[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/u-negotiation-efforts-taliban-failed-group-194620256.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]KABUL (Reuters) - U.S. negotiation efforts with the Taliban have failed and the United Nations should take the lead to optimize the chances of ending almost 11 years of war, a think tank said on Monday.
In a blow to hopes of a negotiated end to the war, the Taliban suspended talks with the United States two weeks ago after the alleged massacre of 17 Afghan civilians by a lone U.S. soldier and the burning of Korans at a NATO base last month.
"U.S. efforts to negotiate with the Taliban to date have failed and risk further destabilizing the country and the region, and as a result we call for the U.N. Secretary General to intervene and appoint a team of negotiators," said Candace Rondeaux, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG).
In a 51-page report, the think tank said the effect of international support for negotiations had been to increase "incentives for spoilers ... who now recognize that the international community's most urgent priority is to exit Afghanistan with or without a settlement."
Calls for a negotiated settlement have grown over the last few years as NATO-led troops battle a stubborn insurgency and Western forces begin drawing down troop levels ahead of a pullout of most soldiers by the end of 2014.
Western officials believe the Taliban's suspension of talks was tactical and reflected internal tension rather than a definitive halt to discussions.
The string of U.S. setbacks has damaged ties with Kabul at a time when Washington is negotiating a pact to outline its future presence in the Asian country.
"The events of the last couple of months ... all point to a major shift in Afghan perceptions of the U.S. role here. It's going to be very difficult for the United States to both facilitate a solution and also be a party to the solution," Rondeaux, the lead author of the report, said.
"MARKET BAZAAR APPROACH TO NEGOTIATIONS"
U.S. objectives in Afghanistan are far more modest than they were in the months following the September 11 attacks, when the West hoped to replace the Taliban with a stable democracy.
Nearly 11 years after the Taliban government was toppled, the United States and its allies continue to face major problems, including insurgent attacks, a weak government and an uncertain future for Western support.
Doubts are also growing about whether the Taliban leadership is willing to defy possible opposition from junior and more hard-core members who appear to oppose negotiations.
"The Afghan government and its international backers have adopted a market bazaar approach to negotiations. Bargains are being cut with any and all comers, regardless of their political relevance or ability to influence outcomes," the ICG said.
The outgoing UK envoy to Afghanistan, William Patey, said on Sunday, however, that in every peace process there were stops and starts, although he did not believe there had been a "strategic" decision yet by the Taliban to make peace.
The Brussels-based group warned that failure to hash out a better approach to a settlement could mean more conflict, especially in the context of national elections set for 2014 in which President Hamid Karzai is barred from standing again.
"If anything, it will be the election that is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back in Afghanistan because this is the last term for Karzai constitutionally," Rondeaux said.
"There is a sense of political vacuum, it's not clear at all who will replace him and that means the competition becomes much more intense. Unfortunately political competition in Afghanistan is never peaceful, it is almost always violent."
[/QUOTE]
This is not an official statement from the White House, read the article.
As negotiation's end, let the bloodshed begin.
[QUOTE=Singo;35297302]As negotiation's end, let the bloodshed begin.[/QUOTE]
since when has there not been bloodshed with the Taliban?
Reports suggest talks were halted because an over zealous army official shouted "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE
WITH TERRORISTS" and arrested Taliban negotiators [citation needed]
What a suprise.
Wow I thought they'd successfully convince the Taliban that what they did was justified and we could all go back to normal.
Because negotiating with terrorists has clearly worked in the past.
Not surprised really...
[QUOTE=Ericson666;35297379]Reports suggest talks were halted because an over zealous army official shouted "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE
WITH TERRORISTS" and arrested Taliban negotiators [citation needed][/QUOTE]
Presidents speech on the matter
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwQ-TCeM2mU[/media]
Fucking dammit. I was really hoping we would get somewhere with that. Was it really too much to get one's hopes up to end a [I]decade long[/I] conflict from both sides?
gasp!
Gee I wonder what recent events might have influenced this.
Doesn't the US, and any other country for that matter, say they will not deal with terrorists in this kind of manner? Or am I thinking too much of what is always said in movies..
Whenever someone is negotiating with terrorists I can't help but think it's the same thing as when you go to your fridge every 5 minutes and open it in hope that food suddenly appeared in it.
[QUOTE=The fox;35299399]Doesn't the US, and any other country for that matter, say they will not deal with terrorists in this kind of manner? Or am I thinking too much of what is always said in movies..[/QUOTE]
Technically, the Taliban being once the legitimate government of Afghanistan makes them a paramilitary political faction of a country in civil war.
But hey, all these terms like 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' is whatever the government says these days.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
