(20)Taliban reject peace talks
|
| Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban's "Leader of the Faithful." |
The Taliban have once again rejected overtures by the Afghan government and international community to negotiate a peace settlement to the Afghan war and reconcile with the government.
The Taliban's leadership council dismissed the reconciliation efforts and the upcoming London Conference in a statement just released on its English-language website, The Voice of Jihad.
Avoiding any discussion of compromise, the Taliban leadership council called for "the full withdrawal of the invading forces," the release of all prisoners from Afghan, Pakistani, and US jails, and the removal of all names from the United Nations terrorist sanctions list.
The Taliban said they had no intentions of negotiating with the Afghan government, which they described as "traffickers of intoxications items, human rights violators, corrupt persons, national traitors and usurpers of people private properties." Instead, Mullah Omar, the Taliban's leader, seeks to reinstall the Islamic Emirate.
"It is worth mentioning that the leader of the faithful Mullah Mohammad Omar (May Allah protect him) has clearly said that we want an Islamic rule in our country," the statement read.
The Taliban reiterated a claim made last year that they have no intention of attacking neighboring countries and will not permit attacks on foreign countries from their soil.
The Taliban released the statement as the international community and the Afghan government are holding talks on reconciliation at the London Conference. The Afghan government is seeking international support, including $1 billion in donations, to fund reconciliation and reintegration of local Taliban fighters, and to support high-level talks with the Taliban leadership.
But the Taliban statement dismissed these efforts as "ploys and stratagems" to divide the Taliban, and said the Taliban are not fighting for money:
Some time, they announce that they will provide money, employment and opportunity to have a comfortable life abroad, for those Mujahideen who agree to part ways with Jihad. They think that Mujahideen have taken up arms to gain money or grab power or were compelled to turn to arms. This is baseless and futile. Had the aim of the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate been obtainment of material goals, they would accept dominance of the invaders in the first place and would have supported them. Every thing was in their hand, comfortable life, money and power."
Over the past three years, the Taliban leadership have repeatedly rejected calls for negotiations and reconciliation with the Afghan government [see LWJ reports "Taliban mock West for calling Afghanistan unwinnable" and "Taliban deny reports of negotiations with Afghan government"). Instead, the Taliban have turned the calls for talks into propaganda and claimed the talks are a sign of weakness.
The Taliban have denied conducting negotiations with the Afghan government and the West, and have denounced those who claimed to be negotiating in their names. The most prominent name that always comes up in these so-called negotiations is Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, the former Taliban foreign minister who broke ranks after Omar refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after the Sept. 11 attacks. In 2002 he claimed he sent an aide to warn the US of the Sept. 11 attacks but was ignored.
Mutawakil surrendered to the US in February 2002 without seeking approval from the senior Taliban leadership. He was detained by the US and then placed under house arrest in Kabul. The Taliban ejected Mutawakil from the movement in 2003, saying he "does not represent our will." Mutawakil contested the elections in 2005.
Mutawakil has been behind numerous failed attempts to promote reconciliation between the Afghan government and the Taliban. "He is probably sincere but just completely powerless," a US intelligence official told The Long War Journal.
Just today, the United Nations removed Mutawakil and four other former Taliban leaders who had reconciled with the Afghan government long ago from the sanctions list. Also removed with Mutawakil was Abdul Hakim Munib, who is the current governor of Uruzgan province. Munib was one of several 'Taliban leaders' who went to the Maldives last weekend to conduct secret negotiations with the Afghan government.
The son of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was also reported to have been at the Maldives meeting. Hekmatyar leads a faction of the Hezb-e-Islami that fights the Afghan government and the West and has allied with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Since 2002, the US and Afghan governments have sought to draw Hekmatyar away from the insurgency, without success.
READER COMMENTS: "Taliban reject peace talks"
Posted by Paul at January 28, 2010 12:25 AM ET:
Good...the US never wanted them in the first place. We are content to and determined to liquidate the Taliban anyway. Pakistan must really fear the taliban.
Posted by Anonymous at January 28, 2010 2:07 AM ET:
before any peace or reconciliation with the taliban can occur,the following must happen:
1.) elimination of mullah omar and other irreconcilable and ideological i.e. al qaeda-compromised taliban leadership
2.) replacement of the karzai regime with a less corrupt and more legitimate government
3.) strengthening of afghan police and military
without the above prerequisites, the US is negotiating from a position of weakness and the taliban along with all of the other enemies of the west are aware of this
Posted by don juice at January 28, 2010 2:24 AM ET:
why was the warning ignored? thats the type of stuff that conspiracy theorist would take out of this article and claim 9/11 was a inside job....look,if they think afghanistan going back to islamic sharia law days where they invited every and any scumbag terrorist in the nation well they wrong...either they abide by the afghan constitution or they gonna perish in combat operations..simple, its their call
Posted by Jay at January 28, 2010 4:25 AM ET:
A good way to put some sense into Pakistan military is to step up support to Balochistan separatists and surgically to some Pakistan Taliban elements through proxies(though it conducted Chapman attack) to heat things up in Pakistan. This would be a good measure to disincentive Pak intelligence continuing covert support to QST,Haqqanis and Heqmatiyar. Regarding Heqmatiyar since Saudis are involved in protecting him..supporting Houdis in Yemen..is a good idea..
Iran needs to be co-opted either by hook-or-crook..a regime change. Since Saudis hav the Nukes through Pakis..Israel's security is already in danger..Iran's nuke aspirations are Sunni-countries+US centric rather than against Israel.A US-Israel-Iran alliance is the need of the hour to confront Wahabi terror.
Posted by ArneFufkin at January 28, 2010 9:40 AM ET:
Somebody should inform Richard Holbrooke
Posted by m3fd2002 at January 28, 2010 10:08 AM ET:
This was predictable. Even if the Taliban knew they were being hammered, they would state the same. However, this time, they believe what they are saying, due to President Obama's statements about troop withdrawal. They truly have a sense of pending victory.
Posted by My2cents at January 28, 2010 10:17 AM ET:
People, we should be more polite about the Taliban leadership council in our discussion here.
After all, how often have we had an enemy so honest about positions? Surely we should honor them for that.
Which is not to say that we should not destroy them and their organization by any and all means available.
Posted by Paul at January 28, 2010 10:32 AM ET:
would it be fair to say the Taliban's position is at it's highest @ this moment?
Posted by Doug Hylton at January 28, 2010 1:18 PM ET:
In many ways the Taliban have already lost the battle in Afghanistan. Modern technology has been introduced in Afghanistan in many areas that cannot be reversed. Even the Taliban use cell phones and watch TV. The genie cannot be returned to the bottle and the people will not accept a fourteen century philosophy. There has to be a compromise on both sides.
Posted by leciat at January 28, 2010 4:29 PM ET:
doug, afghanistan before the taliban was modern, women were educated, had jobs and dressed in western style clothes, they had tvs and telephones and music. they did not accept 14th century philosophy it was brutally forced on them and if we leave this will happen again.
i don't care what anyone says, the only good taliban is a dead taliban
Posted by Zeissa at January 28, 2010 4:36 PM ET:
I agree twocents... blut und ehre!
Posted by Zeissa at January 28, 2010 4:38 PM ET:
Although I do not think their being honest for once means they are normally honest. Plus they're still disgusting.
Doug, the Taliban don't have anything against cell phones, just TV. Anyway if they take control they'd limit TV except to gather intel.
Posted by John Abraham at January 28, 2010 4:51 PM ET:
Zeissa,
Cell phones these days can be used to listen to music and also watch videos. Both are against Taliban values.
Now there is an oxymoron, Taliban values.
Posted by Doug Hylton at January 28, 2010 7:12 PM ET:
We must stop with the policy of killing people who don't agree with us. Look at the government in other Moslem countries even the best of them would fail our standards of democracy. We have a poor track record of installing western style democracy in other countries and there are many other places that need work like Somalia and Iran. Let's find an honorable way to get out of Afghanistan and let the Afghanis govern.
Posted by Spooky at January 28, 2010 9:02 PM ET:
Balochistan is key. Tell the Pakistanis that they should let America take out the Shura in Quetta and that America will PERSONALLY pay for any civillian damages if they are wrong. If they do not comply, threaten to bring up Balochistan in the UN...
And if threatening them with the Balochistan stick is the wrong lever, one could always pull the "We can always go to India" card, which is what I think was ultimately the point of Gates going there. Even if Pakistan doesn't let them cross their airspace, the Chinese will (yes India and China have their own skeletons to deal with, but they also have a significantly better relationship. Enough for economic relations at least).
The Pakistan Army's obession with control of the state and with India is going to eventually break this nation. Already its economy is being subsidized by foreign investors (Chiefly the US, Middle East, and China, for vastly different reasons), its people are apathetic to the unpopular government. The place is one communist revolution away from ending up like Nepal, which is itself a hairsbreath away from Indian annexation. Think about THEM apples.
Posted by Render at January 29, 2010 1:56 AM ET:
Dougie
"We must stop with the policy of killing people who don't agree with us."
R - Can you provide a link or show some other form of documented evidence the "we" have a policy of killing people who don't agree with us? We're targeting people who are actively trying to kill us. There is a pretty fundamental difference between the two concepts. Perhaps you could ask the enemy to stop killing us for not agreeing with them, oh and ask them to stop killing Jews for being Jews while you're at it.
"Look at the government in other Moslem countries even the best of them would fail our standards of democracy."
R - There is a valid reason why Israel is often referred to as the only functional democracy in the Middle East, because it's true.
"We have a poor track record of installing western style democracy in other countries and there are many other places that need work like Somalia and Iran."
R - No, our track record overall for installing democracies over the last 110 years is quite good. Almost all of the functional democracies on the planet were "installed" by us, or at least supported in some way or another by us. We tried Somalia once, under our previous Democrat President. Didn't work out so good, did it? We tried Iran under the Democrat President that preceded him as well. That didn't work out so well either, did it? Our combat and support units are already heavily engaged on several fronts, how about let's win those before we open new fronts where we might not need too anyway.
"Let's find an honorable way to get out of Afghanistan and let the Afghanis govern."
R - The only honorable way out of Afghanistan involves crushing the Talib as a political/military force and killing or capturing every single member of al-Qaeda. Anything else will only extend the war and prolong the suffering of the innocent caught in the middle. The way out is through Pakistan and the Afghan's can govern after we've done our job.
R - Did you think that stuff up all by yourself, or did you just rattle off the first four talking points that popped into your head?
THX
1138,
R
Posted by T Ruth at January 29, 2010 11:58 AM ET:
Spooky
I agree with your assessment and i would tend to agree with your remark about the indians using Chinese airspace, until i read this article about a possible Chinese military base in Pakistan
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-mulls-setting-up-military-base-in-Pakistan/articleshow/5510235.cms
Don't forget 'their" port, Gwadar is in Baluchistan.
What about Iran?
About a communist revolution, do you mean
that or are you referring to a revolution?
Posted by Spooky at January 29, 2010 3:26 PM ET:
Actually, nevermind about the Chinese. I forgot that India already has an airbase in Tajikistan, so they already have an established air route from the motherland to there, if they managed that. That just nails the point further that India can probably act as the better asset, especially since Russia also trusts them.
China is also more pragmatic than Pakistan is and would likely throw Islamabad under the bus in exchange for stability in Xinjiang, where Talib-related elements are inciting seperatism. So I could see an arrangement being made eventually, though now it may not be so necessary, in lieu of the Tajik base.
Posted by SER at January 29, 2010 3:32 PM ET:
Dear Dougie
You asked for a link of wrongdoing. Here it comes
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LA30Df01.html
This is the reason why you are losing the war in Afghanistan.
2. Governments of muslim countries
Yes the governments in the arabic world for the most part fail miserably at our standard of democracy. So why do you still support them? Why do you still give strong support to the Saudis? Why do you support Egypt? Why not work for democracy there?
