal summit with its leaders in Pakistan. The Taliban's key political leadership is in Pakistan for a conference even as the US is making fresh moves towards bringing the terror group to the negotiating table. A six-member Taliban team landed in Pakistan on Monday evening on the directives of Taliban chief Haibatullah Akhunzada. US President Donald Trump yesterday wrote a letter to Imran Khan asking for help in Afghan peace talks. Sources say the team from the Taliban's Doha office will hold consultations with Taliban leaders in the country ahead of a possible new round of talks with the US to initiate a peace process in Afghanistan. The development comes even as a US diplomat heading America's peace moves with the terror group is in the country. Zalmay Khalilzad, the chief US diplomat leading the peace process is in Pakistan as part of his eight-nation tour. Khalilzad has already spoken to senior Taliban officials as he tries to bring them to the negotiating table. The Taliban leaders' visit to Pakistan also comes close on the heels of Trump's letter to prime minister Imran Khan seeking his country's help to end the two-decade-long conflict in Afghanistan. Trump has in the past berated the Pakistani leadership for failing the u.S. In Afghanistan. Last month, he slammed Islamabad, saying Pakistan had not done "a damn thing" for the US.

Six-member Taliban team in Pakistan ahead of peace talks with US