US and Iran open Afghanistan peace talks
As Obama unveiled his new strategy on Afghanistan, his officials attended a historic meeting with an old enemy
From The Sunday Times
March 29, 2009
Christina Lamb
timesonline.co.uk
IRANIAN and American officials have held their first talks about ending the war in Afghanistan amid signs that President Barack Obama’s efforts to thaw relations with Tehran are paying off.
While television cameras focused on Obama in Washington during the unveiling of his strategy for Afghanistan last Friday, US and Iranian diplomats were holding a remarkable meeting in Moscow.
The Russian initiative brought together Patrick Moon, the US diplomat in charge of south and central Asia, and Mehdi Akhundzadeh, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, as well as a British diplomat who has been acting as a mediator.
“We’ve turned a page to have Iranians and Americans at the same table all discussing Afghanistan,” Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, told delegates.
A western official who attended the talks said: “For the first time in two years I’m optimistic about Afghanistan.”
It followed Nato’s first official contact with Iran two weeks ago, when the Iranian ambassador visited Nato’s assistant secretary-general to discuss drugs and refugees.
Friday’s meeting was held under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a six-member regional security group including Russia, China and central Asian states, to discuss combating terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan. Those present included Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary-general, the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and senior British diplomats.
The US and Iranian officials spoke within minutes of each other. Akhundzadeh told delegates that narcotics represent a serious threat to the region and no country could fight the trade alone. He revealed that Iran seizes three tons of opium on its border every day.
The United States and Iran have not had full diplomatic ties for almost three decades. “We see this as a very productive area for engagement in the future,” said an American official after the meeting.
Akhundzadeh will travel to the Hague on Tuesday for a conference on Afghanistan, at which Washington hopes he will meet Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state.
Iran has no love for the Taliban, which murdered a group of Iranian diplomats in 1998, but in recent years any animosity has been outweighed by Iranian concern over the proliferation of US bases in Afghanistan and the view that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.
Two years ago Nato troops in Afghanistan intercepted a convoy of weapons bound for the Taliban, apparently provided by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
“Tehran is happy to see the US bogged down in Afghanistan,” said a western official. “Our concern is to make sure they don’t start providing game-changing technology as they did in Iraq.”
Tehran is known to be concerned about the opium trade, much of which passes through its territory. Intelligence sources say it has lost 2,000 soldiers in the past two years fighting drug gangs.
Obama’s ultimate aim is to use these talks to persuade Iran to sit at the same table for negotiations about halting its uranium enrichment programme.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and Britain believe it is trying to build nuclear weapons. Last month the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security claimed Iran had reached “nuclear weapons breakout capability” – enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb – although others believe it still has some way to go.
In stark contrast to President George W Bush, who named Iran as part of the “axis of evil”, Obama believes the way forward is through diplomatic initiatives on common concerns such as Afghanistan. Earlier this month he issued a video addressed to the Iranian people, offering to turn the page on years of hostility with “a new beginning”.
On Friday, as part of his new strategy, Obama proposed creating a regional contact group which would include Iran. He described the situation in Afghanistan as “increasingly perilous”. Much of his strategy actually focused on Pakistan, which his administration sees as the greater challenge.
He linked terrorist attacks in London, Bali, Kabul and the Middle East to Pakistan and said that Al-Qaeda’s leadership had “moved across the border”.
It was the first time a western leader had located Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, something Islamabad has always denied. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, was delighted. “We welcome the recognition that the Al-Qaeda threat is emanating from Pakistan,” said Humayun Hamidzada, his spokesman.
Pakistani officials reacted with predictable anger, although Obama tried to sweeten his remarks with the announcement of $1.5 billion (£1.05 billion) in annual aid. “If Obama knows the Al-Qaeda leadership are in Pakistan, why has he not given the addresses?” asked Asif Durrani, deputy high commissioner in London and until recently Pakistan’s representative in Kabul.
Durrani denied reports that Pakistan’s military intelligence has been assisting the Taliban. “We have arrested 1,500 Taliban over the past two years and handed them over to Kabul,” he claimed. “It’s not our fault if they let them go for bribes or prisoner swaps. People should be asking them why.”
While pointing a finger at Pakistan, Obama has no intention of letting the Afghan government off the hook: “I want to make it clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders.”
Hopes in Washington that Karzai would be removed in elections this August are fading, as the opposition has failed to rally behind a single candidate. “We might not like Karzai but we’re probably going to have to live with him,” said a US official in Kabul.
Obama has nominated as his new ambassador to Kabul General Karl Eikenberry, a former commander of troops in Afghanistan, who has good relations with Karzai.
Obama did not repeat the words “exit strategy”, which he had used in an interview with CBS last week. But it is clear that far from spreading democracy, he has a more limited objective aimed at getting his troops out.
He hopes to do this by handing over control to Afghan security forces, increasing the size of the Afghan national army from 83,000 to 134,000 and the Afghan police to 82,000 by 2011, then further doubling them. Most experts regard these figures as highly ambitious. Nor is it just a question of numbers. More than two-thirds of the police are illiterate and they are responsible for much of the corruption in Afghanistan.
Those involved in drawing up the new strategy admit that training the new army will cost $3 billion a year – more than double the entire budget for the Afghan government.
This week sees two international conferences about Afghanistan, one in the Hague and then a Nato meeting in Strasbourg at which Obama is expected to extend a begging bowl to his allies.
“They know there’s no point asking the Europeans for more troops,” said a western diplomat. “So they’ll ask for cash and training instead.” Mark Sedwill, Britain’s new ambassador to Afghanistan, welcomed the proposals. “This feels more like a genuine plan than anything we’ve had before,” he said.
Since troop numbers started increasing in 2004, Afghanistan has seen violence spiral. The United States has lost 640 soldiers in Afghanistan and Britain more than 150. Both governments know there is a limit to public tolerance of the casualties. For this reason, as well as military efforts, Obama has opened the door for talks with so-called “moderate Taliban”.
Many are sceptical. “Who are these moderate Taliban?” asked Gilles Dorronsoro, an expert on Afghanistan at the Carnegie Endowment, the US body. “What are their names?”
The Taliban have sent representatives to contact talks with mediators, but intelligence reports from their base in the Pakistani city of Quetta say they are planning an offensive.
“We’re expecting a very bloody summer,” said a Nato military officer. |
