Read on Twitter
TALIBAN'S STANCE ON KEY ISSUES GOING INTO INTRA-AFGHAN TALKS.
Long thread dissecting TB spox interview with Shamshad with commentary by me.
Long thread dissecting TB spox interview with Shamshad with commentary by me.
CEASEFIRE:
TB spox Zabihullah Mujahi ( @Zabehulah_M33) states that ceasefire will be on agenda but until confidence building measures and guarantees are put in place, ceasefire is not being considered (2")
TB spox Zabihullah Mujahi ( @Zabehulah_M33) states that ceasefire will be on agenda but until confidence building measures and guarantees are put in place, ceasefire is not being considered (2")
Asked that govt is ready for ceasefire, why aren't you, he states that we can't reach a ceasefire because government is not ready for the peace process. The govt has extended a 10-day prisoner exchange process across several months...
Rhetoric is one thing and realities are different. For us to reach a ceasefire, we need to be assured that we are working towards a peace process (17")
When asked that violence will continue until tangible results are seen, states that unless we reach the crucial sticking points and these are resolved we can't forgo our (violent) struggle (18")
Asked what the main priorities for Taliban are, states that confidence building is the main priority for us. We have been executing our part in good faith but the other side has caused delays and sowed distrust. Both sides must show that they are ready to work towards peace (21")
Comment: This indicates that the TB are not ready to immediately agree to a ceasefire until at least some confidence building measures are put in place. What those will be and how much progress will need to be made before TB agree to a ceasefire remains to be seen.
EMIRATE VS REPUBLIC:
Asked if TB want to change structure (to Emirate), says that our non-negotiable redline is an Islamic political system. We cannot derogate from that. The new political system must be within this framework (9" & 30")
Asked if TB want to change structure (to Emirate), says that our non-negotiable redline is an Islamic political system. We cannot derogate from that. The new political system must be within this framework (9" & 30")
Asked if 'Emirate' is a redline for TB, says that we want an Islamic political system. So long as it is Islamic, the framework will be left to the Afghans (19")
Comment: This is a very significant admission. Taliban show willingness to forgo the Emirate. They had thus far refused this even while negotiating with the US
When told that some negotiators on govt side say Republic is a redline, he says that such statements by the opposition indicate bad faith. We are presenting a model of Islamic system that is acceptable to all Afghans...
But if people want to bring in foreign ideologies (referring to western concepts) & undermine Islamic values then we cannot accept this. It's best that the negotiating parties do not make (Republic) their redline. The making of redlines or other obstacles benefits no one (25")
Comment: he is probably implying that the same way we are not making Emirate a redline the govt should not make this a redline.
CONSTITUTION & RIGHTS OF CITIZENS:
Says the parties will discuss a new constitution during negotiations, one that is inclusive. The rights of citizens given by Islam we will guarantee those rights (20")
Says the parties will discuss a new constitution during negotiations, one that is inclusive. The rights of citizens given by Islam we will guarantee those rights (20")
Comment: clearly implying that intra-Afghan talks will involve writing a new constitution from scratch. Somewhere in the interview he says we don't want lipservice paid to Islamic system, but the framework should be Islamic in substance as well.
I presume that from TB perspective, that entails a fine combing of the entire Constitution to see what provisions they disagree with.
Comment: No clarity on how TB define rights of citizens under Islamic law? Which texts they base this on? What about the human rights conventions signed by various successive AFG govts? Do the Taliban believe the future govt is obliged to respect and obey these treaties or no?
CURRENT GOVT INSTITUTIONS:
States that current institutions were calibrated to perpetuate foreign occupation. They are in need of foundational changes to ensure they serve the fundamental national interests of Afghanistan and be in service of an Islamic political system...
States that current institutions were calibrated to perpetuate foreign occupation. They are in need of foundational changes to ensure they serve the fundamental national interests of Afghanistan and be in service of an Islamic political system...
Asked if these changes include complete erasure of some institutions, he says no, reform doesn't mean erasure (14").
