Despite controversy of its clauses, Taliban announces reaching a final agreement with Washington

Nahla Abdel Moneim

After long rounds of talks, the Afghan “Taliban” movement announced its agreement with Washington on a final formula for items it decided to sign in initials on February 29, 2020, stressing that the agreement would pave the way for peace and prosperity building in Afghanistan.

The militant movement, through the spokesperson of its political office, Suhail Shaheen, thanked the Emirate of Qatar for what it described as its “political and logistical efforts” in facilitating the agreement, and its hosting of the political bureau and past discussion rounds.

Important points for each party

What remains important in the agreement is the nature of its provisions, and the obligations that both parties were satisfied with in light of the political reality in the country. For its part, the movement indicated in its statement issued on February 23, 2020, entitled “The end of the occupation .. the key to peace” that the agreement included the departure of foreign forces from the country in order to guarantee full independence for it, while not using the Afghan borders to threaten any of the international parties.

However, the US administration did not release any official statements about the terms of the agreement or even the timing of its signing, but was only concerned with reducing violence, according to peace envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on their pages on the social networking site Twitter as they indicated reducing the frequency of violence in the country until the completion of what was agreed upon.

Breaking armistice

It is worth noting that what Washington cared about and seems to be agreed upon between the two parties, which is the duration of reducing violence from February 21, 2020 until the expected day, February 29, was not complete, as the movement entered, on Saturday, February 22, after only one day, in violent clashes with Afghan forces, declaring targeting security personnel in the Ba’in Kent area of ​​central Serpel State, which resulted in 17 deaths and injuries.

The United States has not commented on breaching the established relative truce, while giving indications about the stability of the intentions and the methods used.

The American and Afghan side have always called for an end to the violence on the Taliban side as a prerequisite for negotiation, which was rejected by the movement and is still violating it, as the movement has always adhered to a complete withdrawal it did not comment on.

Serious questions

The vague announcement plan for a consensus between the two parties, and the nearness of signing an unknown treaty, raises many doubts and questions, most notably: Why did the agreement, signature and items not be announced on the same day as is customary, that is, why did the movement choose to announce the day of the future signing without the joint declaration of the terms and rules?

Also, the points that the movement spoke about in its statement seemed loose and raised reservations when discussed before, such as the complete withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, and here emerged several problems from them, who is withdrawn specifically? Is it only Washington or all the existing NATO military forces, and who will maintain security in the event of a withdrawal?

Besides, preventing the use of Afghan lands to threaten the interests of states includes theses regarding the terrorist status of al-Qaeda in the country, and the future of the relationship between the two parties. The Taliban movement has always embraced the Al-Qaeda organization and cooperated on operations.

Nourhan El-Sheikh, a professor of political science at Cairo University, said in a statement to the Reference that until this moment, there was no official comment from the American government to clarify the true provisions of the agreement.

With regard to the exit of foreign forces from Afghanistan, el-Sheikh considers that it is the primary demand of the “Taliban”, and it is natural that you refer to it to highlight its superiority in negotiation, but it seems that the final agreement has not yet been completed, and its provisions have not been specifically formulated.