54 The EconomistSeptember 14th 2019
I
n three tweets(how else?) President
Donald Trump upended more than a year
of painstaking American negotiation with
the insurgents of the Taliban, who have
been fighting to overthrow the American-
backed government in Afghanistan for 18
years. First Mr Trump revealed that Taliban
leaders had been due to meet him at Camp
David, the presidential country retreat.
Then, he explained, he had learned about a
Taliban suicide-bombing in Kabul on Sep-
tember 5th that had killed an American sol-
dier along with 11 others.
“I immediately cancelled the meeting
and called off peace negotiations,” Mr
Trump declared on September 7th. He con-
tinued: “If they cannot agree to a ceasefire
during these very important peace talks,
and would even kill 12 innocent people,
then they probably don’t have the power to
negotiate a meaningful agreement any-
way.” Two days later he repeated his deci-
sion, saying that the talks were “dead”.
Mr Trump’s change of heart came less
than a week after his negotiator, Zalmay
Khalilzad, had announced that a deal had
been reached in principle to begin windingup America’s longest war. Mr Khalilzad
said the accord with the Taliban would see
5,400 of America’s 14,000 troops leave in
the next four-and-a-half months. A fuller
withdrawal was expected over the next year
or more.
Yet Mr Khalilzad was vague about what
the Taliban would give in return. The de-
tails have not been published, but there
seems to have been a pledge not to harbour
foreign militants such as al-Qaeda. No
ceasefire was promised. Instead, there was
talk of reducing violence around American
bases. Afghan forces, which already bear
the brunt of the conflict, do not seem to
have been offered any reprieve.
Opinion against Mr Khalilzad’s deal
hardened as indiscriminate bombings in
Kabul killed dozens of civilians. Nine for-
mer American envoys to Afghanistan
warned that a hasty withdrawal would only
intensify the civil war. The Afghan govern-
ment, led by Ashraf Ghani, expressed grave
misgivings.
Was it cold feet about the deal that
caused Mr Trump’s reversal? Or was it an at-
tempt to wheedle more concessions out ofthe Taliban? If the latter, it may backfire.
The Taliban have never trusted American
promises. They say they remain commit-
ted to talks, but this volte-face will only
deepen their mistrust. Meanwhile Mr
Ghani, sidelined until now, is no doubt re-
lieved. The Taliban had wanted him to call
off presidential elections at the end of the
month, which he is hoping to win. He used
his strengthened hand to call for direct
talks with the Taliban, something the in-
surgents have steadfastly refused—al-
though the now-scrapped deal did involve
a woolly national dialogue in which both
the Taliban and the government would
have taken part.
The Taliban and America have said they
will now redouble military operations.
Heavy fighting is expected. Mike Pompeo,
America’s secretary of state, crowed earlier
this week that 1,000 Taliban fighters had
been killed in the past ten days alone. De-
spite his bravado, however, the military re-
alities have not changed. The Taliban are
slowly gaining ground and control much of
the countryside, but, thanks to American
backing, and especially air support, the Af-
ghan army retains control of all the cities. A
“political settlement” remains the only
way to end the conflict, as General Austin
Miller, the commander of American forces
in Afghanistan, recently affirmed.
In his tweets Mr Trump asked of the Ta-
liban, “How many more decades are they
willing to fight?” The answer is probably
longer than Mr Trump. This suggests that,
sooner or later, the talks will resume. 7AfghanistanNo retreat
ISLAMABAD
America calls off negotiations to end its 18-year war with the TalibanAsia
55 Zero tolerance for soft drugs in Japan
55 Studying cows in India
56 East Timor’s contested history
56 Urbanisation in Bangladesh
57 Banyan: Japan’s inept spiesAlso in this section