The Barack Obama administration is refusing to
acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December
to give "legal guarantees" that it will not allow Afghanistan to be
used for attacks on other countries.
The administration's
silence on the offer, despite a public statement by Secretary of State
Hilary Clinton expressing scepticism about any Taliban offer to
separate itself from al Qaeda, effectively leaves the door open to
negotiating a deal with the Taliban based on such a proposal.
The Taliban, however, has chosen to interpret the Obama administration's position as one of rejection of its offer.
The
Taliban offer, included in a statement dated Dec. 4 and e-mailed to
news organisations the following day, said the organisation has "no
agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is
ready to give legal guarantees if foreign forces withdraw from
Afghanistan".
The statement did not mention al Qaeda by name or
elaborate on what was meant by "legal guarantees" against such
"meddling", but it was an obvious response to past U.S. insistence that
the U.S. war in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent al Qaeda from
having a safe haven in Afghanistan once again.
It suggested
that the Taliban is interested in negotiating an agreement with the
United States involving a public Taliban renunciation of ties with al
Qaeda, along with some undefined arrangements to enforce a ban al Qaeda
presence in Afghanistan in return for a commitment to a timetable for
withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.
Despite repeated
queries by IPS to the State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley and to
the National Security Council's press office over the past week about
whether either Secretary Clinton or President Obama had been informed
about the Taliban offer, neither office has responded to the question.
Anand
Gopal of The Wall Street Journal, whose Dec. 5 story on the Taliban
message was the only one to report that initiative, asked a U.S.
official earlier that day about the offer to provide "legal guarantees".
The
official, who had not been aware of the Taliban offer, responded with
what was evidently previously prepared policy guidance casting doubt on
the willingness of the Taliban to give up its ties with al Qaeda. "This
is the same group that refused to give up bin Laden, even though they
could have saved their country from war," said the official. "They
wouldn't break with terrorists then, so why would we take them
seriously now?"
The following day, asked by ABC News "This Week"
host George Stephanopoulos about possible negotiations with "high
level" Taliban leaders, Clinton said, "We don't know yet."
But
then she made the same argument the unnamed U.S. official had made to
Gopal on Saturday. "[W]e asked Mullah Omar to give up bin Laden before
he went into Afghanistan after 9/11," Clinton said, "and he wouldn't do
it. I don't know why we think he would have changed by now."
In
the same ABC interview, Defence Secretary Robert Gates suggested that
the Taliban would not be willing to negotiate on U.S. terms until after
their "momentum" had been stopped.
"I think that the likelihood
of the leadership of the Taliban, or senior leaders, being willing to
accept the conditions Secretary Clinton just talked about," Gates said,
"depends in the first instance on reversing their momentum right now,
and putting them in a position where they suddenly begin to realise
that they're likely to lose."
In a statement issued two days
after the Clinton-Gates appearance on ABC, the Taliban leadership,
which now calls itself "Mujahideen", posted another statement saying
that what it called its "proposal" had been rejected by the United
States.
The statement said, in part, "Washington turns down the
constructive proposal of the leadership of Mujahideen," and repeated
its pledge to "ensure that the next government of the Muhajideen will
not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries including the
neighbours if the foreign troops pull out of Afghanistan."
The
fact that both the State Department and the NSC are now maintaining
silence on the offer rather than repeating the Clinton-Gates expression
of scepticism strongly suggests that the White House does not want to
close the door publicly to negotiations with the Taliban linking troop
withdrawal to renunciation of ties with al Qaeda, among other issues.
Last
month, an even more explicit link between U.S. troop withdrawal and a
severing by the Taliban of its ties with al Qaeda was made by a U.S.
diplomat in Kabul.
In an article published Nov. 11, Philadelphia
Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin, who was then visiting Kabul, quoted an
unnamed U.S. official as saying, "If the Taliban made clear to us that
they have broken with al Qaeda and that their own objectives were
nonviolent and political - however abhorrent to us - we wouldn't be
keeping 68,000-plus troops here."
That statement reflected an
obvious willingness to entertain a negotiated settlement under which
U.S. troops would be withdrawn and the Taliban would break with al
Qaeda.
A significant faction within the Obama administration
has sought to portray those who suggest that the Taliban might part
ways with al Qaeda as deliberately deceiving the West.
Bruce
Riedel of the Brookings Institution, who headed the administration's
policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan last spring, recently said,
"A lot of smoke is being thrown up to confuse people."
But even
the hard-liner Riedel concedes that the Pakistani Taliban's attacks on
the Pakistani military and Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate
(ISI) threaten the close relationship between the Afghan Taliban and
ISI. The Pakistani Taliban continue to be closely allied with al Qaeda.
The
Taliban began indicating it openness to negotiations with the United
States and NATO in September 2007. But it began to hint publicly at its
willingness to separate itself from al Qaeda in return for a troop
withdrawal only three months ago.
Taliban leader Mullah Omar's
message for Eid al-Fitr in mid-September assured "all countries" that a
Taliban state "will not extend its hand to jeopardise others, as it
itself does not allow others to jeopardise us... Our goal is to gain
independence of the country and establish a just Islamic system there."
But
the insurgent leadership has also emphasised that negotiations will
depend on the U.S. willingness to withdraw troops. In anticipation of
Obama's announcement of a new U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, Mullah
Omar issued a 3,000-word statement Nov. 25 which said, "The people of
Afghanistan will not agree to negotiations which prolongs and
legitimises the invader's military presence in our beloved country."
"The invading Americans want Mujahidin to surrender under the pretext of negotiation," it said.
That
implied that the Taliban would negotiate if the U.S. did not insist on
the acceptance of a U.S. military presence in the country.
The
day after the Taliban proposal to Washington, Afghan President Hamid
Karzai made a public plea to the United States to engage in direct
negotiations with the Taliban leadership.
In an interview with
CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Karzai said there is an "urgent need" for
negotiations with the Taliban, and made it clear that the Obama
administration had opposed such talks.
Karzai did not say
explicitly that he wanted the United States to be at the table for such
talks, but said, "Alone, we can't do it."
*Gareth Porter is an
investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national
security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of
Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was
published in 2006.
Inter Press Service