Policy Alert #192 | July 29, 2019
On July 10-11, 2019, representatives from China, Russia, and the United States convened in Beijing to discuss and coordinate their efforts in the Afghan Peace Process–the third such meeting between the three countries on the issue. The meeting also follows failed negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban hosted by Moscow in May, and a more successful meeting hosted by Germany and Qatar in Doha earlier this month. Notably, Pakistan was also invited to join this most recent round in Beijing, which prompted concerns that India was being purposefully snubbed from the process. The Afghanistan government itself sits precariously, waiting for the big powers to kickstart the intra-Afghan dialogue. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s outburst on July 22 that he could have Afghanistan “wiped off the face of the Earth” led to consternation in Kabul about US commitment to enduring peace in the country. Rising powers China and India had the most commentary on what the new equation of countries involved in the peace process means, with China ostensibly gaining ground.
CHINA
At a press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang emphasized the consensus between the participants that the peace process must be “Afghan-led”: “China and the other three sides all support the ‘Afghan-led, Afghan-owned’ reconciliation process that is extensive and inclusive. We agreed to step up communication and coordination for Afghanistan’s peace, reconstruction and reconciliation process.” In response to a direct question about “why India was not included” in the meeting, Spokesperson Geng explained that although India was not at this particular meeting, it is not being shut out: “China has been in close communication and coordination on the Afghan issue with all relevant sides including India. […] Based on our consensus through communication, China and those countries agreed to hold the meeting. We are willing to keep in close communication and coordination with other relevant parties for an early political settlement of the Afghan issue.”
- The independent South China Morning Post interviewed several analysts in China for their thoughts on the country’s efforts in the Afghan Peace Process, including Li Lifan, a Central Asian affairs expert at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, and Zhang Weiting, an Afghan affairs specialist at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. Both experts cited China’s interest in protecting the Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI) China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and Zhang noted the BRI’s potential to improve relations between the Afghan government and Taliban: “China could offer Afghanistan financial support and build more infrastructure projects that involve both the Taliban and the Afghan government, and that may help reduce hostilities between the two sides.”
INDIA
In a press conference following the latest meeting on Afghanistan, Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar was asked how concerned India was about being left out. Kumar underlined that India was “a close neighbor and an important stakeholder” and shared that “We are regularly briefed by the US special envoy Mr. Khalilzad on the talks. We are also in regular consultation with other partners Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia on this issue.” He stressed that the process needs to be “Afghan led, Afghan owned and Afghan controlled” and the outcome “should not lead to any ungoverned spaces where terrorists and their proxies can relocate.”
- Center-right Times of India diplomatic editor Indrani Bagchi characterized India’s absence as being the result of being “elbowed out of the Afghanistan peace talks.” Bagchi noted that India disapproves of postponing Afghanistan’s upcoming election as part of the peace process, and featured comments from former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha that support a more “proactive” Indian effort on the issue.
- In the Indian news portal Rediff.com, former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar termed India’s absence a “policy failure” and blamed Delhi for having an “obsessive focus on the proxy war,” and being “impervious to other ground realities.” He suggested that “Afghanistan comes under the Chinese orbit for the first time in the history of our region,” and warned that “a long haul lies ahead for India now to regain the lost influence in Kabul.”
- The liberal Indian Express was less critical of India’s “marginal” role in the talks: “What matters in the end […] is not India’s diplomatic presence at various peace initiatives, but Delhi’s quiet but sustained engagement with all the Afghan political formations, including the Taliban. As an important phase in India’s north-western frontiers comes to a close, Delhi will remain relevant so long as it can make a difference to the internal political balance in Afghanistan and effectively contribute to the nation’s strategic autonomy.”
- The liberal Hindustan Times, meanwhile, called on the Indian government to be pragmatic about its handling of the peace process: “India should begin to work on policy options that presume a much greater Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. New Delhi lacks the finance, the weapons and geographical proximity to sustain the Kabul regime. But it should consider breaking earlier taboos like reaching out to the Taliban, many of whom are wary of Islamabad. […] It should also give thought to the security and military fallout of a Pakistan that feels it has […] secured its western flank. The game is not over yet, but the rules are being rewritten and India, despite its many limitations, should seek to influence the process as much as possible.”
RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.
