Policy Alert #214 | September 30, 2020

Peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government resumed in the second week of September, signaling the next iteration of complex negotiations against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic. Since assuming office, President Donald Trump has been vocal about his commitment to pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Doha to launch the latest talks. If successful, all American military personnel will leave Afghanistan by spring of 2021.

Challenges to a successful outcome is manifold: turmoil of Afghan domestic politics, intrusion from the broader region, and the inconsistent foreign policy of the United States on Afghanistan. Prior attempts to negotiate a roadmap to peace in Afghanistan include a series of meetings between China, the United States, and Russia in 2019, in which the major world powers notably convened without involving Afghanistan itself.

This year, more attempts were initiated for the peace process, which include the plan signed by the United States and Afghanistan on March 1st, stipulating an immediate cease-fire and a commitment by the Taliban that Afghanistan would not serve as a base for terrorist activities against the United States. Further talks for peace were scheduled to begin on March 10 but were paused over the issue of prisoner exchange. As talks subsequently resumed, however, Afghan Senior Vice President Amrullah Saleh was targeted in a convey bombing in Kabul, presumed to be by the Taliban.

With the consistent level of violence in Afghanistan, there is concern that President Trump’s plan to withdraw American troops will add to the region’s instability. Failure of any agreement brokered by the United States leaves room for other rising powers such as China and Russia to influence future negotiations and outcomes even if the process is now ostensibly intra-Afghan. In this RPI Policy Alert, we ask how the Rising Powers are reacting to the on again, off again peace talks on Afghanistan and how they view their interests being served.

China

China consistently supports the peace progress while expressing a clear interest in the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region. After the signing of a peace deal between the U.S. and Taliban in February, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian stated: “China welcomes the signing of this agreement between the US and Taliban, which we believe will play a positive role in promoting a political settlement of the Afghan issue. China firmly supports a broad and inclusive peace and reconciliation process that is “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned”… Foreign troops should withdraw in an orderly and responsible way so that the situation in Afghanistan will experience a steady transition with no security vacuum for terrorist forces to seize upon and expand themselves.”

Following the announcement of intra-Afghan peace talks in September, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin welcomed the progress emphasizing that the progress is Afghan-led: “Both parties of the intra-Afghan negotiations are brothers. After all these years of twists and turns, they finally came to the negotiating table and opened a new chapter in the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan … China always respects the independent choice of the Afghan people, firmly supports the “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned” peace and reconciliation process, and will continue to be a supporter, mediator and facilitator of the process as always.”

• A commentary article from the independent Hong Kong based South China Morning Post suggests that the peace progress in Afghanistan is important for China for two main reasons First, peace in Afghanistan is crucial for the stability of China’s neighboring Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Second, the level of violence seriously affects the outlook of China’s Belt and Road Initiative in the region. In the article, Andrew Small, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, questions China’s ability to generate a large impact on the peace progress: “China is treading carefully in its Afghan diplomacy, and although it has been willing to act as a host, it has neither the capacity nor the will to act as an active mediator for intra- Afghan talks.”

India

India has elevated its engagements in the peace process. In June 2020, India’s Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs Anurag Srivastava expressed concern about terrorism in Afghanistan, as well as the connections between terrorists and Pakistan: “We note with serious concern reference in the Report to the continued presence of the senior leadership of the UN designated terrorist organization Al Qaida and its affiliates in Afghanistan; as well as a large number of foreign terrorist fighters, including up to 6500 Pakistan nationals, operating in Afghanistan. Besides, UN designated entities like Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Jaish-i-Mohammed, operating from Pakistan controlled territories facilitating trafficking and imparting training to other terrorists in Afghanistan.”

During the intra-Afghan peace talks in September, India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar participated via videoconference, while an official delegation led by Joint Secretary J. P. Singh represented India in person, which marks the first time India participated in an official gathering involving the Taliban. Following the event, Minister Jaishankar tweeted five goals of the peace process: (1) be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan- controlled, (2) respect national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanista, (3) Promote human rights and democracy, (4) ensure interest of minorities, women and the vulnerable, and (5) effectively address violence across the country.

A press release from India’s Ministry of External Affairs highlights India’s support to the economic development projects in Afghanistan and expresses support to the progress of intra-Afghan peace talks: “India’s policy on Afghanistan had been consistent. India believes any peace process must be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled, has to respect the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan and preserve the progress made in the establishment of a democratic Islamic Republic in Afghanistan.”

• An editorial from the center-right Times of India argues that India should reach out to and work with the Taliban: “India enjoys huge goodwill among the Afghan people because of its development works in Afghanistan. Plus, Taliban isn’t exactly a monolith with multiple Pashtun tribes and factions. In fact, many within Taliban have been wary of Pakistan and make common cause with Pakistani Pashtuns in opposing Islamabad’s oppressive policies. Also, an Afghan peace deal would see Pakistan lose its leverage with the US, which India can capitalize on to realign geopolitical interests.”
• In an op-ed the left-leaning The Hindu, D. Suba Chandran, Professor and Dean of the School of Conflict and Security Studies at the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bengaluru, suggests that the differences between the three main actors in the peace talks – the Afghan government, the Taliban, and the United State – are likely to pose serious challenges to the progress of the negotiations: “If the road from Kabul to Doha was tough, the return would be even tougher and more complicated. It is also possible that the Doha-Kabul journey could be a road to nowhere.”

Russia

While Russia has publicly supported the peace talks and noted it is in the interest of all parties to resolve the conflict, in a February press conference, the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson warned about the credibility of the United States: “One cannot rely on Washington’s statements of intentions. This is pointless and inexpedient. All US statements on troop withdrawals were changed in short- or medium-term perspective as regards the numbers of withdrawn troops, dates of withdrawal or the fact of withdrawal as such. This is why it is useless to rely on such statements. The United States has a national tradition – to change its statements all the time.”

• An article from the independent, Dutch-based The Moscow Times shows that Russia wishes to have an increasing role in the peace talks: “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.”
• An article from the state-owned Sputnik News highlights India’s involvement in the peace talks, which demonstrates the rising geopolitical competition between China and India in the region: “In an attempt to counter India’s growing interest, the Imran Khan-government has aimed to enhance its trade outreach to Central Asia with the help of the extension of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan.”

Japan

To support the peace talks, Japan has offered cultural grant assistance to Afghanistan to help repair landmark sites damaged by Taliban violence. In February 2020, Japanese Ambassador to Afghanistan Suzuka Mitsuji and UNESCO Representative to Afghanistan Jordan Naidoo signed documents promising Japan’s donation of 423 million yen to repair the giant Buddha statues of Bamiyan Valley that were damaged in a 2001 bombing.

• An editorial from the center-right The Japan Times warns about the security consequences of U.S. troops pulling out of Afghanistan and suggests that Japan could play a larger role in the peace process if necessary: “Tokyo’s involvement will intensify if news reports are correct and the Taliban expects Japan, and other Asian and European governments, to guarantee implementation of any peace agreement between the group and the United States. That could ensnare this country in a deeply unstable situation. Japan should be ready to assume that risk, but it must be aware of the dangers from the outset.”

 

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.