Power-sharing and Conflict Resolution

BOSTON -- The news a few days ago that the United States government is considering negotiations with elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan as part of a wider strategy to wind down the war in that country is stunning news, but not surprising. 

It is not surprising because this follows a pattern we are witnessing throughout the Arab-Asian region: US-backed governments in half a dozen countries are losing their battles and political confrontations with Islamist-led indigenous oppositions, and must form national unity governments or explore other means of power-sharing.

And now we learn from American news reports in Washington, the United States itself is "actively considering talks with elements of the Taliban, the armed Islamist group that once ruled Afghanistan and sheltered al Qaeda, in a major policy shift that would have been unthinkable a few months ago," as the Wall Street Journal put it.

The Bush administration explains this development by saying that engaging some elements of the Taliban -- though not the Al-Qaeda-linked diehards -- could contribute to reducing the level of fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is an area where violence has increased and become more widespread. And at this time, the US-led NATO troops continue to increase in number to over 45,000, and fuel a cycle of violence and war instead of ending it.

The idea of the Afghan government, with US support and involvement, reaching out to some Taliban elements is one draft recommendation in an ongoing administration assessment of US strategy in Afghanistan. 

It is worth noting the wider context in which this is happening, because it may be an important new sign of sobering minds coming to terms with reality that may be affecting leaders in many countries in the Arab-Asian region. 

This region needs and deserves more peaceful methods of resolving conflicts, after having been transformed in the past decade into a severe maelstrom of political violence, war, invasions, occupation, terrorism and resistance that have been practiced in various forms by local governments, opposition groups, and foreign armies alike.

The tentative American-Afghan move to engage the Taliban politically is actively supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, a welcomed sign that Washington is finally learning the value of seeing and resolving conflicts in their wider local and regional context. 

We may well see something similar happen in Iraq, including American-Iranian-Saudi-Syrian contacts in the near future.

These kinds of developments can only happen when key players decide it is time to resolve conflicts by responding to the reasonable and legitimate demands of all sides, rather than trying to bludgeon one side into submission through military force. So it is no surprise to see political engagements and some cooperative agreements taking shape between US-supported governments and their Islamist allies (in places like Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia), in the wake of unsuccessful attempts to "win" through military assault and/or terrorism.

Simultaneously negotiations, truce accords or prisoner exchanges are taking place on a semi-regular basis among Israel, Syria, Hamas, Hizbullah, and the PLO, suggesting that these warring foes also wish to explore negotiated rather than military resolutions of their conflicts. 

At the same time, talks continue between Iran and the major Western countries that fear its (alleged) plans to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranians say they do not want weapons, only the right to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle for energy production, which they are allowed to do under existing international regulations and conventions. They have mastered much of the uranium enrichment technology, and they suspended enrichment once before in their negotiations with the Western powers and the UN. So they would seem to be ripe for a deal that allows them to manage their full fuel cycle without producing weapons, with intrusive international inspections to ensure this. 

These very different issues -- Iran's nuclear assets, Arab-Israeli talks, US-Taliban feelers, unity governments and cease-fires in half a dozen Arab-Asian warring lands - seem totally unconnected. But in fact, they may form a coherent regional picture of political leaderships and militant movements that have fought each other to a draw, and are ripe for non-violent conflict resolution through power-sharing arrangements that are free of foreign military hegemony.

A pivotal moment is approaching in the coming nine months that will see elections for new leaderships in the United States, Israel, Palestine, and Iran -- four of the key players in this picture of exhausted but stubborn warriors. 

If wiser political leaders replace the broadly incompetent and the occasionally pathetic ones that now rule the United States, Israel, Palestine and Iran, and incumbent leaders in other relevant countries summon more wisdom and courage, they could trigger historic changes. They could move away from military invasion, occupation, resistance and terrorism as hallmarks of their wasteful and destructive ways, just as wiser leaders than ours did in Northern Ireland and South Africa in recent decades. 

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.