By Ashok B Sharma
The US attempt to hammer a peace deal with the Taliban has proved to be a non-starter as far as to bring peace and stability in the war ravaged Afghanistan. The deal with Taliban has no meaning unless a similar bipartite agreement is signed between the militant organization and the Afghan government. The drama in Doha just followed US President’s visit to India. President Donald Trump is under compulsion in his election year. He wants to show to the American electorate that he can broker a peace in Afghanistan and at the same time can contain Beijing’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
The American electorate is very much concerned over 18-year involvement in Afghanistan. Trump had promised to bring the presence of US troops in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 8,000 in 14 months if Taliban can ensure peace. But this was not to be. Before the deal was struck in Doha, peace prevailed the US Administration was eager to bring Taliban to the negotiating table. Just few days after the deal was signed Taliban mounted attack on Afghan forces killing 20 of them. In retaliation the US conducted an airstrike on March 4 against Taliban fighters in Nahr-e Saraj, Helmand, who were actively attacking an ANDSF checkpoint. The dream of a peace process was shattered.
The US game plan was to reduce its presence in Afghanistan which would help to concentrate in containing China and Russia elsewhere. This is clear from the statement of US Defence Secretary Mark Esper. At the signing ceremony in Doha, diplomats from India, Pakistan, US and other member countries of UN were present. Indian Ambassador to Qatar P Kumaran was present on the occasion. Knowing the precarious situation New Delhi gave a guarded reaction “India’s consistent policy is to support all opportunities that can bring peace, security and stability in Afghanistan; end violence; cut ties with international terrorism; and lead to a lasting political settlement through an Afghan led, Afghan owned and Afghan controlled process.
As a contiguous neighbour, India will continue to extend all support to the Government and people of Afghanistan in realising their aspirations for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future where the interest of all sections of Afghan society are protected.
We note that the entire political spectrum in Afghanistan, including the government, the democratic polity and civil society, has welcomed the opportunity and hope for peace and stability generated by these agreements.”
The Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, However, in a statement said, “Pakistan had fulfilled its part of the responsibility in terms of facilitating this peace agreement. Pakistan will continue to support a peaceful, stable, united, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan, at peace with itself and with its neighbours”. However, Qureshi warned US about “spoilers” who may derail the deal. One of the conditions is the release of more than 5,000 Afghan Taliban prisoners in government custody that has already created a potential obstacle to peace, with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani ruling out the move.
The Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, at a press conference in Kabul said, “All the materials of the … deal are based on condition, it depend on the Taliban’s commitment to the peace deal. “There are several points in the deal needs consideration which can be discussed in the talks with the Taliban. Our negotiating team, under the framework of the Afghan government, will be inclusive.”
New Delhi’s concern over peace and stability in Afghanistan is evident from the export of terrorism it is experiencing from neighbouring Pakistan. It is wary that US is seeking Pakistan’s help to bring peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a known abettor of terrorism and continues to remain in the grey list of FATF.
Donald Trump during his visit to India pledged to cooperate in counter-terrorism and jointly fight against violent extremism drug trafficking, crimes in cyberspace and human trafficking. The US has come closer to India by black listing some terror groups operating from the soil of Pakistan and by raising its voice in the UN to impose sanctions against them. But for how long can US afford to do this? It has to depend upon Pakistan in resolving issues with Taliban. Hence it is unable to fully assert upon Pakistan to stop export of terror to India. This still remains an unresolved issue.
Knowing well that a strong and capable Indian military can support peace, stability, and a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific, Donald Trump reaffirmed his pledge to support the transfer advanced US military technology to India. New Delhi has decided to procure MH-60R naval and AH-64E Apache helicopters. President Trump also reaffirmed India’s status as a Major Defence Partner affording it the highest consideration for procurement and technology transfer purposes. An early conclusion of defence cooperation enabling agreements including Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement is expected.
US has interests in seeking India’s help in containing growing Chinese influence in Indo-Pacific and is one of the main reason for elevating the relationship between the two countries to the level of Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership.
Another aspect is that Trump is concerned over the $24 billion trade deficit that US has with India. US exports to India has recently gone up by 60 per cent. A new India-US trade agreement is yet to be finalised. But the $3 billion defence deal will lessen the trade deficit to an extent. Also the trade and investment in hydrocarbons will help to meet India’s consumption needs and bridge the trade deficit gap.
The fact remains that India can be a more reliable partner from US in containing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific – a win-win situation for both. Trump’s attempt to broker peace in Afghanistan has hit the road block. India may get US support in global fora in matters of countering terrorism, but Washington may not be able to prevail upon Pakistan to stop export of terrorism as long as it depends upon Islamabad to resolve the Taliban issue in Afghanistan. (IPA Service)
Modi-Shah Differences On Delhi Riots Are Speculative 