POWER SHARING FRAMEWORK:
Asked who will be in the 'inclusive' govt as espoused by them, he responds that when we talk about an inclusive government, it means that all sides including that which forms the current administration will play a part in it (12")
Asked who will be in the 'inclusive' govt as espoused by them, he responds that when we talk about an inclusive government, it means that all sides including that which forms the current administration will play a part in it (12")
Asked that TB don't have a history of political inclusion and there is concern they are not ready to be part of an inclusive coalition-based govt, he responds by saying that the Taliban were never given this opportunity...
When the Taliban first emerged, we endeavered to reach an agreement with the Kabul administration of the time (1990s), but the opposition was not ready for such a compromise. Today, we should have all learned our lesson (16")
Asked if TB will be willing to join a government where the head of government is a non-Taliban, he says the future government will include all Afghans and be representative of them (40")
Comment: The above two statements were both very evasive and provided no substance. But as the 'Emirate vs Republic' section indicates, they are willing to join a multi-actor system. Will they join one where they are not leading remains to be seen.
RECOGNITION OF GOVT:
Asked if they accept the opposition as negotiating on behalf of government, says no we don't. These are intra-Afghan talks. We are negotiating with all actors that have been in the opposite camp to us over the past 20 years...
Asked if they accept the opposition as negotiating on behalf of government, says no we don't. These are intra-Afghan talks. We are negotiating with all actors that have been in the opposite camp to us over the past 20 years...
We are looking to prevent a repeat of the past and will therefore need to negotiate with all opposing sides. As you know, we don't recognise the government as a legitimate one (10")
Asked that the opposing team is led by govt, is that not recognition of negotiations with govt? States: No we don't recognise the govt or its framework. We are negotiating with all actors that were in opposition to us...
The 'administration' is part of that makeup and therefore will be part of the negotiating team (11"). The actors in the opposite side have been part of the administration at one point or another. But now, they are negotiating with us as representative of the opposing Afghan sides
Comment: This was made a big deal of by some Twitter commentators. Yet, TB seems to be saying they're not negotiating as reps of the Emirate & aren't recognised as such. Therefore the other team cannot negotiate as representatives of the govt and will not be recognised as such.
NEGOTIATION TEAM:
Asked if you accept the current negotiation team introduced by govt and why you opposed the previous one, he says we opposed the makeup when some of the actors of the other side were opposed to the makeup and some even announced their boycott of negotiations..
Asked if you accept the current negotiation team introduced by govt and why you opposed the previous one, he says we opposed the makeup when some of the actors of the other side were opposed to the makeup and some even announced their boycott of negotiations..
Seems that those differences within them have been resolved. We wanted this same thing that all actors be represented so that we don't have separate negotiations with disparate actors (26")
TALIBAN COHESION IN A PEACE DEAL:
Asked about UN report's claims regarding new factions within TB and risk of fragmentation, he says that there are elements that seek to use such claims as propaganda...
Asked about UN report's claims regarding new factions within TB and risk of fragmentation, he says that there are elements that seek to use such claims as propaganda...
Some elements feed such information to the UN for their own objectives. We have proven in the past several temporary ceasefire periods that our organisation is coherent and will obey the leadership (36")
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Judging from the public remarks of TB so far, they have shown more flexibility than I envisioned. Their only redline is that the political system must be Islamic...
Judging from the public remarks of TB so far, they have shown more flexibility than I envisioned. Their only redline is that the political system must be Islamic...
Difficult questions remain regarding how much power they want and if they will join a system not led by them. Issues of citizen rights in light of AFG's international obligations also need to be resolved.
Yet, the TB's messaging is clearly designed for a domestic audience. They wish to be seen as the most reasonable and compromising party going into talks. Given this messaging, if talks fail, they will likely be blamed on the govt side.
This approach is in sharp contrast with the govt's, which is fully geared towards an international audience. As Pres Ghani's recent article and portrays, he is completely focussed on international donors...
All the govt redlines and promises around protecting rights and gains are geared towards that audience. He sought to retain control over the redlines with the detailed Loya Jirga document, but besides retaining reins of control, most other redlines are for intl audience.
