Peace Agreement Of Afghanistan

Key players such as Qatar, which is hosting the talks, and neighboring Pakistan, whose government and military have helped pressure the Taliban to bring them to the negotiating table, also welcomed the deal as a „milestone.“ Last week, capitals and international institutions pledged about $12 billion in aid to Afghanistan over a four-year period, but they were accompanied by an annual review of progress in key areas such as peace talks. Internal cohesion and perceived weaknesses in both the Afghan government and the Taliban will also play a role in implementing these agreements for all parties, including the United States. CPA recently published a contingency planning memorandum with the article „A Failed Afghan Peace Deal“ by Seth G. Jones, Harold Brown, President and Director of the Transnational Struggle Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Jones discusses the considerable obstacles that remain outstanding for a peace agreement in Afghanistan and outlines steps the United States can take to avoid the failure of the peace agreement in Afghanistan. But international and domestic observers of the Afghan peace process could not confirm that the Taliban had severed relations with al-Qaeda. According to a May 2020 United Nations report, the Taliban met with al-Qaeda several times in 2019 and early 2020 to coordinate „the Taliban`s operational planning, training, and provision of safe ports for al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan.“ Wednesday`s agreement sets the way forward for further talks, but it is seen as a breakthrough as it will allow negotiators to move on to more substantive issues, including ceasefire talks. Afghan government officials and the Taliban said they had reached a tentative agreement to advance peace talks, their first written agreement in 19 years of war.

Under the Trump administration, the agreement signed between the United States and the Taliban paved the way for inter-Sudanese peace talks in Doha between the Kabul government and the Taliban. These discussions in the Qatari capital, however, have not led to de facto progress since the launch on 12 September. Finally, after having preserved as a victory a signed agreement with the United States, the Taliban could extend negotiations to appease the United States – sacrificing their time, while the US military completes its withdrawal and allows the group to then strengthen its military campaign and try to overthrow the Afghan government. The Taliban`s recent escalation of violence raises questions not only about their ability to control isis members, but also about the Taliban`s commitment to the agreements they have signed. If the Taliban simply use participation in negotiations to appease outside actors or pursue other goals, peace could be jeopardized. Generally speaking, peace agreements have enforcement mechanisms that call on each party to be accountable for its commitments. This is not the case with the agreement between the United States and the Taliban. It contains no provision on what will happen if the Taliban break their promises, other than the U.S. halts its withdrawal. The Kataris, which are hosting the peace talks on Afghanistan, do not have the formal power to push the parties to comply. Such offers of assistance today – with all the right conditions – could also facilitate the reality that the US effectively referred to as a peace process a withdrawal plan when creating the February 2020 agreement.

It also clearly insulated the responsibility for their own fate on the Afghans – a reality with which they absolutely must live – in a way that offers at least a real element of hope.