'No breakthrough likely in resumed US-Taliban talks'

Even though the United States has resumed talks with the Taliban, but it the latest round of discussion are believed to yield no results, says Prominent Amerian foreign policy and nuclear security expert George Perkovich.

Bangalore: The United States resumed its negotiations with the Taliban Saturday, three months after President Donald Trump had called them off. Prominent Amerian foreign policy and nuclear security expert George Perkovich, however, is not pinning his hopes much on a breakthrough in the new round of dialogue. He believes the situation in Afghanistan has hardly changed and either side is unlikely to concede any new ground.

Perkovich, Vice President of the global think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in DC, also says that there is genuine concern on The Hill about the human rights situation in Kashmir, the possibility of an armed conflict escalating in the valley and India-Pakistan tensions sparking off. Speaking to senior journalist Smita Sharma along sidelines of the Carnegie Global Technology Summit in Bengaluru, Perkovich also argued that Pakistani arguments on Kashmir are finding a greater resonance in Washington following the scrapping of Article 370 and reorganisation of the former state by the Modi government. However, Donald Trump has no idea of South Asia or its dynamics and often lies, added Perkovich.

Now that the US has announced the resumption of talks with the Taliban do you see it making any breakthroughs?

My sense is it not talks just for the sake of talks. There was progress that had been made before the Camp David meeting was cancelled. Now it is quite controversial with voices within the US military, within India that say what was about to be agreed was giving too much to the Taliban. But there was some progress despite the controversy. If they are resuming the discussions it is difficult for me to see that there would be a big change from what was rumoured to be kind of the basic package that had been agreed for. Nothing on the ground has changed for the Taliban to make bigger concessions. I do not know what the US would be willing to do more than it had already.

What transpired behind the scenes when Trump invited the Taliban for talks to Camp David and then cancelled it off citing attacks which had taken place previously too?

I do not really know. It has the symptoms or indications of something that has happened in the Trump administration a number of times. Where the President agrees to something or says something seemingly promising because he is imagining a great Television of that that will make him look great. But he is ignorant. He does not understand the details of the situation. So his staff and others over time are trying to alert him that this is complicated, might be controversial, here are the implications of what he might do. He does not pay attention till the last minute and then makes a conclusion that he will look bad on television if he goes forward with it and so he cancels it. So one of the things that happened before the planned meeting at Camp David with representatives of the Taliban is that people were finally getting to Trump and he realised that he was not going to look good . People were saying Taliban are killers and you are inviting them to Camp David without getting that much in return. So it appears that he realised he was not going to look so good so he just cancelled it.

There have been two hearings on Kashmir in the US. Is there a deeper criticism among the Democrats today also in view of the Trump appearance in the Houston rally and Republicans saying PM Modi endorsed him for 2020?

I do not think that President Trump and PM Modi’s kind of bromance in Houston helped India politically in the US. But I do not think it was that huge a deal. My sense is Democratic Representatives are not responding about the situation in Kashmir or expressing their views as some retaliation for Modi’s meeting with Trump. It did not help but it did not cause this. What is causing the concern is genuine sense that this was a big shift regarding Kashmir. It is a volatile issue that has led to conflict and could lead to armed conflict. And Probably that it cannot be resolved unilaterally that seems to be the assertion and preference of the Indian government. It is a genuine concern that this will not solve the problem. They are genuinely concerned about the human rights situation in Kashmir. There is not that much reporting on it also in some way because India is blocking it, makes people conclude it must be really bad. And that the Indian government position is very problematic if they are not allowing reporting. So naturally brings out scepticism among officials and Democrats, in general, tend to be more interested in human rights. That is what is reflected in the questioning of India in the Congressional hearings.

President Trump has said a few things about mediation on Kashmir issue, then changed statements. How serious a concern is the state of India-Pakistan for the US administration?

It is difficult to set aside what the US President says and does because of his position. But the man does not know anything about South Asia or the dynamics. He often says things that are not true. I have to believe PM Modi when he says that is not the case (Modi did not ask Trump for mediation on Kashmir). The underlying issue is of enduring concern for American governments for twenty years since 1999 because of the existence of violence. They are concerned that escalation can happen whether intended or not. If there is the possibility of escalation and you have two nuclear-armed states, it is natural then to worry about the nuclear dimension. One cannot simultaneously say we have nuclear weapons for deterrence and then during some conflict say they are irrelevant. Then you are denying the basic purpose of having them which was for deterrence. There is a genuine concern which can is often exaggerated by media.But it does not mean there is nothing there to be not worried about.

Is terrorism emanating from Pakistan still a priority pressure area for Trump post the Imran Khan visit to White House?

Terrorism remains a great concern. US is putting a lot of pressure on Pakistan. Main leverage has been FATF (Financial Action Task Force) and that they do not want to go on the blacklist from the grey list. Pakistani economy is in very bad condition. So that also creates leverage. US has conveyed that if there were another major incident and it appeared that Pakistan had not been trying to prevent it would be serious. On the other hand, less you provide Pakistan, there is less leverage in taking it away. There will be a diminishing asset. The Indian action on Article 370 and Kashmir does not make it easier. Because Pakistan has a counter-argument to say that Indians are never going to address the problems with Kashmiri people and they are repressing, clamping down and violence.
But Indian action on Article 370 can surely not justify cross border terrorism.

It does not justify terrorism but allows Pakistani state to say do not think we can control everything because look this is an indigenous uprising in India. The Indians cannot control it, they have now had to crack down and violate human rights so people are naturally upset about it so don’t ignore it. And instead, you are ignoring it and putting more pressure on Pakistan, that argument has more resonance than before the Indian action on 370.

Where do things stand as far as Trump’s talks and negotiations with North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un is concerned?

I think it is good that President Trump reached out to Chairman Kim. But the problem is that if you are North Korean it felt like it only makes sense to talk to President Trump. Having technical and detailed negotiations with people from State Department and elsewhere does not make sense because you really want to persuade President Trump, who does not know the details as well like the State Department or experts who normally negotiate. The US has tried to send special envoy Stephen Biegun who is a very intelligent envoy and informed person to have talks with his counterparts. But the North Korean counterparts also do not have power really to negotiate. They are worried that they will get shot or otherwise get into big trouble if they make any kind of concession. You have structural problem where North Koreans only want to talk to Trump and the Americans conclude that only Chairman Kim could be flexible enough to make the deal progress. So we are kind of stuck right now.

North Koreans including Chairman Kim have said they are fed up and will do something dramatic or provocative either around Christmas or the New Year. That could be testing a long-range missile. They have made allusions about testing missiles over Japan. So we have to see what really happens. Whether this is a threatening behaviour trying to get a concession out or if it does happen. What the North Koreans want it seems is the US to make a concession on sanctions, to provide financial relief or reward or incentive to them now, to begin negotiations really. Or as the US is saying you will only get it at the end of negotiations whereas North Korea is saying we want it upfront. That is where we are stick right now.

By Smita Sharma