3. Which democracies have you installed? I can name a couple of countries where you crushed a democracy. Iran 1953. Guatemala 1954. Argentina 1973. You are not alone with this kind of politics. Russia, Britain and the big countries all play this game.
Posted by Render at January 29, 2010 8:17 PM ET:
Nothing like watching the other team score an own goal on the first kick...
===
SER - "Dear Dougie
You asked for a link of wrongdoing."
Render - No SER, you missed your target and I'm pretty sure that Dougie is on your side. I'm the one that asked, "Can you provide a link or show some other form of documented evidence the "we" have a policy of killing people who don't agree with us?" Dougie is the one with the four random Leftist pro-Talib talking points.
SER - "Here it comes." (link redacted) "This is the reason why you are losing the war in Afghanistan."
Render - "By Anand Gopal" is really all I need to see to know that source is unverified and quite likely Taliban inspired if not directed. After all, Anand Gopal, that darling of both the Left and paleocon right media, is the Taliban's very own "embedded" reporter who by his own admission maintains "well placed" contacts with the Taliban leadership and insists that all "good" reporters do the same. I would venture to guess that not one of Mr. Gopal's anecdotes in that article can be independently verified or confirmed, including his absurd claim that there are several Taliban in every village. If we are "losing" and have committed so much evil, why did the Shinwari tribe turn on the Talib? Do let us all know when the Talib start fielding tanks, the Soviets knew their game was up when the Muj began fielding Type 59's (and Stingers), and receiving air cover from the Pak Air Force.
SER -"2. Governments of muslim countries" "Yes the governments in the arabic world for the most part fail miserably at our standard of democracy. So why do you still support them? Why do you still give strong support to the Saudis? Why do you support Egypt? Why not work for democracy there?"
Render - Because periodically we elect a Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or a Barack Obama all of whom who seem to think that cuddling up to and appeasing mass murdering tyrants is the best way to maintain peace (that's one of the many hazards of democracy in a federal republic). We actually do work for democracy in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia to some extent. But there is only just so much of us to go around and as long as Egypt refrains from attacking Israel and the Saudi's aren't being invaded by another Muslim nation, we can work on places where we know we're needed more AND where we can find and kill our enemies at the same time.
SER -"3. Which democracies have you installed? I can name a couple of countries where you crushed a democracy. Iran 1953. Guatemala 1954. Argentina 1973. You are not alone with this kind of politics. Russia, Britain and the big countries all play this game."
Render - You missed Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Taiwan, among many others.
Operation Ajax (Iran 1953) may or may not have been a mistake at the time, but it is quite safe to say that what eventually replaced the Shah in 1979 is no better and in many ways far worse then the Shah ever was. Mosaddegh himself refused to blame the US, instead (and probably rightly) blaming the British until the day he died. Operation PBSuccess (Guatemala 1954) probably never would have happened had President Arbenz not begun buying weapons from the then Warsaw Pact ally Czech's. This could only have heightened the paranoia levels of the already hyper-paranoid Dulles brothers (shareholders in United Fruit) at a time when the Red Menace was at its very heights. And of course, both operations took place in the back round of the Korean War. Argentina (1973) ummm unless something brand spanking new that I don't know about came out within the last couple of days we didn't have anything at all to do with Argentina's 1973 elections, their first since 1966. I'm going to have to assume you meant Chile 1973. Project FUBelt. Soviet and Cuban disinformation makes President Nixon's knee jerk. More Cold War stuff (see the Mitrokhin Archives), is that all you've got? Looks to me like we're leading 5-3 even if we give you credit for the miss on Chile.
Render - All nations, big and small (with the possible exceptions of Iceland and some of the Pacific Island micro-states) play these games. Some play them better, some play them worse. Some of them play with a terminal multiple personality disorder, changing their minds every four or eight years. Aside from being mildly interesting historically, what does any of it have to do with the fact that the Taliban are not negotiating because there are no "moderate" Taliban to negotiate with?
THE
CHOSEN
FEW,
R