WASHINGTON, Mar 1: American lawmakers have described the landmark US-Taliban peace deal as a step in the right direction to bring peace in war-torn Afghanistan, but expressed skepticism over the Afghan militant group adhering to its commitment.
The deal signed by Special US Representative Zalmay Khalilzad and Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Baradar in the presence of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Doha Saturday facilitates intra-Afghan dialogue in Oslo this month and the withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan in 14 months.
“I am very suspect of the Taliban ever accepting the Afghan Constitution and honouring the rights of religious minorities and women. Time will tell if reconciliation in Afghanistan can be accomplished with honour and security, but after more than 18 years of war, it is time to try,” Senator Lindsey Graham said.
“I will support any reasonable effort to negotiate an end to the war in Afghanistan… However, any peace agreement must be sustainable, honourable and include protections for the American homeland against international terrorist organisations that are alive and well in Afghanistan,” Graham said.
Noting that a reduction of US forces to around 8,600 is warranted, given the current situation on the ground, Graham said that any further reductions, however, must be conditions-based and assume that the capabilities of the Afghan security forces are sufficient to protect the Afghan people, the American homeland, and allies.
Graham also said that one should not forget that Afghanistan is the place where the planning and execution of the 9/11 began. The Taliban provided safe haven to al-Qaeda, paving the way for the deadly 9/11 attacks in 2001.
Congressman Michael McCaul, lead Republican of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said moving forward, a constructive dialogue between the Taliban, the Afghan government and other representatives from the Afghan society, including women, will be an important test for the viability of this significant effort for a lasting peace.
“The US will be working hand-in-hand with the international community during the next phase of this process. Ultimately, the success of this quest for peace depends on the Taliban upholding their commitments,” McCaul said.
“While I hope the Taliban live up to their end of the agreement, including cutting ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, I have serious reservations that they can act as legitimate partners,” McCaul said.
Congressman Markwayne Mullin said that now it’s up to the Afghan people to take control of their country and ensure it’s not a safe haven for terrorists.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the deal to set the stage for dialogue between the Taliban and the Afghan government is a step in the right direction.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith said this agreement marks a beginning, not an end. There is still much work to be done to ensure safety and stability in Afghanistan and the region, particularly through continued investments by the State Department and USAID, he said.
“While I support a potential drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan, any reduction must be carefully executed to ensure stability in the region,” Smith.
Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said the announcement of the deal is a positive step, but the Taliban must prove to the world they are ready for peace.
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton said that signing the deal with the Taliban is an unacceptable risk to America’s civilian population.
“This is an Obama-style deal. Legitimizing Taliban sends the wrong signal to ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists, and to America’s enemies generally,” he said.
As welcome as peace in Afghanistan would be, it is hard to believe it is at hand, said Richard Haas, who heads the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank.
“I see no mention of Taliban disarmament or closing its Pakistan sanctuary. The risk is the US removes capabilities in the long-shot hope the Taliban will change its ways,” he said.
Vikram J Singh, who was Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the State Department until 2011, said lasting peace in Afghanistan is more possible today than at any time since the Bonn agreement set up a government that excluded the Taliban in 2002.
“Afghans have seen peace talks over decades, always followed by a return to war. So everyone should be clear-eyed: there is a long road ahead,” he said.
“It’s way too early to tell, but lasting peace is more possible today than at anytime since the Bonn agreement set up a government that excluded the Taliban in 2002,” said Singh.
“The risk of failure is still high. We have to hope they (Afghans) can come together and build a new political order that holds the country together and avoids civil war,” Singh said.
Responding to a question, Singh said Pakistan finally got out of the way and ensured the Taliban could engage in these talks.
“Pakistan retains the ability to either support or undermine any future deal, and Islamabad will be sure its interests are represented in any talks through Taliban negotiators. We have to hope that Pakistan’s leaders are satisfied by having Taliban members included in an new, independent and sovereign Afghanistan,” he noted.
India, Singh observed, has long been skeptical that any deal with the Taliban would be worth the paper on which it was written.
“The Taliban, after all, remain a reactionary and extreme Islamist movement. India can be a strong voice now for the Afghan government and all Afghans who want a modern state with equal rights for all citizens,” he said.
“As with all insurgencies, all the Taliban really needed was to not lose. With Pakistan’s sanctuary, economic support from the Gulf, and local support in their communities, the Taliban showed they could hold on indefinitely. Indian leaders recognize this, and they know that even though Americans and Afghans welcome peace, they all feel this a bittersweet way toward ending this war,” Singh said.
Pakistan’s former envoy to the US Husain Haqqani said the US-Taliban pact is not a peace deal, but it is about withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.
“It will most likely prove to be similar to the Paris Peace Accords over Vietnam signed in 1973. That agreement facilitated US withdrawal but did not stop the Viet Cong and North Vietnam from marching into Saigon two years later,” said Haqqani. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
