No more than a couple of months ago the US Congress would discuss the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. Yet, in spite of an extensive amount of effort invested by the international community into the resolution of the Afghan war, the conflict stretching for now over 18 years just will not end, while the absence of any visible progress on the path toward reconciliation remains a major geopolitical concern for a many international players.

It’s true that the former US ambassador to Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, after being appointed US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation held a series of meetings with representatives of the Taliban movement but none reaped any visible results. Experts believe that new rounds of negotiations are being protracted because of Washington’s stubborn unwillingness to accept certain conditions put forward by the Taliban, the principal of which is the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban seems to be willing to create an interim government in Afghanistan, but both the US and the sitting Afghan authorities oppose this proposition.

In early May, the sixth round of talks between representatives of the United States and the Taliban movement took place in Qatar. However, from the very first days it became clear that there was no hope that parties could achieve any progress in the foreseeable future. Throughout all of the rounds the United States has been persistently trying to get a seat for the representatives of the Kabul government at the negotiation table with the Taliban, while insisting that the Pentagon is entitled to keep a number of military bases within the territory of Afghanistan. It goes without saying that the Taliban would find both of these propositions unacceptable.

It’s hardly a secret that the Taliban refused to recognize the government of Afghanistan’s President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani, while describing it as a puppet government. Washington’s emissaries persist in stating that the US must keep at least 700 servicemen deployed in Afghanistan under the pretext of protecting the US diplomatic mission in Afghanistan. The lasting presence of the US military, occupying Afghanistan for almost two decades in the territory of this sovereign state, is not something that the Taliban can even consider agreeing to too, so it’s adamant that all US troops must go.

Additionally, the Taliban has reasonable doubts about the future intentions of Washington, as they fear the United States could easily break any obligations that its representatives are inclined to make today, thus hurting the peace process and strengthening the positions of war apologists within the ranks of the Taliban itself, as the latter are fairly confident they can take total power in the country through sheer force.

And one cannot say that the Taliban is being unreasonable in those fears, as the US has acted without consulting with the international community more than on one occasion, while refusing to comply with international norms and breaking deals that it had worked hard to sign years earlier. Here, the Iran nuclear deal inevitably comes to mind.

In would be naive to assume that the leaders of the Taliban movement didn’t pay attention to the statement made by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford at the recent congressional hearing, where this high-profile military official stated the Pentagon will maintain a presence in Afghanistan until the all militants operating in this country are eradicated, while adding that American forces must put pressure on “terrorist groups,” otherwise the terrorists will put pressure on the United States. Under these conditions, most international experts agree that Washington is deliberately dragging out the resolution of the Afghan crisis.

But even if the Pentagon withdraws its forces from Afghanistan, this won’t mean Washington has finally allowed this war-torn country to heal its wounds. It’s clear that it’s going to use its intelligence agencies to remain in control of the political situation in Afghanistan, as it became clear from a number of publications in across the Western media that the sitting CIA Director Gina Haspel has recently made a trip to Afghanistan to hold discussions with both Afghanistan’s President Ghani and her Afghan counterpart Mohammed Masoom Stanekzai. Earlier, at the January congressional hearings, the head of the CIA had already announced that her agency would be conducting operations in Afghanistan on a regular basis. By increasing the number and intensity of its cover operations in Afghanistan, the United States makes it clear that it’s determined to keep its foothold in Afghanistan through all means possible, preserving a military force large enough to affect the situation on the ground, while it matters little for Washington what status those forces have.

In this situation the Taliban movement is interested in outside players who can guarantee Washington’s compliance with the deal it may strike with the Taliban one day. Additionally, those players must be capable of ensuring that no foreign assistance will ever reach the Afghan wing of ISIS which is overtly hostile to the Taliban. Among the international players interested in ensuring peace on Afghan soil, only Russia and China fit the description, and it is curious that various Afghan parties are expressing confidence that these two influential powers are capable of ensuring that the US does not consider backstabbing the Taliban. It’s clear that such international organizations as the UN and the OIC have compromised themselves and lost all credibility within the international arena.

As for the aspirations that the Taliban movement may have upon the political stage of Afghanistan after the eventual conclusion of a peace agreement with the United States, it is interested in ensuring that the Pentagon or CIA will not be able to haunt its representatives. To achieve this goal they continue insisting on the role that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) should play in the future of the country. IEA was a partially recognized state that controlled the better part of the territory of Afghanistan and existed in the period from 1996-2001 . At the same time, the Taliban is confident that it would be able to unify Islamic forces at the national level, which have been fighting off invading American forces for almost two decades at various levels. The Taliban has even formed a special Political Bureau of the Islamic Emirate, based in Doha in order to maintain contact with all the external forces who play a role in shaping Afghanistan’s future.

As it did back in the the IEA’s earlier days, the Taliban is determined to make representatives of the Muslim clergy forerunners of their social program. Those clerics will build the foundation for a Taliban-based political party that would represent the interests of the Muslim clergy.

Therefore, against the background of obvious differences in the approach to the Afghan settlement, it is obvious that one of the parties in the peace negotiations must make concessions, otherwise discussions will come to a screeching halt.

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” 

It seems that the US can be considered the only state currently redrawing the entire map of the world for it to better suit the interests of its own political, financial, and military cycles. In fact one can’t help but to be amazed by the maniacal zeal with which the White House advances its agenda upon the international stage. It was this zeal behind the decision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the stagings of war in Vietnam and on the Korean Peninsula, and the launch of the Cold War against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. Those events were followed by countless wars across the Middle East and North Africa: in Iraq, in Syria. Afghanistan, and Libya. But special interests continue advancing their agenda regardless of the consequences, now pitting the US against North Korea and Iran.

In addition to repeated instances of armed aggression against any state refusing to obey Washington’s dictates, the White House has been engaged in the physical elimination of individual politicians that head undesirable governments. It goes without saying that for a government to fall into this category it’s enough for it to try to defend its own national interests in a bid to ensure the well-being of its people. Those politically motivated assassins have been examined in much detail in a number of media publications, including those featured in the New Eastern Outlook.

By establishing an elaborate network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in various countries of the world, sponsored through a number of off-the-books operations of the CIA, the State Department has been political conflicts in various countries of the world, while being supported by a number of private foundations, including those founded and financed by George Soros. This fact constitutes a gross violation of all international norms, since a great many of these conflicts result regime change often described by the popular euphemism of “color revolutions”. There are several prime examples to consider.

Iran

Last summer, in a letter submitted to the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, Iran would accuse the United States of repeated attempts of taking down the government of the Islamic Republic. This official appeal to the UN appeared to be Tehran’s reaction to repeated attempts by Washington to interfere in Iran’s sovereign political affairs, including Rex Tillerson’s statement made last June at a hearing in the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which he stated that Washington’s approach to Iran can be summed up in its support of anti-government elements inside Iran, which were aiming at taking power in Tehran. Never before has such a high-profile diplomat officially pledged his support to the staging of a so-called “peaceful internal political transition”, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the Algerian Accords of 1981, signed and ratified by both Iran and the United States. After all, according to existing US-Iranian agreements, Washington promised not to interfere, both directly or indirectly, through the use of political or military force in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The fact Washington was behind the recent demonstrations in Iran is evident by the well-coordinated support that Washington has been providing to the local opposition. The White House has already stated that in the very near future it will allocate yet another billion dollars to support Iran’s “freedom fighters”, while imposing sanctions against the key political figures ruling Tehran. An attempt to make anti-government rhetoric in Iran more popular has also been made by current US president, Donald Trump himself. Using his Twitter account, Trump would urge individual representatives of Iranian society to break away from the “repressive” regime, while tagging his messages with the #IranProtests hashtag.

Netherlands

On the eve of the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, which were due to take place last March, local politicians would voice a concern that the right-wing Party for Freedom was receiving funds from the US. Among the foreign bodies involved in the sponsoring of this party one can find such American conservative organizations as the Gatestone Institute and Freedom Alliance. It is noteworthy that the Freedom Alliance enjoys the support of Robert Shillman, a prominent supporter of President Trump.

It’s been noted that America’s neoconsorvative David Horowitz donated nearly 150,000 dollars to the Party for Freedom, making it the largest individual official donation that year within the Dutch political system, which may seem a modest contribution compared with donations made in the US. It’s curious that by making this donation via a fund overseen by David Horowitz, it violated existing US federal laws, which prohibit such funds from sponsoring political parties.

Ronald van Raak, a deputy of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands, on behalf of all Dutch politicians expressed outrage over this instance of foreign interference.

Armenia

The US Embassy in Armenia has been engaged for years in consistent attempts to make the representatives of the local opposition more combative in a bid to prevent candidates that are sympathetic to Russia from coming to power in upcoming presidential election next March. At the same time, the sitting US ambassador to Yerevan, Richard Mills is known for pledging all sorts of US support to the opposition at countless meetings he holds with them.

Venezuela

In recent years, there’s been a mounting number of well-founded accusations against the CIA and the White House due to their attempts to take down the current government of Venezuela. A Venezuelan-American lawyer, Eva Golinger in her interview with teleSUR, shared a number of details about Washington’s role in the staging of the attempted coup d’etat in Venezuela back in 2002 and the possible murder of President Hugo Chavez.

Recently, the Venezuelan Commander-General, Jesús Chourio, announced that US-sponsored mercenaries attempted to pull off yet another coup last year by launching an attack against the military in the city of Valencia. Earlier that year, according to Venezuelan authorities, a helicopter that opened fire at the building of the Interior Ministry and the Supreme Court of Venezuela was hijacked by a policeman suspected of having links with the CIA.

In order to force Venezuelan authorities into changing their policies to satisfy American special interests, the United States introduced harsh sanctions against Venezuela, while providing open support for opposition forces.

Cambodia

Washington has recently come forward with a direct ultimatum to Cambodia, aimed at discrediting its authorities. This step was provoked by Phnom Penh’s decision to dissolve the main opposition party – the Cambodian National Rescue Party. In response, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders would be as bold as to announce (emphasis added)

As a first step, we will terminate support for the Cambodian National Election Committee and its administration of the upcoming 2018 national election. On current course next year’s election will not be legitimate, free or fair.

End Notes

And list goes on and on, well beyond anybody’s ability to present all of Washington’s sins in a single article. However, it should be added that in a bid to hide from the international community the fact it’s been interfering in elections worldwide on such a scale, Washington unleashed a campaign accusing Russia of the very sort of interference Washington itself has been plying for decades. However, realizing the groundless nature of such allegations against Russia, a number American political figures have come forward to dismiss the charges. Even the director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Pompeo has recently been forced to admit that he was in possession of no evidence of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s election campaign members.

So wouldn’t it be better for Washington, instead of voicing far-fetched accusations against Russia, to admit its own destructive role in influencing democratic procedures in other states?

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”