The end (?) of the Afghanistan War II

Polemizando…

I commented in the article End (?) War in Afghanistan, in day 14/04, American President Joe Biden's decision that American troops permanently abandon Afghanistan. According to the White House announcement, the last contingents, of 2,5 thousand soldiers, leave the country until the day 11 of September, symbolic date, by the way, when the 20th anniversary of the invasion ordered by George W is celebrated. Bush.

This decision reflects the intense and sometimes dramatic negotiations that took place in Doha, in Qatar, between American officials and Taliban representatives, witnessed by representatives of some countries in the region, but without the presence of envoys from the government of Kabul, which culminated in the signing of an agreement aimed at the gradual withdrawal of American troops and other NATO members within thirteen months. It fits, as a matter of fact, remember that this initiative came from Donald Trump, in for the reelection dispute. NATO countries have decided to follow Washington's decision and also withdraw forces from the “Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan” by 1 May, with plan to complete the task in a few months.

Or Indo-American analyst Fareed Zakaria, in an article published in the “Washington Post”, that the state of the day 02 /05 reverberates, titled “Islamic Terrorism Has Disappeared”, states that “the initial diagnosis is clear: the radical movement is in bad shape”. According to him “Islamic terrorism today tends to be local – the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Boko Haram group in Nigeria, the Al Shabah in the Horn of Africa. It's a big reversal of al Qaeda's glory days, when their leaders insisted that the focus should be not on the “near enemy” (the local regimes), but in the “distant enemy (the United States and the West in a broader sense).” Continuing, Zakharia says that “al Qaeda has broken up into a group of militias operating in the most diverse places , without any central command or common ideology".

“Wishful thinking?”

Let's see. The President of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, who was not invited to the Doha meeting – and reacted forcefully to the agreements reached – published an article in the latest issue of “Foreign Affairs”, intitulado “Afghanistan´s Moment of Risk and Opportunity”, in which you make some considerations about what the departure of Western troops could mean for your country (e, by extension, to the surroundings). He begins by stating that “the Afghan government respects the decision and sees it as an opportunity and a risk for itself, for the afghans, for the Taliban and for the region", as it represents an inflection point (“a turning point”) for your country and the neighborhood.

He goes further and points out that "his government remains ready to continue negotiations with the Taliban". And he adds that "if this could mean the guarantee of peace, I'm willing to finish my term early", in a kind of compromise with the opponents, who do not recognize their government. Ghani adds that the withdrawal of foreign troops “represents an opportunity for the Afghan people to achieve their true sovereignty., which has been denied him in the past 20 years in which forty different countries sent security forces to Afghanistan”.

Ghani afirma, in addition, that from the withdrawal of Western troops, all decisions on military approaches to extremist groups will be made by your government. (that the Taliban leadership does not recognize), since “the Taliban's justification for war — armed resistance against a foreign power — will no longer apply”. And it warns that in order to bring national life into line, "the Taliban must answer critical questions about their vision for Afghanistan": “they will accept new elections and commit themselves to defending the rights of all Afghans, including girls, women and minorities… since “the Taliban remains more interested in power than in peace ?" For him, “a political agreement and the integration of the sectarian group into society and their participation in government is the only way forward… but "the ball is in their court", added.

The search for an understanding will face difficult questions, such as - what if – the Taliban would end their relationship with neighboring Pakistan, that gives them logistical support, financial and recruits radical “mujahiddens” in the name of the Sunni faith. These talks should also address the Taliban's current connections with al Qaeda, just as it is crucial that both – government and taliban – agree on an approach against the common opponent, the islamic state (or ISIS), in addition to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, This agreement obtains the guarantee of support from other countries in the region and from international organizations.

Easy?

The best solution to this tangle of dilemmas lies in what the Afghan president himself mentions in his text: the Loya Jirga meeting, the assembly of tribal and clan leaders, the most traditional – it's unique, in my view – a way to build consensus among all. It's what he prescribes: “once the Afghan government and the Taliban have reached a settlement, the Afghan people would need to publicly endorse it through our country’s highest form of national consensus building: a loya jirga, a grand meeting of male and female community leaders from every province”.

Ancestrally this has been the way to harmonize coexistence on Afghan soil, since the country “Afghanistan” – an ancestral multiethnic and mostly tribal society – is an invention of European colonialism. The population is made up of numerous ethnolinguistic groups: Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimaq, Turcomen, Baloch, Pashai, Nuristani, Gujjar, Arab, Brahui, Qizilbash, Pamiri, Kyrgyz, Sadat, etc., all ancestrally jealous of their roots and their independence. In this scenario, the only way to manage the territory is through this basic concept of democracy: the common agreement built within an assembly of leaders.

Basic…but that the Westerners who invaded Afghanistan after the Twin Towers catastrophe, in 2001, never understood, and imposed a “western style” presidential regime, through an agent, Hamid Karzai, who never ruled the country, indeed. Polemizando, even from my own experience, I don't see any future for a country as strategic as Afghanistan (just consult the map), if the neighborhood - and others – do not stop interfering in your political life.. Let's not forget that Afghan territory was a “buffer” between the Russian and British empires in the 19th century, disastrous period that history has consecrated as the "Great Game" (the “Great Game”). As far from us as this may seem, the consequences are pernicious and worldwide, as the inability the world reveals to bend the various aspects of terrorism attests.

Like this, the question that doesn't want to be silent is: would Zakaria be right, or is your claim that “Islamic terrorism has disappeared” is not a central West perception to pulverize the answer – and its responsibility – for a "thorny" equation that cannot solve? The nineteenth/twentieth century insists on not ending…

To be continued…

Fausto Godoy

Doctor of Public International Law in Paris. He entered the diplomatic career in 1976, served in Brussels embassies, Buenos Aires, New Delhi, Washington, Beijing, Tokyo, Islamabade (where he was Ambassador of Brazil, in 2004). He also completed transitional missions in Vietnam and Taiwan. Lived 15 years in Asia, where he guided his career, considering that the continent would be the most important of the century 21 - forecast that, now, sees closer and closer to reality.