The
Economist
Jul 4th
2020
Faiza Ibrahimi
is too young to remember when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan as a theocracy. She
can scarcely believe her parents’ stories about it. She is a radio presenter in
the western city of Herat. The idea that gun-toting zealots from the
countryside used to forbid women to leave home unless fully veiled and
accompanied by a male relative seems almost inconceivable: “My mother was
unable to work and find bread. I couldn’t imagine that time again.”
It was only
in 2001 that American forces toppled the Taliban regime, when the mullahs who
led the movement refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks.
But nearly two-thirds of the population is less than 25 years old, and so has
little or no memory of the Taliban’s rule. They are having to brush up on their
history, however, as they contemplate the prospect of the Taliban returning to
power in some form. The American troops that have propped up the Afghan
government and held the Taliban at bay for the past 19 years are on their way
out. Over the past four months the number of American soldiers in the country
has fallen by a third, from around 13,000 to 8,600. The administration of
President Donald Trump has pledged to reduce their strength still further, as
part of a deal it signed with the Taliban on February 29th. In exchange the
Taliban are supposed to cease providing shelter to foreign militants and—an
element of the peace plan that is proceeding much less smoothly—enter into
talks with the Afghan government.
“Intra-Afghan
talks”, in which the government, the Taliban, opposition politicians and
representatives of civil society were to discuss the country’s future, had been
due to start within days of the signing of the accord. But the process
immediately bogged down. First, the government and the Taliban bickered over a
prisoner exchange outlined in the deal. America had promised that the Afghan
government, which was not party to the agreement, would release “up to” 5,000
Taliban prisoners as a gesture of goodwill. The Taliban, in return, were to
free 1,000 policemen and soldiers it held captive. Ashraf Ghani, the president,
said 5,000 was too many, but the Taliban were adamant. Months passed.
Another
sticking point has been the Taliban’s continuing attacks on soldiers and
civilians. Although the insurgents observed something close to a ceasefire in
late February, to pave the way for the signing of the deal, they reverted to
their old ways soon afterwards. The government says they carried out 422
attacks in a single week in June. This breaks a promise to reduce violence, the
American and Afghan authorities say. But if the Taliban made such a pledge, it
was only in private: the text of the deal did not spell out any truce.
The Taliban
did at least cut back on attacks during the Eid holiday in late May. That seems
to have spurred Mr Ghani to release most of the required prisoners, even though
violence subsequently increased again. There is lingering disagreement, too,
over 200-odd people the Taliban want freed, some of whom are accused of
terrible atrocities. Nonetheless, diplomats believe the way may at last be
clear for talks to begin within weeks, probably back in Qatar, where the
original accord was signed.
These
discussions, should they go ahead, will give Afghans a glimpse of how much the
Taliban have changed their spots since the 1990s. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they
have not been clear what they want for the country, beyond the departure of
American troops. Their statements speak vaguely of Islamic government. When
asked whether their attitudes to women have changed, they say only that women’s
rights will be protected in accordance with Islamic teachings. Although they claim
no longer to oppose girls going to school, for instance, girls do not seem to
be allowed to remain in education past puberty in the rural areas controlled by
the Taliban, according to a report published this week by Human Rights Watch, a
pressure group.
Some
Afghans believe that the Taliban’s refusal to elaborate on their stances is a
sign that they are not serious about negotiations, and plan to attempt to seize
power by force once the Americans are gone. Others assume that divisions within
the organisation make it hard to stake out clear positions. Although the talks
with America suggested an element of pragmatism, the Taliban still insisted on
referring to themselves as leading an “Islamic emirate”, just as they did when
they ruled the country in the 1990s. “If this thing moves forward, the day’s
going to come where they can’t just say, ‘We will settle that later’,” says
Andrew Watkins of International Crisis Group.
The
government, for its part, has said it wants to preserve “a sovereign,
democratic and united republic”. It will definitely resist the re-creation of a
doctrinaire Islamist regime. In a speech by video-link to an American
think-tank on June 24th Abdullah Abdullah, in effect the government’s chief
negotiator, said, “We cannot achieve peace with sacrificing the basic and
fundamental rights of our people.” He has said he will include women in his
negotiating team. But he also concedes that the government will have to
compromise to win the Taliban over—without specifying how.
Yet more
uncertainty surrounds America’s part in Afghanistan’s future. The only element
of the peace plan going according to schedule is the withdrawal of American
forces. “It is not the duty of us troops to solve ancient conflicts in far away
lands that many people have never heard of,” Mr Trump told cadets at the us
Military Academy at West Point on June 13th. Claims that Russia paid a bounty
to the Taliban for every American soldier they killed are causing him
embarrassment (see article). Joe Biden, his rival in November’s election, has
long been sceptical about state-building in Afghanistan. How forcefully either
man would push to preserve Afghan democracy is unclear. Many doubt that either
would send troops back in should the Taliban come close to toppling the elected
government.
Covid-19
has made all these questions more fraught. The disease is said to be barrelling
through the Afghan security services. The American troops who remain in
Afghanistan are providing less training to the Afghan army in part to avoid
catching it from their Afghan comrades. Attempts to contain the spread of the
virus have also hit the already sputtering Afghan economy. Nation-building,
under any government, is looking harder than ever.
Afghans
like Miss Ibrahimi anxiously await the start of talks. She wants to remain
working in Afghanistan to justify her parents’ sacrifices. But she doubts that
the gun-toting zealots her mother told her about have changed much. “If the
Taliban come with that ideology that they had before 2001, then it won’t be a change
for peace, or better security or a better country,” she says grimly.
Original
Headline: America is rapidly pulling troops from Afghanistan
Source: The Economist
URL: https://newageislam.com/war-terror/the-future-ofafghanistan,-america-leaving/d/122283
New
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African
Muslim News, Arab
World News, South
Asia News, Indian
Muslim News, World
Muslim News, Women
in Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab
Women, Women
In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam
Women and Feminism