Lebanese citizens’ opinions on Hezbollah are varied and many are quite critical of the organization. Throughout Lebanon, Shia Muslims look at the group relatively favorably while Sunni Muslims and Christians have a much more negative opinion of Hezbollah. However, despite disagreements on the stances and actions of the group, 99% of Arabs agree that all Arab countries must cease contact with Israel in response to Israeli military action in Gaza. Hezbollah as an ideological entity is not necessarily well-loved, but it is also one of few groups committed to resisting the Israeli occupation. This then becomes a difficult issue for many Lebanese civilians as Israel continues its attempt to expand into southern Lebanon, in addition to Gaza and the West Bank. It seems that the only solution is the creation of an organization that will both have higher approval from Lebanese citizens and protect the country from Israeli occupation.

In this conversation of Lebanese support for Hezbollah, it is important to understand the religious makeup of Lebanon. While Lebanon recognizes 18 religious sects, there are three major factions, with 31.9% of Lebanese citizens identifying as Sunni Muslims, 31.2% as Shia Muslims and 32.4% as Christians. While all three groups are very close in size, it is interesting to note that Hezbollah is a Shiite group despite Shia Muslims being the smallest of the three largest religious groups. Shia Muslims are the largest group in Iran, however, which is the country responsible for the funding of Hezbollah.

Conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims has been a cause of division throughout the Middle East, with major clashes in both Syria and Iraq. Despite 85% of Muslims identifying as Sunni and 15% as Shia, Sunnis have not dominated militarily and there remains a great sectarian divide in countries like Lebanon. Fear of conflict is not limited to one group, though, with 67% of Lebanese Muslims believing that Shia-Sunni tensions are a big issue. The emergence of Hezbollah has certainly not aided this and, despite having governmental representation, Sunnis and Christians alike feel as though Hezbollah as a governing entity does not represent them.

Notably, in September 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed Hassan Nasrallah, a Hezbollah founder who led the group for over 30 years. Despite disagreements over Hezbollah’s existence, Nasrallah was relatively well-liked due to his resistance to Israel, including overseeing the end of Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

During an interview in September 1992, Nasrallah asserted that Hezbollah is a resistance party that opposes the creation of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon. Additionally, in their 1998 Statement of Purpose, Hezbollah says, “It should be clear that the kind of Islam we want is a civilized endeavor that rejects injustice, humiliation, slavery, subjugation, colonialism and blackmail while we stretch out our arms for communication among nations on the basis of mutual respect.” 

In the U.S. Counterterrorism Guide, Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist group since 1997, a designation shared by the Arab League and the EU, among others. Since the group’s inception, it has been responsible for several terrorist attacks around the world. Hezbollah has bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut both in 1983 and 1984, with a total of 101 killed and at least 120 injured.

While Hezbollah was created to force Israel to cede its occupied Lebanese territory, the group has now morphed into a different sort of entity. Now, Hezbollah has transitioned from a military wing to a group with heavy influence in both Lebanese military action and politics. In addition, Hezbollah no longer solely targets the Israeli occupation. A prime example of this is the 1994 operation targeting a Jewish community center and killing 94 people in Buenos Aires. 
Since its inception, the United States has given Israel a total of $310 billion in aid, a vast majority of such being military. While the United States views the Hezbollah attacks as unprecedented, Hezbollah sees the United States as a proxy for Israel, funding the occupation of Palestine as well as southern Lebanon. As the United States continues to fund Israel’s attacks on Gazan civilians, a direct opposition to the goals of Hezbollah, it is difficult to see a future where Hezbollah’s terrorist designation is removed.

The post Formation and Impact of Hezbollah appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In his eight years in power, Modi has been widely successful in his promotion of a Hindu nationalist agenda, threatening the secular fabric of the nation. His party’s blatant and open expression of Islamophobia is extremely alarming.

“There is [definitely]anti-Muslim sentiment from the BJP, there has to be,” claimed Mohit Roy, a local BJP leader. “We are seeing the demographic and cultural infiltration of Muslims in India. If I was to say I don’t have [anti-Muslim sentiment], I would be lying.”

Mohit Roy’s statements are deeply troubling and indicative of where Muslims in India stand: as scapegoats for the country’s troubles. The prime minister and his party exploit anxieties related to the perceived Muslim takeover of the Hindu population, facilitated through acts like ‘love jihad,’ to advance their agenda.

