CSS 2021 Solved Current Affairs Past Papers | Afghan Peace Deal as US Withdrawal Deal
The following question of CSS Current Affairs 2021 is solved by Sir Ammar Hashmi, the best Current Affairs Coach, on the guided pattern of Sir Syed Kazim Ali, which he taught to his students, scoring the highest marks in compulsory subjects for years. This solved past paper question is uploaded to help aspirants understand how to crack a topic or question, how to write relevantly, what coherence is, and how to include and connect ideas, opinions, and suggestions to score the maximum.
Question Breakdown
This question has one part. It requires us to analyse the contours of the Afghan peace process and conclude whether the Afghan Peace Deal is indeed the US withdrawal Deal or not.
Outline
1-Introduction
2-What is the Afghan Peace Deal?
3-Historical perspective of the Afghan Peace Deal
4-Was the US withdrawal the main objective of the Afghan Peace Deal? Yes, how?
- ✓Majorly Focus on US Troop Withdrawal
- Evidence: The deal primarily details US troop withdrawal within 14 months, emphasizing exit over comprehensive peace (US Department of State, February 2020).
- ✓Exclusion of the Afghan Government highlights the US’s interests.
- Evidence: Initial talks were between the US and Taliban only, excluding the Afghan government and complicating comprehensive peace (Thomas Ruttig, 2020).
- ✓Insufficient Provisions for Human Rights and Governance proves that the US only wanted to withdraw.
- Evidence: The bill lacks detailed provisions for human rights and democratic governance, focusing on security and troop withdrawal (Barnett Rubin, 2020).
- ✓Ambiguous Taliban Commitments and US agreement with the Taliban highlight that the US prioritized self-interest.
- Evidence: It relies on unclear Taliban promises to prevent terrorist activities, raising doubts about its long-term effectiveness (Michael Kugelman, 2020).
- ✓Delays and challenges in intra-Afghan negotiations and US behaviour after withdrawal are clear evidence.
- Evidence: Intra-Afghan talks faced delays and difficulties after the deal, highlighting the focus on US withdrawal rather than a complete peace framework (Lori Plotkin, 2021).
- ✓Emphasis on Tactical Security Agreements and US withdrawal
- Evidence: The Diplomat 2020
- ✓Limited Engagement with Regional Stakeholders highlighted the US’s skeptical escape from the region.
- Evidence: Ahmed Rashid’s argument.
5-A way forward to maximize positive outcomes by using the Afghan Peace Deal by all the stakeholders
6-Critical analysis
7-Conclusion
Answer to the Question
Introduction
The recent agreement reached between the United States of America and the Taliban in February 2020 has raised a lot of controversy among scholars, with some referring to it as the US Withdrawal Deal, not as the Afghan Peace Deal. This point of view springs from several crucial parameters of this bargain. Firstly, the points of the agreement are mainly influenced towards the withdrawal of the US army, where complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is expected within 14 months and not about the path towards sustainable peace and stability in Afghanistan. The bargain also left the Afghanistan government out of the bargaining table at the onset of the deal-making process, reducing its influence in making peace. Moreover, it is weak with respect to human rights protection, democratic institutions’ development, and its interaction with regional actors. Altogether, all these elements point to the fact that though the deal is strategic and will benefit the US in the short term, it is not comprehensive enough to fit the various factors that would, on balance, lead to sustainable peace in Afghanistan.
What is the Afghan Peace Deal?
The Afghan Peace Deal, formally known as the Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan, was signed on the 29th of February 2020 between the United States of America and the Taliban group. This agreement had the purpose of putting an end to the continued military presence of the U. S. in Afghanistan and look forward to starting the peace talk between Afghan parties. At the heart of the deal was the U. S promise to leave its military forces in Afghanistan within one-and-a-half years if the Taliban upheld the counter-terrorism commitments, which included the restriction of the terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda. The deal also began the intra-Afghan negotiations regarding the future political situation in the country and the formation of the peace process. Nonetheless, the agreement has received criticism on account of the primary U. S. exit strategy, leaving Afghanistan’s government out of the initial planning of the agreement and missing extensive provisions on gender human rights as well as long-term stability.
