RPT: ANALYSIS - US, Taliban May Sign Peace Deal On February 29 But Unlikely To Reach Afghan Settlement

MOSCOW (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 25th February, 2020) Afghanistan may be on the road to peace, as an agreement between the United States and Taliban that promises a week-long reduction in violence could be a significant precursor to a US-brokered peace deal that potentially will be signed on February 29, although the deal may not lead to any tangible results, experts told Sputnik.

Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo published a statement saying that Washington was ready to sign a peace deal with the Taliban this coming Saturday, should the militant group commit to a week-long reduction of violence.

While isolated incidents have taken place in rural regions, a Qatari source told Sputnik that the militant group's attacks had decreased by 80 percent since the agreement came into force. On the opposite side of the conflict, newly re-elected Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has called on his country to unite in order to finally bring peace to the country.

Afghanistan has been torn apart by conflict for four decades, and US President Donald Trump's administration is hopeful that a deal can be reached, not only to ensure peace, but also to allow Washington to withdraw troops from the country. This would not only reduce costs but give the president a major public relations victory in an election year.

US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation at the State Department Zalmay Khalilzad has led negotiations with the Taliban during a series of talks held in the Qatari capital of Doha. Negotiations broke down in September after an attack by the militant group killed a US soldier but resumed again in December.

Kanishkan Sathasivam, a professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science at Salem State University, told Sputnik that he expects any deal to be an extension of a temporary ceasefire.

"Yes I think the temporary ceasefire will get extended, and then eventually some sort of more long-term ceasefire will come into effect," Sathasivam stated.

These thoughts were shared by Arif Rafiq, a non-resident fellow at the middle East Institute and President of Vizier Consulting, who told Sputnik that both the United States and the Taliban have mutual interests in concluding a lasting peace deal.

"There is a significant probability that the initial reduction in violence test period will succeed and lead to the signing of a US-Taliban agreement... Both Washington and the Taliban are heavily invested in the success of this initial phase of the peace process," Rafiq stated.

However, while the US and Taliban may be able to agree to a deal, Rafiq was less certain that a binding deal would lead to a reduction in violence or negotiations between the Afghan government and the militant organization. The US leads talks with the Taliban due to the militant group's unwillingness to negotiate with the Afghan government.

"It's far less certain that the reduction in violence would continue beyond the initial phase or lead to an intra-Afghan dialogue," Rafiq stated.

On the other hand, Amalendu Misra, a senior lecturer in the Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion at Lancaster University, was much less optimistic about the prospects of a substantive agreement being reached.

"We are yet to see any substantial developments in the week-long talks. Perhaps both parties are trying a hard bargain and still negotiating. Given that we have not heard anything significant on that front, chances are that the negotiations are not very promising," Misra told Sputnik.

Ghani stated on Monday that he was committed to reaching peace in the country and that the government should play a leading role in negotiations, as it is the only institution that is responsive to, and supported by the nation. However, for that, intra-Afghan dialogue must resume.

The US military has operated in Afghanistan since 2001, and the recent push to reach a deal with the Taliban, Washington's long-time foes, could be influenced both by the ongoing cost of military operations, as well as the upcoming presidential election.

"It's the election year in America. President Trump would like a 'breakthrough deal' with the Taliban which he can sell to the electorate for his re-election. This thinking is not lost on the Taliban peace negotiators," Misra stated.

Anatol Lieven, a professor from Georgetown University school of Foreign Service in Qatar, told Sputnik that any deal brokered between Washington and the Taliban would include commitments to combat Islamic State (IS, terrorist group, banned in Russia), which would be in the US' interests.

"A US-Taliban agreement is quite possible and would include a Taliban commitment to fight IS, which they are already doing. The real problem is achieving an internal political settlement in Afghanistan," Lieven stated.

However, the Georgetown professor added that first and foremost, Washington's Primary goal is to withdraw from Afghanistan without losing face.

"Trump and most of the US establishment are anxious to get out of Afghanistan completely; if this can be achieved without Vietnam-style humiliation," Lieven stated.

This view was shared by Sathasivam, who stated that a permanent, binding deal with the Taliban will be vital in order for Trump to recall his troops from Afghanistan.

"A final, permanent deal with the Taliban is clearly the policy goal of the Trump administration, something that will allow groups other than the Taliban to continue to be involved in the country's politics, that protects the lives of people who have worked with or cooperated with both the elected Afghan governments and the international forces over the past 20 years, and that allows the US to leave on the claim that it is leaving because the mission is over and not because it is being forced out," the scholar stated.

Alternatively, Afghanistan may have lowered on the list of Washington's top priorities, meaning that the Trump administration wishes to move resources and manpower to combat what the US considers to be its most strategic threats, Sathasivam stated.

"I do very strongly believe the current US administration does want to withdraw from Afghanistan, because it sees Afghanistan as no longer being worth the diversion of troops, money, and policy attention relative to other much more strategically important issues/areas - most notably China but also to a lesser extent Iran and Russia," the professor at Salem State University said.

While Trump may want to leave Afghanistan, he may face pressure from the country's military and intelligence officers, who wish to maintain operations in the country, Rafiq stated.

"It's difficult to say whether the United States will fully withdraw from Afghanistan. The agreement with the Taliban provides a pathway for a conditions-based withdrawal. Should the peace process unravel, the withdrawal may pause or reverse. Also, US intelligence and military officials will continue to lobby for a residual counter-terrorism force," the Middle East Institute non-resident fellow said.

Trump has already managed to secure the US' withdrawal from the Syrian conflict. Now the president has turned his attention to disengaging from the country's longest-running military operation. Whether it be cost, or the desire for a big victory to bolster his re-election campaign, the success of this move will be dependent on the Afghan government and the Taliban's willingness to cooperate.

PROSPECTS FOR INTRA-AFGHAN DIALOGUE

Afghans went to the polls in September, but the result of the presidential election was not announced until February 19. Ghani was declared the winner after receiving 50.64 percent of the vote. The Taliban called the elections "fake," and stated that Ghani was the country's "unlawful" president.

Lancaster University's Amalendu Misra also highlighted a third contender in Afghanistan's power struggle, Abdullah Abdullah, who has decried the election result as fraudulent and who on Saturday appointed parallel provincial governors in a challenge to Ghani's presidency.

"Ashraf Ghani's presidency is crumbling already with contender Abdullah Abdullah's initiative for a breakaway parallel government. If the peace negotiations shall succeed in bringing back the Taliban from political isolation to the mainstream then that would spell doom for Ghani's presidency and his fast depleting legitimacy," Misra stated.

It also remains to be seen whether Ghani, despite his commitment to finding peace in the country, will be able to abide by any commitment to reduce violence in Afghanistan.

"Ghani's priority is to remain in power and he aims to use the intra-Afghan dialogue to retain a dominant role in the power structure and sideline his opponents. So we could have a scenario where the US-Taliban deal is signed but Ghani sabotages the intra-Afghan process and violence flares up again," Arif Rafiq stated.

Anatol Lieven was also pessimistic of the prospects of any resumption of intra-Afghan dialogue between the Ghani administration and the Taliban, citing that the president would lose the support of key allies if he were to engage with the militant group.

"It will be extremely difficult for any Afghan president to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban, partly because powerful pro-regime forces regard this as tantamount to suicide, and because the Kabul political elites are so bitterly divided that they would find it very hard to agree on anything," the professor said.

KABUL TO MOVE AWAY FROM WASHINGTON?

If a peace deal is brokered on February 29, eventually leading to the withdrawal of troops, Afghanistan would have the opportunity to realign itself in the international community. Without significant pressure from Washington, Kabul would be able to strike agreements with new partners, Salem State's Kanishkan Sathasivam said.

"As for the non-Taliban political leadership in Afghanistan, for example, Ghani, they will do exactly what the Syrian Kurds did when the US pulled out of Syria, which is to try and form new alliances with other players such as Russia, China, India, and possibly even Iran as a way of protecting themselves and their interests," the professor stated.

Afghanistan faces a turbulent week ahead. On Thursday, Ghani is scheduled to be inaugurated as the country's president during a ceremony at the presidential palace. At the same time, his leading rival, Abdullah Abdullah, will host a rival inauguration ceremony.

While the Taliban holds its commitment to prevent attacks in Afghanistan's major cities and centers, whether or not the militant group or the Afghan government can be trusted to keep to a ceasefire is yet to be seen.

On Saturday, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan reported that 3,403 civilians were killed as a result of violence in 2019, while a further 6,989 were injured, making it the sixth year in a row that the number of civilian casualties surpassed 10,000. If both parties cannot find a way to make peace work, it will be the Afghan people that suffer.