‘Love jihad,’ a term coined by the political and religious right, describes a phenomenon in which Muslim men forcefully convert and marry Hindu women. Nationalist groups claim that these conversions have become a tool utilized by Muslims to alter the demographics of the country and to establish an Islamic state. 

Kolkata native Shan Ghoshal owns ProjectHinduKush, a website that propagates the idea of an ongoing genocide of Hindus both in India and overseas. He considers involuntary religious conversions to be one of the most widespread instances of violence in the nation.

According to individuals like Shan Ghoshal, monetary incentives are provided by religious leaders in the Muslim community to their adherents who successfully commit acts of ‘love jihad.’  

“There’s a price tag for it,” said Ghoshal, explaining the motives behind ‘love jihad.’ “The cash reward is better for victims of higher caste and [Muslims] believe that if they convert Hindu women, they’ll go to heaven.” 

However, despite assertions like these, India’s National Investigation Agency has found no proof to support the existence of such a phenomenon. The Minister of State for Home Affairs, G. Krishna Reddy, told the Parliament in February 2020 that “no case of ‘love jihad’ has been reported by any of the central agencies.” 

Furthermore, documents provided in response to an Rights to Information request by Article 14 show that the Kerala Police too found no evidence of ‘love jihad’ when asked to investigate complaints by the National Commission for Minorities. 

According to police, sporadic cases of deceitful behavior by unscrupulous men are not evidence of a broader conspiracy or a larger plot. It seems that accounts of ‘love jihad’ are merely misrepresentations of regular consensual relationships.

For example, Muskan, a 22-year-old who was born into a Hindu family, and her Muslim husband Rashid went to register their marriage in the Uttar Pradesh town of Moradabad in December 2021. 

Her husband was accused of violating the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, better known as the ‘love jihad’ law that outlaws conversions and calls into question inter-religious marriages. He was subsequently thrown in jail and the young woman was put in a state-run shelter home. 

“In most cases we found that a Hindu girl and Muslim boy were in love and had married against their parents’ will,” said state police chief A.L. Banerjee. “These are cases of love marriages and not ‘love jihad.’”

Even though there is substantial evidence refuting the existence of ‘love jihad,’ this “fringe extremist theory” has been brought into the political mainstream by far-right Hindutva groups in India. 

‘Love jihad’ is an example of disinformation slowly and steadily spreading hate against Muslims, tainting the Hindu majority’s perceptions. Anti-Muslim disinformation is persuasive, especially for anyone seeking confirmation of their hatred and deep-seated prejudice. 

The implementation of these laws encroaches upon an individual’s freedom of religion and right to interreligious marriage. It serves as a blatant example of government overreach driven by the administration’s prejudices and animosity towards a marginalized population. This law is motivated by the notion that through conversions, Muslims will gradually overpower the Hindu population in India.

However, the plausibility of this occurring is unclear, as Hindus have consistently accounted for 85% of the population over the past 40 years. The BJP under Modi’s leadership has cultivated a deep sense of Hindu victimhood by taking advantage of apprehensions surrounding ‘love jihad’ and the growing presence of Muslims in the nation.  

The propagation of baseless beliefs and unfounded fears by Hindu nationalist organizations reduces any likelihood of peaceful coexistence between the two faiths. 

But perhaps that’s the point. That there is no desire or intent to coexist. 

“[Hindus and Muslims] have been trying for 1,400 years and it hasn’t worked,” said Ghoshal. “India becoming a Hindu Rashtra guarantees peace for everyone and the right to practice religion [as one]sees it.”

This raises concerns about the fate of the more than 172 million Muslims currently residing in India and their ability to freely exercise their religion. Due to accusations of ‘love jihad’ and the fabricated fear of Muslims overpowering the Hindu population, Muslims are encountering significant challenges.

Since the Modi government came into power, there has been a significant surge in hate crimes motivated by religion, measured by an overall increase of 30%. The situation is even more alarming when observing that Muslims have been the main target in over 78% of these incidents, according to India Spend Initiative’s Hate Crime Tracker. 

Although the Indian Constitution enshrines principles of secularism and religious freedom, it seems that they are not being implemented fairly in the case of the Muslim population. 

But singing to the tune of the BJP, Shane Ghoshal explains that the current government’s actions are very much intentional and thought through. 

“A state can never be secular. In the preamble of our constitution, the secular word was added in a non-democratic manner by [previous prime minister]Indira Gandhi. It was a dark day for Indian democracy,” says Ghoshal. “Secularism just isn’t the flavor of India.” 

Shan Ghoshal’s perspective on the subject sheds light on the delicate state of India’s secular fabric. In the face of rising Islamophobia and divisive narratives like ‘love jihad,’ the future of religious freedom and co-existence in the nation hangs in the balance. 

The post Unraveling Secularism: The Rise of Islamophobia and ‘Love Jihad’ in Modi’s India appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

After the end of British colonialism, the partition of 1947 divided the Indian subcontinent into two — with the majority of Muslims migrating to Pakistan and Hindus remaining in India. Muslims became a minority population in India which has ever since been growing. Post-partition, religious conflicts in India have become a way of life. The right-wing Hindu nationalists have never truly accepted Muslims to be a part of India despite their constitutional rights. Being born in the country does not give them status as an Indian national — their religious identity does. Under the Modi government, Muslims pay a terrible price for being Muslim. Almost 75 years after the partition and Indian independence, elements of marginalization, much like those perpetrated by the British Empire, have emerged in the self-proclaimed “secular democracy” called the Republic of India. 

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s swift rise to power and prominence on the international stage has caused the world to turn a blind eye to the persecution carried out at the hands of his government. Muslims in India face an imminent threat with Islamophobia spreading throughout the country like a virus with no cure in store. The agenda of the Modi administration is clear — advocating a right-wing Hindu nationalist ideology in an attempt to create a “Muslim-less” state. 

A wave of anti-Muslim laws, violence and Islamophobia is evidence that the persecution of Muslims and polarization of the country could very well end in a cataclysm. 

On December 12, 2019, the Modi administration passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Under this act, for the first time, religion can now be used as a factor for granting citizenship status in the country. The law expedites the path to securing citizenship for non-Muslims and deliberately delays the applications of Muslims. The law has jeopardized many Muslim lives whose future in their own country is in question, especially for those falling below the poverty line. This law applies primarily to individuals admitted into the country before December 31, 2014, and to refugees from Muslim majority countries. The CAA fast-tracks citizenship of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who arrived in India before 2015. 

Following the passing of this law, the government initiated a nationwide verification of citizenship and proposed to create a National Register for Citizens (NRC), aimed to identify what the government has called “illegal immigrants.” This sparked a wave of fear among Muslims throughout the country and prompted many to consider relocation. Disenfranchisement and stripping of citizenship is now a risk for Indian Muslims who are legal citizens.

The recent Hijab ban in the state of Karnataka is another example of the stigmatization of  Muslims in all environments. Educational institutions around the country have not banned nuns from wearing their attire, nor have priests or pastors of religious institutions been asked to give up their religious clothing. Many members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the central government wear religious clothing during official government business. Still, objections are raised when Muslim women wear their hijabs in schools and colleges, which is clear hypocrisy seen on the part of political leaders. The temporary ban on hijabs was upheld by the country’s high court. The three-judge bench held that allowing Muslim women to wear the hijab in classrooms would hinder their emancipation and go against the spirit of “positive secularism.” This permanent ban on religious practices of Muslim minorities in India at the hands of the Modi governmnet is an infringement on their human rights. 

Kashmir is the most militarized region in the world, with more than half a million armed Indian troops deployed in the Indian-administered Kashmir over the past 30 years. The military action in the region is cited as necessary by India to curb the violence in response to the ongoing territorial dispute. The treatment of Muslims in Kashmir is a genocide on its own, with Kashmiri Muslims killed on the orders of the government. Gang rapes of hijabi women, killings of thousands of Muslim women, house arrests of countless Muslims, all in an attempt to erase Muslim identity in Kashmir and promote only one ideology — Hindutva, or Hindu cultural supremacy. 

The hypocrisy of the world must be held accountable too. The stigma surrounding the religion of Islam is evident. The West and other countries only seem to act when “Islamic extremism” is to be corrected and commented on. However, the government-sanctioned persecution of the world’s largest minority in India is overlooked because no one has stopped and acknowledged Modi’s extreme Hindu nationalism.

Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has been clear about its intention to convert India into a Hindu state. The chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, said, “Muslims did not favor India by staying here.” The 47-year-old, saffron-robed, head priest of an influential Hindu temple is no stranger to controversy — he has made headlines for his hardline rhetoric, often directed against Muslims. 

Creator and former researcher at the Genocide Watch, George Stanton, warned the world of the Rwandan Genocide well before it actually happened in 1999. The world made a mistake by neglecting the genocide warning placed on Rwanda, which led to around 100 days of grotesque killing. Research indicates the same in India: a soon-to-be genocide sanctioned by a tyrant hiding behind “democratic institutions.”

Heading into the holy month of Ramadan, a month rooted in fasting, reflection and community, Indian Muslims, now more than ever, need the world to stand with them as they face continued and heightened persecution under Modi’s government.

The post Islamophobia in India: Is India Truly a Secular Democracy? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Muskan and Rashid’s story is only one that represents the numerous and widespread challenges interfaith couples are facing in India. These couples have faced targeted persecution by Indian authorities under the new anti-conversion laws instituted across the country. The new laws are being publicized to halt “Love Jihad,” a term coined by Hindu nationalist factions to imply that Muslim men trick Hindu women into marriage for the sole purpose of converting them to Islam.

In India, marriage is a social process and practice, the boundaries of which are often defined by customs, traditions and even prejudices. Marriages within the Hindu community itself are primarily performed within caste groups, with only 11% of marriages per year being inter-caste marriages. The stigma is further heightened for interfaith marriages, making them even more of a rarity in the Indian social fabric, with only 2.1% of women who marry outside their faith. 

State legislatures have historically passed laws to regulate religious conversions, and currently, nine states have provisions regulating religious conversions to varying degrees. Even though lawmakers from the ruling Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) claim that the laws are not meant to target any specific religious communities, the majority of the cases registered under the law in states like Uttar Pradesh have been against Muslim men. 

The Love Jihad conspiracy and the resulting anti-conversion laws seem to be just another additive to the ruling party’s ongoing conquest to further marginalize India’s 200 million Muslims through various legal measures. The passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, which provides citizenship to only non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries, along with the government’s strict criminalization of the Muslim “Triple Talaq” divorces, has left little to the imagination when it comes to the ideological standing of the ruling party.

“This law will prevent innocent girls being forcefully converted on the pretext of marriage,” said Narottam Mishra, the home minister in BJP-ruled central state of Madhya Pradesh. Prime Minister Modi, meanwhile, has mostly remained silent on the issue and the Central Government has said it has no plans on drawing up federal legislation on the matter, and will leave it up to the states. 

The Love Jihad conspiracy is not the creation of the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi nor his party, the BJP. Rather, it is the culmination of the continuous stereotyping of Muslim men as “predatory” since India’s colonial days. In 1924, a Muslim bureaucrat from Cawnpore (now Kanpur) was accused of “abducting and seducing” a Hindu woman and forcibly converting her to Islam. The idea later gained political relevance in the late 2000s when it was taken up by fringe Hindu-right groups in southern India, eventually leading to quasi-legitimizing orders by state courts that ordered probes and annulled interfaith marriages. Later, it was used by the BJP to stir up communal tensions and cause riots in other parts of the country for electoral gains. 

The Love Jihad conspiracy has proven to be wildly successful talking for the BJP, triggering all the right politically-conducive anxieties — a majoritarian pseudo-victimhood in the secular republic, patriarchal insecurities in an increasingly modernizing India and blatant Islamophobia that unites Hindu nationalist sympathizers like no other factor.

On January 6, 2021, The Supreme Court of India refused to stay the enactment of the latest anti-conversion laws in states across the country, thus indirectly giving green lights to laws resembling the one that was used to arrest Rashid and Muskan. Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, implemented a law called “the Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion” causing much uproar as it established a set jail term of ten years for a marriage conducted for the sole purpose of religious conversion. 

However, the onus of determining the “validity of a union” has been placed on the same authorities and police who already harass and intimidate interfaith couples who seek to marry. India does not have a uniform civil code due to the diverse array of historical customs and traditions of different communities. As a result, couples must register their marriages through laws that govern personal relationships and disputes of their specific communities. 

Interfaith couples, meanwhile, have used the Special Marriages Act of 1954 that requires verification from local authorities, a waiting period of thirty days, and mandates the publication of their intent to wed in a newspaper in case objections might arise. The law also vests the authorities with the power to investigate any complaint against the couple, which puts interfaith couples in a precarious position as most of them seek to get married without parental consent or knowledge.

As much as the Love Jihad conspiracy is about the broader project of Hindu nationalism and the implicit strokes of Islamophobia it contains, it is also about policing women’s sexuality and choices. Marriages of choice are extremely rare in India (only 4%) as the concept of arranged marriage, parents’ choosing brides and grooms for their children, reigns supreme. The practice of picking spouses might come off as just conserving familial customs of elderly respect, but it is equally about preserving puritanical standards of caste, class and religion. Now, the Indian state is willing to police love that does not measure up to those puritanical parameters.

The post India’s Anti-Conversion Laws and the “Love Jihad” Myth, Explained appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On September 15, representatives from the United Arab Emirates, Israel and the United States signed the ‘Abraham Accords.’ The Abraham Accords — named after the common ancestor shared by the people of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, was brokered by Jared Kushner, senior advisor to the President of the United States,  between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. This peace agreement is historical because prior to the signing of this agreement, the only Arab nations who had peace deals with Israel were Jordan and Egypt.  

The chief reason for this conflict was the ratification of the Partition Resolution in the United Nations, passed on November 29, 1947, which divided the Palestinian mandate, under British rule at the time, into an Arab and Jewish state. However, the holy city of Jerusalem remained under United Nations control. The resolution sparked outrage amongst both parties but Palestinians felt particularly aggrieved as they thought Jews were favored in the deal. This resulted in numerous ongoing conflicts between Arab Palestinians and Jews which only increased following Israel’s independence from Britain.  

May 14, 1948, a day known as Nakba, meaning “catastrophe,” for the 700,000 Palestinians expelled from their homeland. This day is also known as Yom Ha’atzmaut, which translates to “Day of Independence,” for the Jewish people, who gained the newly created state of Israel. Also beginning on said day was the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, where the Arab nations of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Transjordan banned together to help defend a Palestinian state. Due to inexperience and a shortage of efficient military equipment, the Arab nations were unsuccessful with their attempt to defend a Palestinian state.   

Solidarity towards Palestine amongst Muslim Arab nations was and still is very strong, which means that these countries are all allied against the Jewish State of Israel. Currently Israeli citizens are not allowed to travel to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman or Saudi Arabia in an effort to boycott the country. Nor do these countries have diplomatic relations with Israel. In addition, every nation listed except Oman will not allow people with evidence of travel to Israel,such as an Israeli stamp or a stamp from the King Hussein Bridge, to enter their country. However, this animosity towards Israel could change with the Abraham Accords.

Prior to the Accords, the United Arab Emirates also did not allow Israeli citizens to enter their country. However, since its signing we have seen the first flight between the two countries in years. Not only has tourism opened, but trade and economic relations have become possible. 

Bahrain has also signed a peace agreement. Both deals have similar provisions to normalize working relations between the two countries. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain likely signed the deal for similar reasons, a desire to diversify their economies and access to Israel’s advanced technology. For these compelling reasons, we will likely see more Arab and North African nations signing peace deals with Israel. President Trump seems to have confirmed this, stating, “ we are down the road [in terms of deals]with about five different countries,” including Morocco, Oman, and Sudan. With Sudan taking the lead by signing an agreement to normalize relations with Israel on October 23, 2020. These potential shifts would change the political dynamics of the Middle East.  

There are 12 provisions included in the Abraham Accords. The two most notable are the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations and Economic relations, meaning both countries will establish embassies and assign ambassadors. In addition, both nations have agreed to establish economic relations, which was likely the main reason the Gulf States agreed to sign. As a result, the United Arab Emirates and Israel will open trade routes between each other and allow travel which wasn’t previously allowed.  

What does this mean for Israel-Palestine relations?

Palestinians have protested the signing of the Abraham Accords, specifically voicing  their dissatisfaction with Arab countries making peace with Israel before peace between Israel and Palestine has been achieved. In response, the United Arab Emirates’ Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Abdullab bin Zayed Al Nahyan, reaffirmed the country’s support for a Palestianian state and thanked President Benjamin Netanyahu for halting his annexation plan of the West Bank. 

