As the US began preliminary talks with the Taliban negotiators in Qatar on plans for peace talks aimed at ending the decade-long war in Afghanistan, amid reports that the Pakistan and Afghan governments are seeking peace talks with the Taliban in Saudi Arabia separate from the US-brokered talks in Doha, it is now established that things are shaping up rapidly in Afghanistan as the US is treating the so-called ‘terrorist’ Taliban as a political force and a political stakeholder. For that the US even agreed to transfer four to eight important Taliban figures from Guantanamo Bay to set up a political office for the exiled Afghan insurgent group.

Pakistan has been sidelined in the process, but it is not out of the game. The Taliban declared that they could not ignore Pakistan and would not like to annoy it, even if they sought more independence, and less interference by Islamabad in their decisions-making. That’s why it seems, as a BBC report indicates, the Afghan government, not fully agreeing to the US’ Qatar initiative and Pakistan, partially sidelined, have plans for talks in Saudi Arabia that both Kabul and Islamabad, usually at loggerheads on the issue, were looking for their own talks with the Taliban.

The US administration is of the view that its strong military presence in Afghanistan and an indecisive long-term plan of its military’s presence beyond 2014 can be used as a leverage to convince the Taliban on the necessity of Kabul’s participation in talks and cutting down on its other demands to let the talks process take off the ground.

Looking back at the Afghan history, the talks at the highest level of warring parties always failed to provide reprieve to local conflicts driven by tribal competitions, personal rivalries and the profitable drug trade. Moreover, sidelining Pakistan and the actual stakeholders in Afghanistan is not likely to bring in the desired results. The issues of Nato supplies, drone attacks and border violations need to be resolved as immediately as possible.

Though David Bill in his recent article suggests “if you are concerned about American aggression, it is not the drones you should fear, but the politicians who order them into battle”, yet the wiser comment by Joshua Foust needs to be paid heed to; he says “the rush to robots in warfare is worrying. There just isn’t enough thought about what consequences these systems impose on US policy. There needs to be.”

And the Amnesty International’s report questioning the legality and legitimacy of drone strikes must be seen as to how the world views America’s unilateral act against the sovereignty of a country. Earlier, the UN’s special representative has already given its finding that the drone strikes are in violation of international law, as well the human rights laws.

F Z KHAN

Islamabad