Historical background of the Afghan Peace Deal
Afghanistan’s background that shaped the Afghan Peace Deal is based on years of war and the failure of the attempt to achieve peace in Afghanistan. The Soviet invasion in 1979 and the subsequent ten years of war led to continuous insecurity and then the Taliban movement in the early 90s, which marked a new dimension of conflict. After the events of September 11, 2001, the US invasion was to remove the rule of the Taliban and fight against terrorism. However, after the downing of the Taliban regime, the following years witnessed the continuation of insurgency, hence making the conflict lengthy and costly. PyeongChang and Other Conferences introduced various facets to the peace processes that failed to bring permanent stability, such as the Bonn Conference in 2001 and the Kabul Process. The Afghan Peace Deal that was signed in 2020 changed the dynamics of the negotiation process, directing focus on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and engaging the Taliban in talks. These circumstances may be supplemented by the historical tradition of external intervention and ‘intercessions’ in the Afghani conflict, which has long-standing attempts to settle the conflict.
Was the US withdrawal the main objective of the Afghan Peace Deal? Yes, how?
The following points support the US withdrawal deal rather than the Afghan Peace Deal.
- The operation was operated based on the main theme of discussing the withdrawal of United States troops.
The agreement signed between the United States and the Afghan Taliban in February 2020 is often described more as a “ US Withdrawal Deal” rather than a proper peace treaty. This characterization is evidenced by the fact that the deal has mainly centred on the withdrawal schedule of the US troops in Iraq, requiring that they all pull out within 14 months. This focus on a withdrawal coupled with the deal serves the US strategic interests more than a framework for establishing a sustainable peace in Afghanistan (US Department of State, February 2020).
- Exclusion of the Afghan Government highlights the US’s interests.
The official communication of the [ISAF] states that Afghanistan’s political institutions have been intentionally excluded from the political process and kept out of the formal political sphere from the beginning. However, another major problem of the deal is the absence of the Afghan government in preliminary discussions. These negotiations were held between the United States and the Taliban, and the Afghan government was not included in the critical discussions. This has weakened the possibility of an effective, genuine peace process, including internal Afghan conflicts requiring more than military solutions.
- Lack of provisions made for the protection of Human Rights & Governance
The Afghan Peace Deal has not been perceived to have strong measures for human rights and democratic governance. In as much as it addresses issues of security and pulling out of troops, it lacks some of the provisions of human rights, including the rights of women and mechanisms of creating a democratic political structure. Such a narrow emphasis on security arrangements at the expense of governance priorities is because the deal is more about pursuing the United States’ interests than managing the peacebuilding requirements (Barnett Rubin, 2020).
- Ambiguous Taliban Commitments and US agreement with the Taliban highlight that the US prioritized self-interest.
Some weaknesses inherent to the deal can be seen in the fact that the agreement to prevent the terrorist groups from using Afghan territory is built upon the ambiguous word of the Taliban movement. However, sceptics have questioned the ability of the Taliban to follow commitments given their past behaviour and their record, thus creating doubt about whether the deal will indeed lock in stability and security in the long term (Michael Kugelman, 2020).
- Delays and challenges in intra-Afghan negotiations and US behaviour after withdrawal are clear evidence.
Last but not least, the measures and time taken, and the difficulties presented in the intra-Afghan talks paint the picture that the deal is more of a way to pull out America than an approach to peace in the country or continent. The intra-Afghan negotiations that started only after this deal have been burdened by several setbacks and challenges; this shows the relatively minor consideration paid to creating a comprehensive and sustainable peace in Afghanistan compared to the focus on America’s withdrawal (Lori Plotkin, 2021).