Prior to the Abraham Accords, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning to annex thirty percent of the West Bank, an area home to approximately 3 million Palestinians and 500,000 Israeli settlers. As of now, annexation has been halted, due in part to the Abraham Accords and COVID-19. Although the plan is currently suspended, Netanyahu has indicated that this hold is only temporary, implying annexation will take place at some point. 

Right now, West Bank Palestinians are faced with eviction to make room for more settlements, insufficient water and electrical resources due to the Israeli regulation, and a lack of access to roads and infrastructure. Unfortunately, these conditions could worsen with Isreali annexation. 

Netanyahu’s aim in the West Bank is to expand Israeli sovereignty. This is alarming for Palestinians and neighboring countries for a number of reasons. An increase in Israeli settlements would result in more Palestinian evictions in the West Bank, further  displacing Arab Palestinians. According to the United Nations Relief and Works agency for Palestine refugees, one-third of Palestinian refugees reside in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria in addition to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Syria is currently dealing with a civil war, Lebanon is recovering from a tragic explosion and Jordan is handling a water shortage, a substantial increase in refugees could put serious strain on these countries. 

Annexing land along the Jordan River would provide Israel with a military strategic advantage over the West Bank which could be crippling to the already weakened Palestinian resistance.  The Jordan river also provides water and other vital resources for Palestinians and Israelis but if Israel gains sole control of the river Palestine could lose a critical water source for agriculture and energy. 

Although the signing of the Abraham Accords is historic in nature and represents the Middle East effort for peace, Palestinians still do not have an independent state. Since the conflict is largely based on obtaining sovereign land it is hard to imagine peace in the Middle East without an independent Palestianian state. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain’s signing of the accords has proven to motivate other nations to sign similar deals, Sudan for example, for economic or diplomatic reasons, while Israel contiunes to spread their borders, effectively losing sight of any Palestinian state. 

However, the hope is the Abraham Accords will set the stage for a peaceful Middle East, thus ending the Arab-Israali conflict and any subsequent aggression from Arab nations to Israel.      

The post The Abraham Accords: Palestinians Lose Out appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The Trump administration initiated intra-Afghan negotiations after signing an agreement with the Taliban in February. Peace talks offer the country a rare opportunity to build a framework for lasting coexistence after nineteen years of bloodshed. Afghans are in dire need of a permanent ceasefire, especially now that the coronavirus is pushing millions into poverty and devastating the economy, with 90% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day.

While getting the Taliban and Afghan government to the table is an accomplishment in and of itself, negotiations will be long and difficult, and both parties will need to reconcile fundamental differences over the country’s system of government to reach a successful deal. This article outlines the developments that have led to peace talks, challenges facing intra-Afghan negotiations, and future policy considerations.

Intra-Afghan Peace Talks

After more than eighteen months of negotiations, the United States reached an agreement with the Taliban in February, signaling the possibility of ending the U.S.’ nearly two-decade-long involvement in the war. The agreement commits the United States to a gradual withdrawal of military forces in exchange for the Taliban’s commitment to preventing Afghan soil from being used as a safe harbor for terrorists ever again. The agreement also obligates the Taliban to commence peace negotiations with the Afghan government and was preceded by a ‘Reduction in Violence’ deal to test the Taliban’s commitment to achieving peace and controlling its forces.

On the same day the U.S.-Taliban agreement was finalized in Doha, the United States signed an agreement with the Afghan government in Kabul. A joint declaration between the U.S. and Afghan government outlined goals for achieving peace and regional stability in Afghanistan, including a permanent ceasefire, withdrawal of U.S. troops, and counterrorism operations.

Talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban were supposed to begin on March 10, 2020, as per the U.S.-Taliban agreement, following an initial prison exchange of Taliban prisoners and Afghan security forces prisoners. However, the Afghan government had not been consulted on the exchange, resulting in contention and a delay of peace talks. After more negotiating, the Afghan government eventually agreed to release 1,500 prisoners and created a negotiation team for the talks composed of “politicians, former officials, and representatives of civil society,” five of whom were women.

In June, the Taliban and Afghan government agreed to open intra-Afghan peace talks in Qatar to negotiate a ceasefire and long-awaited political settlement to nineteen years of conflict. However, tensions increased when the Taliban rejected said ceasefire, which the government called for during the holy month of Ramadan so authorities could focus on curbing the spread of coronavirus. The Afghan National Security Council reported that attacks by the Taliban over the previous three months rose by nearly 40 percent compared to the same time last year. The Taliban promised not to target American bases, but refused a ceasefire with Afghan forces, leaving that to direct negotiations between both sides. In response, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani warned that Taliban-sponsored violence could pose a serious threat to negotiations during the peace process in September.

Key Challenges

Intra-Afghan talks are a historic chance for peace but there is still a long road ahead, with many challenges threatening the viability of a sustainable peace agreement. First, the Taliban and Afghan government will have to reconcile fundamental differences in ideology and governance systems. The majority of citizens support the current “Islamic Republic” which follows a democratic constitution, separation of powers, and equal rights for men and women to participate in politics. The Taliban, however, seek to establish an “Islamic system” which has yet to be defined, but would likely be similar to the restrictive regime established in the late 1990s which included: banning entertainment, forcing men to grow beards, and shutting down girls’ schools. The Taliban have been steadfast in their opposition to democratic elections and the country’s constitution. For an agreement to be successful, the Taliban must be flexible and willing to make concessions with regard to issues such as the role of Islam and women’s rights in the legal system.

The second challenge facing intra-Afghan talks is internal division on both sides. After the disputed and controversial outcome of the September 2019 presidential election — which resulted in Ghani’s presidency by a razor-thin majority of 50.64 percent of votes — the Afghan government is extremely fragile. While a power-sharing agreement was reached by Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan, tensions between the two politicians remain high, and the Afghan government is plagued with other forms of high-level corruption that threaten its cohesion and credibility. Internal divisions within the Taliban will also make negotiating difficult, as factions hold different stances on the peace agreement. Some Taliban members refuse to acknowledge the agreement, while others are working to strengthen ties with the Haqqani Network and the Islamic State in Khorasan.

Finally, it is unclear whether the Taliban are truly acting in good faith. The group has already objected to numerous compromises such as prisoner exchanges and a temporary ceasefire, making Afghan and U.S. officials cast doubts on whether they are serious about reaching a peace deal. The Taliban’s increased attacks on Afghan forces following the February agreement also raise concerns about the viability of a long-lasting ceasefire. Skeptics argue that the fundamentalist group is only negotiating to drive U.S. troops out of the region so Taliban forces can overthrow the Afghan government and establish an interim one.

Future Policy Considerations

The stakes in Afghanistan are as high as ever and the United States should view intra-Afghan peace negotiations a foreign policy priority. After nineteen years of involvement in the conflict, a final peace agreement would allow the United States to withdraw forces and reduce its security and development commitments, focusing instead on recovering from the pandemic and addressing tensions with China and Iran.

Despite bipartisan support for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, abandoning Afghanistan before a peace agreement is settled would be a foreign policy disaster. Not only is Afghanistan on the brink of a humanitarian crisis, but the country is also still at risk of becoming a hub for terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), especially if the Taliban were to overthrow the Afghan government. A withdrawal of troops would also send a bad signal to allies about U.S. credibility in the region. Thus, the United States should continue providing economic, military, and humanitarian assistance to the Afghan government and remain heavily involved in the peace process to prevent stalled negotiations and ensure a peace settlement is reached.

The harsh reality is that one or both sides may refuse to proceed with negotiations, resulting in a stalemate. Given the Taliban’s lack of commitment to democracy, it is extremely likely that the group will refuse to make concessions on civil liberties, the role of Islam in governance, or political power-sharing. The U.S. must be prepared to maintain the presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan if the Taliban chooses to renege on its commitment and develop credible threats to ensure that recent progress is not reversed.

While reaching a political settlement should remain a U.S. priority, it must be done without sacrificing the societal gains that have been achieved in the past two decades. The Afghan government should not make concessions on civil liberties, women’s rights, and democratic principles of governance when negotiating with the Taliban. Afghan women’s hard-won rights cannot be sacrificed for political gain. Instead, leaders should continue to involve Afghan women in the negotiation process to ensure their voices are heard and promoted in the formation of a peace agreement.

The post Key Challenges and Prospects of Intra-Afghan Peace Talks appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.