Printer Friendly

Trump: No talks with Taliban Secret: Peace deal had been in works for months.

Byline: Jennifer Jacobs and Nick Wadhams Bloomberg

President Donald Trump said Saturday he canceled a secret meeting with major Taliban leaders and the president of Afghanistan, set for today at Camp David, and discontinued peace negotiations after a U.S. soldier was among those killed in an attack the Taliban confessed to.

The sudden demise of the talks may doom direct U.S. negotiations with the Taliban that held out the prospect of ending 18 years of combat in Afghanistan, making it America's longest-running war. The planned meeting revealed by Trump on Saturday had been a closely held secret.

The president had grown

frustrated with the peace negotiations. His national security adviser, John Bolton, thought an agreement in principle that had been reached was inadequate and reminded Trump of the potential pitfalls, according to two people familiar with the matter. So Trump tried to hammer out an accord personally by inviting the Taliban and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani for talks with him.

While the Taliban delegation never made it to the U.S., Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, one of the most senior Taliban leaders, would have been among those at Camp David, according to a person briefed on the plans. That would have produced the extraordinary scene of a U.S. president sitting down with a commander of the militant force American troops have fought for years.

The State Department referred inquiries about the meeting -- including who was scheduled to attend -- to the White House, where officials declined to comment.

But Trump said in a series of three Twitter messages that he called off the previously unreported talks at the presidential retreat because the Taliban representatives "probably don't have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway."

The Taliban admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed 12 people -- including an American soldier -- in order to "build false leverage," Trump said in a tweet. "What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?"

The U.S. has been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The secret Camp David talks would have occurred days before the 18th anniversary of the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people and prompted the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

On Thursday, a U.S. soldier and Romanian service members were killed when a Taliban car bomb exploded near the U.S. embassy in Kabul. It was the second major attack there this week, even as the protagonists were nearing a peace deal that's been months in the making.

At the time, Ghani, the Afghan president, decried the attack in the "strongest terms," saying that making peace with Taliban militants who are still killing "innocent people will be pointless," according to an emailed statement.

U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad said in a tweet days ago that "we are at the threshold of an agreement that will reduce violence and open the door for Afghans to sit together to negotiate an honorable & sustainable peace and a unified, sovereign Afghanistan that does not threaten the United States, its allies, or any other country."

But Bolton argued that Khalilzad was accepting terms from the Taliban that were too vague.

The U.S. has insisted that no deal would be final until the Taliban reached an accord with Ghani, direct talks that the Taliban long refused to undertake. Trump's tweet indicated that the Camp David meeting was to be an effort to bridge that divide by having him meet separately with Ghani and the Taliban.

In the talks led by Khalilzad, the U.S. has proposed tying American and allied troop withdrawals to a pledge by the Taliban to prohibit terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida from using Afghanistan to stage attacks.

The breakdown in negotiations raises the prospect that Trump won't be able to deliver on his pledge to bring troops home -- or that if he does the result will be revived Taliban rule with no assurances the group would curb terrorists.

"No one thinks it's great that we have to negotiate with the Taliban, but the reality is that if we want to ensure our security interests in Afghanistan in a sustainable way it requires some kind of settlement to the civil war that's been going on in Afghanistan for the last 40 years," said Richard Olson, a former special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under President Barack Obama.

"My suspicion is that the president had seen the opposition building in certain quarters, particularly among conservatives, but others as well, and it was too much," Olson said.

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo has scheduled appearances on five political talk shows on Sunday. The path to a peace agreement had been expected to be a major theme he'd advance in the interviews.

Trump promised during the 2016 campaign to bring home American troops from overseas conflicts, and conclude what he called endless wars.

The Americans have been negotiating directly with Taliban forces in an effort to deliver on the troop withdrawal pledge. Afghan authorities have been largely sidelined in the process, even as the Taliban have escalated attacks.

U.S. negotiations with the Taliban would be considered successful if they led to less violence by the insurgent group, and promoted peaceful dialogue among Afghans, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, said on Thursday.
COPYRIGHT 2019 Paddock Publications
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Business wire_
Publication:Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)
Geographic Code:9AFGH
Date:Sep 8, 2019
Previous Article:Serving up joy through staff with 'exceptionality' Constable: Goal is to hire workers with disabilities and offer competitive pay.
Next Article:Dorian's damage south to north.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters