2/ US excluded Kabul from talks w/ Taliban, & agreed to generous terms. Raised dire concerns, Afghan officials said so openly. Doha deal may not be automatic US betrayal of Afghan partners, but... seems to allow option for it. How would any nation react??https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-taliban-deal-confirms-his-foreign-policy-doctrine-is-betrayal …
-
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
3/ To be clear: Kabul has done nothing to openly oppose 29 Feb agreement, nor US-led peace efforts broadly. ...IN SPITE OF American actions to advance a process that would almost certainly lead to changes in staff+structure or even essential nature of Afghan state.
Näytä tämä ketju -
4/ Current US Afg policy essentially asks Kabul to engage in talks that may lead to its voluntary dissolution. Here are real concerns. All thru 2019, number of Afgh political figures repeatedly called for interim govt... a volatile, dangerous proposal.https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/afghanistan-needs-a-caretaker-government-26166 …
Näytä tämä ketju -
5/ Hasty interim govt could lead to state fracture & even worse conditions for Afghans, if not outright civil war. Ghani's objection to such calls are sound. ...and Kabul has plenty of reason to worry that US/Khalilzad may see interim govt as acceptable.https://www.rferl.org/a/interview-u-s-envoy-backs-afghan-presidential-election-if-no-peace-deal/30087370.html …
Näytä tämä ketju -
6/ These domestic concerns are real. There are concerns about talks with Taliban, too. BATNA is key to any negotiating strategy: an actor's best alternative, if talks don't work or you don't like the offer. If US is prepared to walk away, completely, what is Kabul's BATNA?
Näytä tämä ketju -
7/ So: Does Kabul hope for total policy reversal under Biden? Is Kabul a spoiler to the peace process?? No! But is the Afghan govt moving slowly through each step of a painful, dangerous process? Raising diff issues, at times making contradictory remarks on peace? Yes. Why?
Näytä tämä ketju -
8/ Before even seeing a deal at intra-Afghan talks, Kabul knows it probably won't like the offer. US has sent plenty of signals: it will accept far more compromise than Kabul -and many Afghans!- believe they should. So, what is Kabul's best alternative?http://www.1tvnews.af/en/news/afghanistan/42898 …
Näytä tämä ketju -
9/ Many in Kabul & Washington describe ongoing efforts to lobby US national security circles: mid-level and senior figures in military, diplomacy, intel & policy, figures with strong ties & sympathies to Afghan partners. Kabul is buying time, but not to stall or ruin talks...
Näytä tämä ketju -
10/ ...but to strengthen its position. Afghan govt wants US to reject option of abandonment. It seeks reassurances of support. When its reps sit across table from Taliban, it wants them to speak with the strength that comes from being able to walk away.https://apnews.com/bd265a57d206edaf5c4fd7de775d7b6d …
Näytä tämä ketju -
11/ Kabul's desire to rally support from allies in DC, to be able to enter talks alongside its superpower ally, is perfectly logical. To those who warn patience is running out, Kabul might reply: if US is headed toward withdrawal, what is there to lose? Why not plead the case?
Näytä tämä ketju -
12/ Weak point of US-led peace efforts: it didn't win the war. Talks with undefeated opponent must include heavy compromise. *US never found a way to sell this to Kabul.* Up to today, Americans haven't offered Afgh govt much, except to threaten what peace talks already hint at.
Näytä tämä ketju -
13/ Due to intensity of US pressure, Kabul has little choice but to go along. But why not appeal, & go slow? Given risks to Afghans even if talks "succeed", very real potential for talks to fall apart, & dangers of too fast a transition... govt may see little alternative. /END
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.