[Once again, we see the Brit press pushing their "Taliban split" ploy (SEE: Dissecting the Anti-Pakistan Psyop), trying to push Obama into doing something very stupid in the name of seeking to end the war. The joke is on them--Obama doesn't really want to end the war and the British plans are throwing a wrench into the works. Over and over in this war, we see the truth that the Americans and the British are following two opposite plans.]
Taliban peace talks ‘at risk’ as Obama stalls on Guantánamo
Europeans fear US failing to appreciate ‘game-changing’ offer could prompt Afghan ceasefire ‘as early as 2012′
-
Julian Borger, diplomatic editor
- guardian.co.uk,
The Obama administration is in danger of missing an historic opportunity for a peace settlement in Afghanistan if it does not act quickly to release prisoners in response to a Taliban offer to open talks, European officials and observers claim.
The Taliban announced on 3 January that it had agreed to open a political office in Qatar for the purpose of holding peace talks with the international community, and said it expected the release of its officials being held at Guantánamo Bay. At the time, White House officials said the administration was considering the transfer of five Taliban officials to custody in another country, widely believed to be Qatar.
But with still no movement on the prisoner transfers European officials involved in the talks are urging Washington to act quickly to keep the momentum going towards talks before hardline spoilers on all sides can stall proceedings.
“We think Washington can rely on the Qatar authorities as far as this is concerned. We know there is a political risk involved in the middle of [US presidential] elections, but we also believe the earlier they do this, the less the political risk, because by November it will be in the distant past,” a senior European official said.
Several diplomats stressed that the Taliban offer to enter talks was an historic step, representing a dramatic change in policy, and that for the first time since the war began all the parties were lined up behind official support for negotiations, but that such alignment might not last very long. Some speculated that the Obama administration had been rattled by Republican attacks on the president’s national security credentials. What was needed now, one diplomat said, was “political courage”.
Michael Semple, a former EU envoy to Afghanistan who is in close touch with senior Taliban members, said: “It’s an open question whether the Americans appreciate how momentous a step this was for the Taliban. It is serious and it is profound. It’s completely game-changing.”
“It is US policy to engage. But the people you’ve asked to engage are risking their lives and they need help and they need credibility with their own people. If you invite everybody to the party and don’t show up yourselves, my God you look stupid.”
Semple added that if both sides promptly implemented confidence-building measures like prisoner transfers, “it is realistic to think there could be a ceasefire in 2012″.
“Do they [the Obama administration] realise that they could actually stop the fighting in Afghanistan this year?” he asked.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Administration officials have previously pointed to the constraints of the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA), when it came to prisoner releases. Under the act, passed by Congress in December, transfers from Guantánamo are banned unless the defence secretary certifies that those let out of the detention camp will not commit acts of terrorism or rejoin the fight.
.
Other European officials are not as confident as Semple that the talks could lead to a cessation of hostilities, pointing to wide differences between the parties. The Taliban insists on the complete removal of foreign troops, while the US and the Kabul government are negotiating a “strategic partnership” agreement which would establish long-term US bases in Afghanistan. Kabul and its western backers also insist that Afghanistan’s present constitution, including women’s rights, should be accepted as part of the agreement, while the Taliban argues some of the constitution conflicts with Islam.
Some European officials also believe that the Taliban might view the Qatar office as a form of diplomatic recognition as a government in exile, which is not the intention of the initiative from the point of view of western capitals and Taliban. The Taliban are also insisting they will not negotiate will the government of Hamid Karzai, while the US and its allies maintain that the peace process must be “Afghan-led”.
European capitals argued that such gaps can be finessed or fudged in the early stages of talks at least, and are urging Washington to call the Taliban’s bluff and respond to its overture, if only to demonstrate that the west is exploring every avenue to a peaceful settlement.
A former member of the US administration who was involved in the preliminary talks said that since the death last year of the former American envoy, Richard Holbrooke, the logjam created by the competing views of the state department, Pentagon and CIA had got worse, making it harder for Washington to react quickly to events.
“Since Holbrooke died, we don’t have anyone managing the relationship with Pakistan for example,” the former official said. “We no longer have an overall strategist.”
