US envoy questions Afghan Taliban’s desire for peace
KABUL: US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad raised doubts on Thursday about the Taliban’s desire to end the 17-year war, after the militants refused to meet a Kabul-backed negotiating team.
While he was certain the Afghan government wanted to stop the conflict, Khalilzad told Ariana News that he questioned whether the Taliban were “genuinely seeking peace”.
“We have to wait and see their forthcoming steps,” he said, according to a translation of the interview provided by the US embassy in Kabul.
Khalilzad’s remarks to Afghan media following his latest face-to-face meeting with the Taliban echoed those expressed privately by some Western diplomats in the capital.
Saudi official hopeful talks held in UAE will yield ‘very positive’ results by the beginning of next year
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan also attended the talks in Abu Dhabi earlier this week, which the United Arab Emirates hailed as “positive for all parties concerned”.
But the Taliban would not meet a 12-person Afghan delegation, Khalilzad said, describing the decision as “wrong”.
“If the Taliban are really seeking peace, they have to sit with the Afghan government ultimately to reach an agreement on the future political settlement in Afghanistan,” he said.
However, the Saudi ambassador to Washington said that peace talks held in Abu Dhabi would yield “very positive results by the beginning of next year”.
Khalid bin Salman added on his Twitter account on Thursday that the talks were productive and would “help promote intra-Afghan dialogue towards ending the conflict”.
The Taliban have long refused to talk directly to the Afghan government, which they accuse of being a puppet of the United States.
In a message released on Tuesday the militants said they had held “preliminary talks” with Khalilzad on Monday. They also said they had held “extensive” meetings with officials from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, repeating demands for international forces to be withdrawn from Afghanistan.
Those three countries were the only ones to recognise the Taliban’s 1996-2001 regime.
While US President Donald Trump wanted to end the war, Khalilzad told Tolo News that Washington’s “main objective” was to ensure Afghanistan did not pose a threat to the US in the future.
While ruling out a “pre-9/11 situation” in Afghanistan, Khalilzad said he had told the Taliban that “if the menace of terrorism is tackled, the United States is not looking for a permanent military presence” in the country.
Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2018
Comments (32) Closed
I think world has the same question for US everywhere?
USA is a super power. Why is it talking to the rag tag Taliban? It should defeat them on ground instead of begging for talks.
US should leave Afghanistan and accept defeat. Let the Afghans decide theirfan future.
Peace talks have begun. That is good news. Talk on...
Gordon D. Walker
Canada
Peace will remain elusive in Afghanistan, as there are many infinite reasons.
One top Afghan national Jirga can resolve this issue of modality acceptable to all stakeholders...
The Taliban will never change their spots and we had better watch out.
Pakistan is a clear winner in all settlements. Allhamodllah
Afghan peace process will only be successful if India is involved.
US envoy questions Afghan Taliban’s desire for peace...it is not the internal peace that matters for Afghans ..but the peace with USA with their tems counts..and yet we talk about the sovereignty of a country to decide for themselves..Do Not Dictate a nation through Someone, it Ruins the nation's Experienc for themselves
Meeting of Taliban and three supporter countries with US. If US nudge the supporting countries, Taliban will talk to anybody.
Zalmay Khalilzad and his American friends have failed badly in Afghanistan. But I understand him being the Afghan-American diplomatic face. We also had such a diplomatic face in 1757 in the war of Plassey and his name was Mir Jaffar.
There are different factions of the Taliban, they are all split up.. MAKING peace deal with one faction does not mean you have made peace with all of them.. ..
You invade a country. Destroy not only the government there but everything under the sun. You are unable to get the population submit to the orders given by you to them adopting the most cruel methods in human history. Yet, even after almost two decades of fighting you beg them to come talk to you and still they do not want peace? What does that tell you? That they are not going to sit down to agree to your terms. They are in the commanding position and they can state their own terms and make you accept the same. Instead of beating about the bush, wouldn't it be better for you to accept the ground realities and get out of the region in safe and sound condition for your remaining troops? As it is you have created enough damage to the region for centuries to come.
These talks were fixed.
Such comments won't help in bringing about peace in Afghanistan.
@H, you are not aware of the facts.
All this is Drama. The Taliban USA and Afghan government are all on the same side from inside. They just don't want stability in this region.
@AM, "Afghan peace process will only be successful if India is involved." They can send their forces, who stopping them? They can go through Charbahar.
Has U.S. ever withdrawn completely and or relinquished unconditionally it's command and control of any country, area, piece of land, air and sea that it had militarily attacked, invaded, held and occupied since last hundred years? The answer to this simple and straight-forward question is a big NO. So on what moral, legal, social, cultural, religious and ethical grounds could the U.S. envoy question Afghan Talibans desire for peace in their home country of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan?
Oh sure, blame everyone else but Taliban. Does Taliban represent Afghan people? I think not.
Sometimes US speaks very naive......
The Taliban refuse to talk because talking to the Afghan government would not only formalize the US claim that they are mere insurgents (rather than the defenders of their homeland from foreign invasion) but also give legitimacy to the US backed corrupt Afghan govt. What kind of a person in their right mind having an iota of knowledge of international relations will give away that kind of claim.
The readers must concentrate on what Khalilzad conveniently omitted from his sentence in order to see the real pocture. Taliban wan't peace but they do not desire the kind of peace that relies on US terms and conditions, it has to be on Afgan terms.
He who has been among the architect of the policies resulting in present day Problems is the messenger to bring about peace in Afghanistan? Give me a break? There are many there, for good reasons, not to trust him. Nevertheless, it is in the long term interest of Afghanistan that the two sides compromise and bring about stable peace. Peace there will be highly desirable and in the interest of neighboring countries as well.
@Shah, well written.
@H, Us is not begging for talks. Look today when Trump even said that he will reduce US troops by half the entire coalition and Afghan govt is shivering.
@H, US has tried defeating Taliban for the last 17 years. They could not defeat them. There is saying if you can't beat your enemy then join them. That is where they are.
@Dr. Salaria, Aamir Ahmad, Just a case in point. Vietnam. Please read history to find out what happened to the American forces in Vietnam when the Viet Cong gorillas captured their entire country including Saigon, the capital of the then South Vietnam which is today known as Ho Chi Minh City after the Vietnamese great fighter and their liberator.
I have to agree with Mr. Khalilzad.
@AM,
You are still in denial. With America's exit India is as relevant in Afghanistan as Pakistan is in Assam.
I’m all for asking the question, but my question is, what is your strategy? Trump has no strategy, he simply is clueless in foreign policy and what implications it will have, the people of United States are stunned with his decision, like the rest of the world.