Ashley Jackson

15: However, it might not necessarily be supported by the US-TB Agreement. That agreement highlights that the process will begin with intra-Afghan talks BUT it also stipulates a deadline for sanctions removal.https://twitter.com/Afghan_Policy/status/1263158050610753536 …

16: Deadline for UN sanctions removal was on the 29th of May. Same day as this policy paper was issued! How will the TB react? I assume the deadlines were inserted on their insistence. Will they view this as a breach of obligation by US? Impact on TB internal support for deal?

17: More importantly, the resolution imposed conditions, for sanctions removal, on the Taliban that are not contained in the original agreement. This might trigger next phase of hurdles for the tortious #Afghanistan peace process.

18: Overall, while I believe the EU approach is bold, it is unlikely to succeed. The reason being, that the core EU demands for post-negotiation framework invoke connotations that are seen as the antithesis of what the Taliban stand for.

19: The Taliban risk a break from within if they accept these demands in the manner they are currently worded. The TB leadership would not want to be seen as forfeiting their Islamic credentials, and will seek to demolish anything that represents western democratic norms.

20: If the EU wants to incorporate these values then their best chance would be to formulate these same demands in a manner that they represent core Islamic governance norms. This requires little investment as most good governance values are also ingrained in Islamic sources.