Biden’s leaked peace plan in Afghanistan explains: A “Hail Mary” proposal to bring Ghani and Taliban to an agreement

After weeks of sensitive deliberations and closed-door meetings, the Biden government this weekend watched as two secret documents were leaked to the public in Afghanistan – urging them behind the scenes to sign a peace agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government calling for the withdrawal. of U.S. troops from the 20-year war.

Until the leak of these documents was the belief that the Biden government had discussed three broad options on how to proceed in Afghanistan.

The first was compliance with former President Donald Trump’s agreement with the Taliban, which requires President Joe Biden to withdraw all 2,500 US troops in the country by May 1. The second was to negotiate an extension with the rebel group, allowing US forces. to stay in the country beyond early May and likely push the Taliban to reach a peace deal with the Afghan government. And the third was to completely defy the Trump-Taliban treaty and keep US troops in Afghanistan without an end date.

But two documents published by TOLONews in Afghanistan show that the Biden government may be looking for another way: one that strives for an accelerated peace and may establish the scene at the end of the first term of the president – a promise he made during the campaign.

In an undated letter from Foreign Minister Tony Blinken to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the top diplomat Ghani informs that the government in Biden is “immediately pursuing a high diplomatic effort” to “accelerate peace talks” between the Afghan government and the Taliban. To that end, Blinken says that the government has drawn up a ‘road map for the peace process’.

The second leaked document is the roadmap: a draft concept of an eight-page peace agreement, designed to launch the peace talks in Afghanistan between the Islamic Republic [of Afghanistan] and the Taliban. ”

The proposal contains three sections: 1) guidelines for the constitution of Afghanistan and the future of the Afghan state; 2) provisions for the management of the country during a transitional period and a roadmap for making constitutional changes and tackling security and government matters; and 3) conditions for a permanent ceasefire.

“The concept reflects a variety of ideas and priorities of Afghans on both sides of the conflict and is intended to focus the negotiators on some of the most fundamental issues they will have to deal with,” reads the US proposal. But it adds: “Ultimately, the two parties will determine their own political future and the contours of any political settlement.”

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US envoy to Afghanistan, allegedly submitted this plan to the government in Kabul and the Taliban last week. “The trip of Ambassador Khalilzad represents a continuation of US diplomacy in the region,” a State Department spokesman said. However, they added: “After May 1, we have not made any decisions about our position of power in Afghanistan. All options remain on the table.”

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Experts believe that with this play, the US can have two goals in mind. If both parties agreed to this or a similar peace plan by May 1, Biden would have the political space to withdraw all troops from the country. Or, if there was real movement toward an agreement but no agreement, Washington would let the Taliban know it would stay until the group entered into an agreement.

“It gives them the space to argue it both ways,” said Jonathan Schroden, a war expert at CNA, a nonprofit organization for research and analysis in Arlington, Virginia. But he noted that the chances of the gambit succeeding are quite slim. “It’s a Hail Mary Pass.”

Simply put, it’s hard to believe that long-spattering negotiations will start in high gear just a few weeks before the deadline, and so far neither party has been keen on the US proposal.

“They can make a decision about their troops, not about the people of Afghanistan,” Afghan First Vice President Amrullah Saleh said on Monday. ‘It is discussed [and] after discussion, we will have a position on it, ‘said Mohammad Naeem, spokesman for the Taliban’s political office in Doha, Qatar.

The Biden administration is pursuing a high-risk option with a high reward that could still lead to U.S. troops inflicting damage beyond the May 1 deadline. It is unclear it will bear fruit.

What the two Biden documents on Afghanistan actually say

The two documents compiled by the US are clearly intended to be read together. The proposal sets out a draft agreement intended to encourage talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, while Blinken’s letter establishes an international diplomatic framework to support an agreement.

It is worthwhile to take a quick look at the key elements in the documents.

Blinken’s letter sets out a framework for international diplomacy

In his letter, Blinken says that the US intends to ask the United Nations to bring together countries with interests in Afghanistan – the US, Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan and India – to find out what each party in a want to see peace. agreement. “I believe that these countries have a sustained common interest in a stable Afghanistan and must work together if we are to succeed,” the secretary wrote.

Analysts have told me that this is a smart initiative that experts have been asking for for a long time, but they fear it is too much, too late. It is a process that should have started years ago, and getting so many diverse parties to join such a complex matter is unlikely to take place on 1 May.

One case highlights the point: Afghanistan is wary of halting any agreement with Pakistan, as it has long been a proponent of the Taliban, and Pakistan wants Afghanistan to remain unstable rather than move closer to India. If Kabul and New Delhi were to become very friendly, Islamabad fears it would be surrounded by two antagonistic partners.

Then add how the US, Iran and China feel about the situation, and it becomes clear that these talks may take a while to complete.

Patrick Semansky / AFP via Getty Images

Organizing such an event is therefore “just step one in a 1,000-step journey,” said Adam Weinstein, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan and now at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington-based advocacy brainstorm. for military self-control in U.S. foreign policy.

Blinken’s letter also states that the US plans to ask Turkey to host a meeting of both parties at senior level in the coming weeks to finalize a peace agreement. ‘It sounds like a new version of the Bonn conference in 2001 in Bonn that appointed a transitional government in Afghanistan. That’s why some analysts have told me that they already call the proposal ‘Bonn 2’.

Here, too, the problem is the timeline, as the government in Kabul and the Taliban would finalize a peace agreement by 1 May.

It is possible to reach an agreement during the period, experts say, but it is probably not, as all the complex issues they have to discuss are taken into account. This is where America’s peace proposal comes into play.

The US peace plan is specific but full of difficult questions

The document that Khalilzad showed to both parties is intended to help the warring parties reach an agreement more quickly.

It begins by establishing a number of guiding principles that are intended to address the concerns and demands of the government in Kabul and the Taliban, including:

• Islam will be the official religion of Afghanistan
• The future Constitution will guarantee the protection of women’s rights and the rights of children in political, social, economic, educational and cultural matters
• Afghanistan will be a safe home for all its ethnic groups, tribes and religious sects
• The future Constitution will provide for free and fair elections for Afghanistan’s national political leadership in which all Afghan citizens have the right to participate
• The future Constitution will establish a single, united and sovereign Afghan state under one national government, without parallel governments or parallel security forces

The proposal also lays the groundwork for the creation of a transitional “Peace Government” to govern the country until a new constitution is adopted and national elections are held.

Critically, the peace government would consist of officials appointed “according to the principle of fairness” between both parties, and “with special consideration for the meaningful inclusion of women and members of all ethnic groups in government institutions.”

Johannes Simon / Getty Images

Finally, the conditions are set out for both parties to reach a permanent ceasefire and how the ceasefire will be implemented and monitored. The agreement would seek to bring about a violent reduction of 90 days and then create a commission to oversee the continuation of the ceasefire during the peace process.

There’s more in the plan, but you get the idea. What the US has offered is a start – and in some areas, far more than that – but most expect it to take more than a few weeks to reach the end of the process.

It’s all about the United States with its troops. It is important that none of the documents link the US military presence to the diplomatic effort, which means that the US can remove service members from the country and still push hard to enter into an agreement.

Experts believe that the possibility could jeopardize Kabul and America’s leverage during negotiations, giving the Taliban the upper hand in talks or incentives to overthrow the capital and the remaining parts of the country, which it does not currently control by force. take.

But some believe it is also problematic to link America’s presence to an extremely complex process, as it would endanger an unknown period for service members.

“A sustainable agreement cannot be determined by the permanent presence of U.S. troops,” Weinstein said. ‘The small chance of reaching a political settlement exposes the Biden government to a major risk. This is the equivalent of gambling. ”

Difficult decisions must therefore be made not only in the next few weeks in Afghanistan, but also in Washington.