Arsalla Rahmani in Kabul, June 2009. (Seamus Murphy)

Taliban leaders report progress in secret talks with the US and Afghanistan

Moderate Taliban make headway in negotiations with militants.

By C.M. Sennott - GlobalPost
Published: June 17, 2009 13:40 ET
Updated: June 28, 2009 08:47 ET

KABUL — Moderate leaders of the Taliban say they have quietly and steadily made progress in third-party talks between the active Taliban insurgency and representatives of the Afghan and U.S. governments.

Two Taliban leaders — who held high-ranking positions in the now-deposed Taliban government and who are directly involved in the talks — say they’ve recently established a framework of an agreement through the shuttle negotiations. They say the process has included contact with the spiritual leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammad Omar.

The talks began last year under the auspices of Saudi Arabia and have involved a series of secret meetings in Mecca, including a gathering several months ago. Observers have for months maintained that the Saudi talks have produced more rumors than real progress.

But now, in extensive interviews with GlobalPost two former Taliban officials directly involved — Abdul Hakim Muhajid and Arsalla Rahmani — said negotiations have gained momentum and laid the groundwork for real movement.

Rahmani went so far as to say a deal could be reached before Afghanistan’s August presidential elections. (Click here to listen to an interview on "The World" regarding this topic.)

Within the Taliban government that was toppled by the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Rahmani held several cabinet postings as head of the Ministry of Higher Education and as minister of the Haj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. Muhajid and Rahmani said they have provided a “third party channel” to the Afghan government and had “limited” and “unofficial” contact with U.S. representatives.

The talks are built primarily around contacts within the Taliban’s still-underground leadership, including Mullah Omar, who is believed to be hiding in Quetta, Pakistan along with other clerical leaders of active insurgent wings. These other Taliban clerical leaders involved in the talks include Mullah Bradar, Mullah Mamsur and Mullah Abdul Jalil.

Also included in the negotiations is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the notorious renegade Afghan warlord whose active insurgency continues to fight against U.S. and coalition forces.
Two former Pakistani intelligence officials say a deal was underway in which Hekmatyar would call for an end to his insurgency and be allowed to live above ground in Saudi Arabia with a budget of $85 million. At least one Afghan government official confirmed that a deal with Hekmatyar was being assembled.

It is widely considered unlikely that the U.S. would accept any deal in which Mullah Omar or Hekmatyar is granted immunity from prosecution.

Comments:

7 Comments.

Login or Register to post comments

Posted by david wayne osedach on June 17, 2009 17:00 ET

It is good that the Taliban is in talks with the United States. Even if it is off the record. Anything that will promote understanding is a step in the right direction.

Posted by C.M. Sennott on June 17, 2009 21:12 ET

I agree that dialog is important and that the U.S. is wise to look for an opening to negotiate. President Obama has declared his intention to talk to the moderate elements in the Taliban and that message from the top seems to have done a lot to change the tone within the US government presence in Afghanistan.

Posted by F Drake on June 17, 2009 17:48 ET

Can someone please describe what "moderate Taliban" is?
Thanks,
F Drake

Posted by C.M. Sennott on June 17, 2009 21:09 ET

The "moderate Taliban" are seen as those officials and clerics who served in the now deposed Taliban government that once ruled in Afghanistan. Several of them are now elected and appointed officials in the Afghan government. They recognize the legitimacy of the new government and see themselves as part of the future of the country. In the rural areas, the "moderate elements" of the Taliban are harder to define. But typically they are seen as the majority of people who have turned toward the Taliban for security, for financial compensation or out of a respect for tradition. They are a large swath of the Afghan populace that many observers in Afghanistan believe can be swayed through effective negotiations and through shifting senior clerics over to the side of the government. Switching allegiances is a long-established tradition in Afghanistan. And those who know the country well believe that there is a large group within the Taliban that can be brought into the fold of the new Afghanistan. I hope this helps provide some understanding of what is admittedly a vague concept.

Posted by tasmica on June 17, 2009 18:44 ET

Gosh, a mature, non-judgmental attempt at discussions by an American government....what an improvement to what the world has suffered through for far too long. I hope we have the patience, knowledge, creativity, and vision to see this endeavor as a start of a very long road. The Taliban and Afghanistan as a country appear to perceive the world and people very differntly from western societies and we should not be attempting to "change" them. Rather, we should hope to develop positive, trusting contacts where mutual respect and mutual benefits are possible. Hopefully, they want to improve there infrastructure, education, and economic conditions, and in doing so, focused inward on their own development. We can only hope that over time, and probably, a very long time, their society may become a bit more accepting of equal rights for all of their poeple. Afghanistan has been at war for a long time. It would be beneficial for them to enter a long phase of re-construction and development. And it would be a first constructive step if the Taliban can develop neutral or positive relations with the western countries and not be a supporter of OBL. And by improving economic conditions in the country, there should be fewer recruits for OBL.

Posted by Stewart Nusbaumer on June 18, 2009 01:19 ET

You write: "Observers here say the Taliban, and the Pashtuns as an ethnic group, have historically only negotiated from strength. An argument is made by some here that they have that strength now and may not be in as good a position once the U.S. military offensive kicks into gear over the next few months."

The leadership of the U.S. military, however, says the exact opposite! That the Taliban will never negotiate from a position of strength, only weakness, and this is supported by history.

Agreements are possible when negotiating from strength or weakness, of course. But the results tend to be quite different. The U.S. is not interesting in cutting a deal with the Taliban when it remains on the offensive -- is negotiating from a position -- because the cost would be higher than the U.S. is willing to accept. On the other hand, after the election and the traditional high-season for fighting, both the U.S. and the Taliban may have a realistic viewpoint of their strengths and weaknesses, and both may be more interested in a deal.

Yet, in a country where frequently switching sides and going back on your word is not seen as dishonorable and unmanly, what does an agreement with the Taliban mean? So the question becomes what can the U.S. do not only to cut a deal but to ensure the agreement holds?

From Kabul,
Stewart

Posted by C.M. Sennott on June 19, 2009 12:27 ET

Stewart,
These are excellent observations and you raise key questions at the end. What does an agreement with the Taliban mean? And how does the US get an agreement to hold? I cannot say I have all the answers or even any answers. But what I heard on the ground from talking to these Taliban leaders is that they are ready to talk and that, I think, is a good sign. If the US can encourage large segments of the population that are currently seeing themselves as Taliban to switch sides, that would be an important achievement. I think it would save lives and add to security so that the country can progress. Stay safe and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Recent on Afghanistan:

America's farmer-soldiers in Afghanistan

Douglas A. Wissing - Afghanistan - November 20, 2009 14:30 ET

An elite Indiana National Guard unit is patrolling Khost Province, helping Afghan farmers to help themselves.

Afghanistan's only pig quarantined? Must be bad

Jean MacKenzie - Afghanistan - November 13, 2009 17:25 ET

Swine flu has sent one of the world's most unflappable populations into a panic.

Afghanistan: Waiting for the dust to settle

Finbarr O'Reilly - Afghanistan - November 12, 2009 16:45 ET

Troops' deaths shatter trust in Helmand

Jean MacKenzie and Aziz Ahmad Tassal - Afghanistan - November 8, 2009 15:13 ET

Afghans and Brits alike fear that the deaths of 5 British troops at the hands of a police colleague have tipped an already tense working relationship into outright distrust.

Afghanistan: The fog of war

Finbarr O'Reilly - Afghanistan - November 5, 2009 10:51 ET

Video: Embedded with Canadian troops, photographer Finbarr O'Reilly captures the confusion and chaos of a worsening conflict.

Why Poland has soured on Afghanistan

Jan Cienski - Poland - November 4, 2009 06:46 ET

A recent poll found 77 percent of Poles want their troops withdrawn.

Greek aid worker held by Taliban

Iason Athanasiadis - Afghanistan - November 3, 2009 06:44 ET

A schoolteacher from Athens was the only Westerner living in the valleys on Pakistan’s mountainous frontier.

Why Stephen Harper prefers US news

Sandro Contenta - Canada - November 2, 2009 20:08 ET

Questions over Canada’s role in the Afghanistan war and unflattering polls have the prime minister eyeing the exits.

Karzai declared winner by default

Jean MacKenzie - Afghanistan - November 2, 2009 12:26 ET

The Afghan president gains a second 5-year term but there are questions about the legitimacy of his win.

Abdullah withdraws from Afghan election

Jean MacKenzie - Afghanistan - November 1, 2009 11:23 ET

Can runoff race be valid with only President Hamid Karzai?

Taliban attacks on both sides of the AfPak border

Jean MacKenzie - Afghanistan - October 28, 2009 10:34 ET

In Kabul and Peshawar, nearly 100 dead, among them UN staffers.

Rumor sparks anti-American protests

Jean MacKenzie - Afghanistan - October 25, 2009 10:14 ET

A Koran-burning incident in Afghanistan prompts demonstrations in Kabul.

Flanked by foreign dignitaries, Karzai announces a runoff

Jean MacKenzie - Afghanistan - October 20, 2009 10:43 ET

Two months to the day after Afghanistan’s badly flawed presidential elections, the stalemate is over.

Major fraud finding adds to pressure on Karzai

Jean MacKenzie - Afghanistan - October 20, 2009 06:04 ET

A UN-backed body found that fraud may have handed the Afghan president an illegal majority, but Karzai is resisting a runoff.

Interview: Ambassador Ryan Crocker

C.M. Sennott - Worldview - October 19, 2009 09:16 ET

The longtime diplomat says Obama needs to choose an AfPak strategy before the Taliban further consolidates its hold.

Did a US 'hit' create an Afghan hero?

Jean MacKenzie and Mustafa Saber - Afghanistan - October 15, 2009 12:48 ET

American forces have finally managed to kill Ghulam Yahya Akbari, the self-styled scourge of Herat, a city he had once served as mayor. But at what cost?

A dark anniversary

Jean MacKenzie - Worldview - October 10, 2009 09:48 ET

Taking stock of the eight years since the US invaded Afghanistan: The Taliban is back, America is bogged down and Afghans are tired of it all.

Are Pentagon contracts funding the Taliban?

Jean MacKenzie - Afghanistan - October 7, 2009 12:44 ET

A US military aid program is being used by the Taliban as an extortion racket.

Opinion: Isolating insurgents is nothing new

HDS Greenway - Worldview - October 6, 2009 05:42 ET

In the Vietnam era it was called pacification. Today it’s nation-building.