- Emphasis on Tactical Security Agreements and US withdrawal
The Afghan Peace Deal is equally focused on the strategic security consequences as the accord on cutting down violence and counterterrorism. They, therefore, maintain tactical security rather than searching for political solutions, and this is in a strategic sense. The deal focuses on practical concerns, including the cutting down of attacks, but is indifferent regarding the long-term detailed political process of reunification and consolidation. This is why this deal leans more on logistical considerations than strategic political resolution of conflicts (Catherine Putz, The Tactical Focus of the US-Taliban Deal, The Diplomat, 2020).
- Consistent with this argument, respondents reported having relatively little contact with most other regional stakeholders.
The agreement, to a more significant extent, precluded the regional actors, who are vital to the stabilization of Afghanistan. It was not only Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asian republics that were marginalised in any real way from the peace process. This leaves the negotiation process open to the possibility that the new deal does not adequately capture the other international politics and regional factors that shape stability in Afghanistan. The lack of engagement with these crucial regional actors limits the deal’s effectiveness in achieving a comprehensive and stable resolution to the conflict (Ahmed Rashid, “The Taliban: Foreign Policy, “Exporting Extremism: The Marketing of Modern Jihad” by Thomas Hegghammer, Yale University Press, 2020).
A way forward to maximize positive outcomes by using the Afghan Peace Deal by all the stakeholders
A joint and comprehensive method is required to achieve the most advantageous results of the Afghan Peace Deal. From the beginning, the Afghan government should play an active part in all phases of the peace process, as this will enable it to shape its political destiny. At the same time, intra-Afghan negotiations among different political, ethnic, and social groups should be strong enough to create a broad consensus. Furthermore, these negotiations should be supported and facilitated by international stakeholders like the U.S., regional powers, and global organizations through diplomatic or economic incentives for all parties to adhere to the terms of the agreement. Priority must also go towards humanitarian and development aid aimed at meeting the urgent needs of Afghan people as well as providing the basis for long-term stability. To achieve sustainable peace, women’s and other human rights must be guaranteed and promoted within the accord. Finally, there ought to be monitoring mechanisms to keep track of compliance with the deal’s obligations while promptly dealing with potential violations. Establishing a collaborative environment and addressing major concerns via continuous dialogue and support can help create a more stable and favourable context for the future of peace in Afghanistan.
Critical Analysis
Several scholars have perceived the Afghan Peace Deal as a U.S. withdrawal agreement rather than a peace treaty itself. Despite being presented as a move towards peace, the Doha Agreement mainly concentrated on U.S. military exit with little assurance for long-term stability in Afghanistan. For example, there were no clear definitions or enforcement mechanisms for key elements like the Taliban’s counterterrorism pledge and intra-Afghan dialogue process. Furthermore, because the Afghan government was excluded from initial discussions, its bargaining power diminished substantially. Thus, this accord was primarily concerned with the U.S.’s strategic aims rather than sustainable peace, leaving unanswered questions related to governance, power distribution, and integration of the Taliban into a democratic setting.
Conclusion
Afghan Peace Deal, at last, led to a withdrawal of U.S. troops, but it did not establish a proper peace framework and therefore left Afghanistan vulnerable. The agreement was void of any sound foundation upon which lasting peace could be built because it sidelined the Afghan government and relied on the ambiguous commitment made by the Taliban. This deal’s inability to reflect on deeper political problems as well as security challenges can be seen in how quickly the Taliban rebelled after the USA left. The understanding is that, ultimately, this agreement was superficial and aimed at achieving short-term geopolitical objectives such as those of the US; thus, many people considered it more of a withdrawal agreement than an actual peace deal.
CSS Solved Past Papers’ Essays
Looking for the last ten years of CSS and PMS Solved Essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the CSS Solved Essays to start reading them.
CSS Solved Essays
CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers
Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students.
General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers
