Implications of halting negotiations between Taliban, Washington

Nahla Abdelmonem

The scene in Afghanistan is still unstable, as the terrorist Taliban movement continues its violent attacks against US and Afghani targets in parallel with the return of negotiations with Washington.

These talks recently stopped following an armed escalation by the movement with an aim for more internal consultations and talks.

On December 15, Taliban declared responsibility for an attack in the western city of Herat, which killed three Afghan police officers.

Moreover, as Taliban sat for talks with the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, at the intra-Afghan talks in the Qatari capital of Doha, the group orchestrated a suicide bombing that targeted an under-construction medical facility near Bagram Air Base, the main American base north of the Afghan capital, the U.S. military said. Two civilians were killed and more than 70 people wounded.

Khalilzad had renewed talks with the Taliban earlier this month on steps that could lead to a ceasefire and a settlement of the 18-year-long war in Afghanistan.

“I met Talibs today, I expressed outrage about attack on Bagram,” Khalilzad wrote on Twitter, referring to the attack on Bagram air base.

“We’re taking a brief pause for them to consult their leadership on this essential topic,” he added.

Peace negotiations began earlier this year, though US President Donald Trump unexpectedly suspended talks in September citing an attack in Kabul.

And through the mutual statements between the parties concerned in this file, the main item was a complete cease-fire as a prerequisite for real negotiations between politicians, which has not been achieved so far.

Statements between the parties concerned in this file, the main condition was a complete cease-fire as a prerequisite for real negotiations, which has not been achieved so far.

Accordingly, the scene is likely to continue unchanged in conjunction with negotiations due to two parties, the first of which is the Taliban’s pressure point at the expense of American interests for greater political gain.

Researcher Ali Bakr told The Reference in an interview that military operations exchanged by the main parties in the negotiations are aimed at demonstrating power and control on the ground.

He also pointed out to Taliban’s actual authority on the ground and its control over lands, which allows them to continue to impose their conditions on the American and Afghan side as well, to achieve more of their ambitions for power.

Political science professor Nourhan Al-Sheikh told The Reference that Taliban have a lot of ideologies within the group, and the most hardline ones are the dominant majority.

Taliban has released a statement attributed to its leader, Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada, on the occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr. Akhundzada boasts that the Taliban’s “rightful jihad and resistance against the occupation is nearing the stage of success.”

“No one should expect us to pour cold water on the heated battlefronts of Jihad or forget our forty-year sacrifices before reaching our objectives,” Akhundzada added.

Al-Sheikh added, when talking about this hypothesis, it is important not to lose sight of what was agreed upon by the group in August 2019 in terms of not firing during Eid al-Adha as a pledge to keep the feast safe, which is what actually happened.