US envoy denies Taliban claim on foreign troop withdrawal 

Taliban political chief Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, center, attends the “intra-Afghan” talks in Moscow Wednesday. (AP)
Updated 07 February 2019
Follow

US envoy denies Taliban claim on foreign troop withdrawal 

  • To be clear, no troop withdrawal timetable exists, said the US envoy
  • The Taliban refuses to meet the Afghan government, dismissing it a puppet of the West, and insists that foreign troops must leave the country

KABUL: The US special envoy to Afghanistan on Thursday denied Taliban claims of a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops.

Senior Taliban negotiator Abdul Salam Hanafi said that US diplomats had agreed to remove half of the 14,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of April and that the withdrawal process had already begun.

US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad denied this assertion, tweeting: “I’ve heard some Taliban officials claim we have a troop withdrawal timetable for Afghanistan ... To be clear, no troop withdrawal timetable exists.”

There were six days of peace talks in Doha — where Hanafi said the timetable had been set — but there have also been talks elsewhere as the insurgents meet top officials from Asia, Europe and beyond to reach a political settlement aimed at ending the war.

Claim

The Taliban refuses to meet the Afghan government, dismissing it a puppet of the West, and insists that foreign troops must leave the country.

Hanafi made the troop withdrawal claim in Moscow, where Taliban delegates held talks with prominent Afghan politicians. Kabul objected to the meeting, with one army general describing at as a “white coup” against the government. 

“It was like a white coup and a warning for Ghani. His rivals, influential politicians and power brokers had taken part in it and agreed on certain things,” one army general who served in Ghani’s administration told Arab News, requesting anonymity.

“Ghani seems to be left alone and will be dealt with in future talks as one side to the conflict rather than as a government.”

The Taliban’s top negotiator in Moscow Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai said after the meeting that there would be no cease-fire until the withdrawal of foreign troops.

The sides agreed on an assurance to the international community that Afghanistan would not be used as a terror base against any other nation, and that women had the right to education and work in line with Islamic principles. 

They “called for the protection of freedom of speech in line with Islamic principles, and to undertake efforts to attract international assistance for the reconstruction of Afghanistan’s infrastructure.”

They also agreed for the next intra-Afghan meeting to be held in Doha, with some pushing for the participation of Ghani’s government. Some at the Moscow meeting demanded the formation of an interim government to replace Ghani instead of holding presidential elections in July.

The presidential palace in Kabul said the Moscow moot was a futile exercise. In a short statement issued late Wednesday, the government said the talks “hold no weight” as delegates attending the meeting in Moscow had no executive authority and that the gathering was only political and academic talks. 

The Moscow gathering was considered a blow to Ghani, as various factions and ethnic groups had put aside their differences in his absence.

Analyst Ahmad Shuja referred to the remarks of US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who emphasized the importance of intra-Afghan-dialogue and for the creation of “conditions for the government, other leaders and Taliban to sit together and negotiate a peaceful settlement.”

Shuja saw Pompeo’s comments as a change in stance from the US.

“The US emphasizes intra-Afghan dialogue, but does not assert the Afghan government’s leading role in the peace process. The US treats the Afghan government as a member of one of the groups engaged during the talks,” he told Arab News.

Those in the six-day Doha meeting included former President Hamid Karzai, Ghani’s key challenger in presidential elections, former Interior Minister Haneef Atmar, regional power brokers and technocrats.

Trump has repeatedly spoken about the need for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, where it has been bogged down in a conflict with the Taliban and other groups since late 2001.

He appointed Khalilzad to engage with the Taliban in order to find a negotiated settlement.


Ukraine sanctions Belarus leader for supporting Russian invasion

Updated 9 sec ago
Follow

Ukraine sanctions Belarus leader for supporting Russian invasion

  • Ukraine on Wednesday sanctioned Belarus’s long-time leader Alexander Lukashenko for providing material assistance to Russia in its invasion and enabling the “killing of Ukrainians.”
KYIV: Ukraine on Wednesday sanctioned Belarus’s long-time leader Alexander Lukashenko for providing material assistance to Russia in its invasion and enabling the “killing of Ukrainians.”
Lukashenko is one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest allies and allowed his country to be used as a springboard for Moscow’s February 2022 attack.
Russia has also deployed various military equipment to the country, Ukraine alleges, including relay stations that connect to Russian attack drones, fired in their hundreds every night at Ukrainian cities.
“Today Ukraine applied a package of sanctions against Alexander Lukashenko, and we will significantly intensify countermeasures against all forms of his assistance in the killing of Ukrainians,” President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a statement.
Russia has also said it is stationing Oreshnik missiles in Belarus, a feared hypersonic ballistic weapon that Putin has claimed is impervious to air defenses. It has twice been fired on Ukraine during the war — launched from bases in Russia — though caused minimal damage as experts said it was likely fitted with dummy warheads both times.
Zelensky also accused Lukashenko of helping Moscow avoid Western sanctions.
The measures are likely to have little practical effect, but sanctioning a head of state is a highly symbolic move.
Ukraine and several Western states sanctioned Putin at the very start of the war.
Lukashenko has at times tried to present himself as a possible intermediary between Kyiv and Moscow.
Initial talks on ending Russia’s invasion in the first days of the war were held in the country.
But Kyiv and its Western backers have largely dismissed his attempts to mediate, seeing him as little more than a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.