National

The triumph of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India's national elections, which gives Narendra Modi another 5 years as prime minister, should be a largely positive outcome for U.S. foreign policy.

The big picture: Washington has come to regard India, with Modi at the helm, as a key partner in Asia, particularly since the Trump administration rolled out its Indo-Pacific strategy. U.S. and Indian security interests strongly align over countering the threat of terrorism in South Asia and China’s deepening footprint across Asia.

Between the lines: The bilateral relationship enjoys a multiparty consensus in both countries, so the election was unlikely to disrupt ties. But Modi’s return ensures continuity in the fast-growing U.S.–India security partnership, which has advanced several foundational defense agreements.

These accords enable the U.S. and Indian militaries to enhance cooperation on communication technology and to use each other’s military facilities, particularly for refueling purposes — better positioning them to jointly address the China threat.

Yes, but: Modi’s victory gives the BJP a resounding mandate to continue espousing its brand of Hindu nationalism. The divisive ideology breeds discrimination and intolerance, heightening the risk of communal violence and other instability.

For U.S. officials and investors, the specter of America’s most important bilateral partner in South Asia becoming a less stable place is nothing to sneeze at.

The bottom line: Modi’s win should bring ample benefits to U.S. policy, but these benefits shouldn’t be overstated.

Michael Kugelman is deputy director and senior associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center.

Modi’s election victory likely to extend strong U.S.–India ties

Recent agreements have enhanced cooperation against terrorism and China's influence.

Narendra Modi with a large floral garland

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi celebrating with BJP workers. Photo: Atul Loke/Getty Images

World

India

Expert Voices

The triumph of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India&#x27;s national elections, which gives Narendra Modi another 5 years as prime minister, should be a largely positive outcome for U.S. foreign policy.The big picture: Washington has come to regard India, with Modi at the helm, as a key partner in Asia, particularly since the Trump administration rolled out its Indo-Pacific strategy. U.S. and Indian security interests strongly align over countering the threat of terrorism in South Asia and China’s deepening footprint across Asia.

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

A weekend dialogue in Doha, Qatar, between rival factions of Afghanistan's volatile politics and the Taliban has yielded a joint statement calling for an end to war.

Why it matters: The fledgling Afghanistan peace process is gaining critical momentum. Although the conference statement represents a vague roadmap rather than a firm agreement, the consensus reached arguably marks the biggest step yet toward a long-elusive peace.

Where it stands: The 7th round of U.S.–Taliban talks, which took a 2-day pause during the intra-Afghan dialogue, is likely to resume in the coming days. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says he wants a deal before Sept. 1.

However, the Taliban refuses to lay down arms or negotiate directly with the Afghan government until it reaches a troop withdrawal deal with the U.S.

Washington, meanwhile, insists there can be no accord on troops until there is agreement on multiple issues — a troop withdrawal, counterterrorism assurances, a ceasefire and a Taliban commitment to launch formal talks with Kabul.

Yes, but: Afghanistan's Sept. 28 presidential election threatens to pull away the attention of political leaders. The campaign season may also exacerbate the country's sharp political rivalries and undercut efforts to forge a political consensus on peace. 

These challenges help explain Washington's haste to secure a deal.

The bottom line: An end to the protracted conflict in Afghanistan has never appeared closer. But tough negotiations lie ahead, and reaching a quick deal to end America’s longest war remains a tall order.

Michael Kugelman is deputy director for the Asia Program and senior associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center.

Afghan-Taliban talks advance with "roadmap" to peace

An end to the conflict appears closer than ever, but many challenges remain.

inside the meeting room of the intra Afghan talks in Doha on July 7–8

The intra-Afghan dialogue talks in Doha, Qatar, on July 7. Photo: Karim Jaafar/AFP/Getty Images

Afghanistan

A weekend dialogue in Doha, Qatar, between rival factions of Afghanistan&#x27;s volatile politics and the Taliban has yielded a joint statement calling for an end to war.Why it matters: The fledgling Afghanistan peace process is gaining critical momentum. Although the conference statement represents a vague roadmap rather than a firm agreement, the consensus reached arguably marks the biggest step yet toward a long-elusive peace.

President Trump reportedly intends to withdraw nearly half of the 14,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan. Given repeated U.S. failures to eradicate the Taliban over the past 17 years, and at the expense of U.S. lives lost and billions spent, bringing troops home has its merits. 

Yes, but: Withdrawing 7,000 troops also poses a major risk. In recent months, Washington has been trying to help launch a peace process between Kabul and the Taliban, and the timing of the announcement, along with the speed of the withdrawal’s implementation, could jeopardize its success.

Trump’s decision comes just days after senior U.S. officials met in Dubai with top representatives from the Taliban’s political office in Qatar and its Pakistan-based senior leadership. The insurgents would now enter any formal peace talks from a position of deep strength, because they’ve gotten the withdrawals they’ve always wanted without having to give up anything in return.

Trump also reportedly intends to remove 7,000 troops within just a few months. Withdrawing so many personnel and all their associated equipment and other resources is safer and more efficient if staged through a more gradual process.

The bottom line: To be sure, withdrawing 7,000 troops isn’t catastrophic. Seven thousand U.S. soldiers and 8,000 NATO troops will remain. U.S. financial support for Afghan security forces — essential to keeping them from falling apart — will presumably continue to flow. But Trump's decision will still deal a big psychological blow to beleaguered Afghan forces, embolden Taliban fighters, and potentially result in higher levels of violence in a nation already suffering extensive destabilization.

Trump's hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan could imperil peace process

The timing could jeopardize peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban.

A member of the Afghan security forces walks at the site of a suicide bomb attack outside a British security firm's compound in Kabul, a day after the blast on November 29, 2018. 

A member of the Afghan security forces at the site of a suicide bomb attack that killed at least 10 in Kabul, on Nov. 29. Photo: Noorullah Shirzada/AFP via Getty Images

Politics

President Trump <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="reportedly intends to withdraw" data-vars-click-url="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-agitating-for-major-military-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-advisers-say/2018/12/20/0c35f874-04a3-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.ebb8e2cdd5a9" data-vars-content-id="31b3bc77-2919-4f6c-8875-a0cfc94c2a4c" data-vars-headline="Trump&#x27;s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan could imperil peace process" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-agitating-for-major-military-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-advisers-say/2018/12/20/0c35f874-04a3-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.ebb8e2cdd5a9" target="_blank">reportedly intends to withdraw</a> nearly half of the 14,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan. Given repeated U.S. failures to eradicate the Taliban over the past 17 years, and at the expense of U.S. lives lost and billions spent, bringing troops home has its merits. Yes, but: Withdrawing 7,000 troops also poses a major risk. In recent months, Washington has been trying to help launch a peace process between Kabul and the Taliban, and the timing of the announcement, along with the speed of the withdrawal’s implementation, could jeopardize its success.

The Taliban canceled its scheduled peace talks with U.S. officials this week in Qatar, following an encouraging meeting between senior U.S. and Taliban representatives in the UAE several weeks ago. The Taliban objected to Washington’s desire to include Afghan officials in this round, who were not present at the last meeting.

The big picture: The cancellation underscores the daunting challenge of launching peace talks in Afghanistan. The Taliban refuses to talk to Kabul until Washington reaches a deal with the insurgents on the departure of U.S. forces. Washington has expressed a willingness to discuss the troop issue with the Taliban, but it also wants Kabul to talk to the Taliban as soon as possible to ensure that the Afghan government isn’t written out of the script of its own reconciliation process.

Independently of the peace process, President Trump intends to remove several thousand soldiers from Afghanistan, which risks depriving Washington of leverage in the talks and giving the Taliban flexibility — including the freedom to back out of meetings that don’t serve its interests. In fact, impending U.S. troop withdrawals leave the Taliban little incentive to engage with the U.S., as it could soon get the troop departures it wants without having to enter talks at all.

Washington’s struggles to cooperate with Pakistan and Afghanistan are well known, but Iran is another challenging regional actor. The Taliban’s cancellation of the talks came soon after a Taliban delegation visited Tehran, suggesting that Iran may have encouraged the insurgents to back out to spite its U.S. rival.

The bottom line: U.S. officials won’t want the Taliban snub to deter their reconciliation efforts, but it’s a reality check that can’t be ignored.

Canceled Taliban talks bode ill for peace prospects in Afghanistan

The Taliban refuses to talk to Kabul until the U.S. agrees to withdraw troops.

Secretary General of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Jens Stoltenberg (L) gestures as speaks during a joint press conference with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani 

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during a joint press conference with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani at the Presidential Palace in Kabul, on Nov. 6, 2018. Photo: Wakil Kohsar/AFP via Getty Images

Taliban

The Taliban <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="canceled its scheduled peace talks" data-vars-click-url="https://www.tolonews.com/afghanistan/taliban-cancels-peace-talks-us-officials-report" data-vars-content-id="8dc577ac-e82f-4b26-8606-ab6406e24207" data-vars-headline="Canceled Taliban talks bode ill for peace prospects in Afghanistan" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.tolonews.com/afghanistan/taliban-cancels-peace-talks-us-officials-report" target="_blank">canceled its scheduled peace talks</a> with U.S. officials this week in Qatar, following an encouraging meeting between senior U.S. and Taliban representatives in the UAE several weeks ago. The Taliban objected to Washington’s desire to include Afghan officials in this round, who were not present at the last meeting.The big picture: The cancellation underscores the daunting challenge of launching peace talks in Afghanistan. The Taliban refuses to talk to Kabul until Washington reaches a deal with the insurgents on the departure of U.S. forces. Washington has expressed a willingness to discuss the troop issue with the Taliban, but it also wants Kabul to talk to the Taliban as soon as possible to ensure that the Afghan government isn’t written out of the script of its own reconciliation process.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

After failing to produce the blueprint of a deal in many previous talks, the U.S. and the Taliban have now agreed in principle to a framework that would provide a Taliban guarantee that Afghan soil wouldn’t be used by terrorists — followed by the possibility of a U.S. troop withdrawal and Taliban concessions that include a cease-fire and agreement to hold formal negotiations with Kabul.

Why it matters: This isn’t just a case of several Taliban factions trying to test the waters and seeing what the U.S. has to offer. The Taliban has sent several of its top leaders to the negotiations — high-ranking officials who would not show up just for informal chats with the Americans.

1. After past talks between the two sides, the Taliban has often walked back initial reports on progress, and some of its recent public statements have already struck a less optimistic tone than those of U.S. negotiators. Until Taliban messaging becomes more positive, expectations of a deal should be kept in check.

2. The Afghan government is understandably unhappy for being left out of the conversation thus far, so Washington will have to accommodate it if these fledgling efforts toward peace are to grow more promising. Will the U.S. insist on guarantees that the Taliban honors Afghanistan’s constitution and doesn’t try to undercut hard-earned women’s rights? And above all, will the U.S. hold off on any troop withdrawal plan until there are clear assurances that the Taliban is committed to declaring a cease-fire and launching talks with Kabul?

The bottom line: The Taliban has plenty of leverage and it’s negotiating from a position of strength. If it doesn't like where things are going, its leaders can easily back out, undercutting the encouraging progress made in the last few days.

Advances in U.S.–Taliban peace talks offer cause for cautious optimism

Top Taliban leaders have come to the table, but the group has still sent mixed messages.

Zalmay Khalilzad speaks and gestures from a table with mics

Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq who is leading negotiations with the Taliban. Photo:  Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty Images

After failing to produce the blueprint of a deal in many previous talks, the U.S. and the Taliban have now <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="agreed in principle to a framework" data-vars-click-url="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/asia/taliban-peace-deal-afghanistan.html" data-vars-content-id="d16ecd07-0915-4613-85e3-923ff38cbc1b" data-vars-headline="Advances in U.S.–Taliban peace talks offer cause for cautious optimism" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/asia/taliban-peace-deal-afghanistan.html" target="_blank">agreed in principle to a framework</a> that would provide a Taliban guarantee that Afghan soil wouldn’t be used by terrorists — followed by the possibility of a U.S. troop withdrawal and Taliban concessions that include a cease-fire and agreement to hold formal negotiations with Kabul.Why it matters: This isn’t just a case of several Taliban factions trying to test the waters and seeing what the U.S. has to offer. The Taliban has sent several of its top leaders to the negotiations — high-ranking officials who would not show up just for informal chats with the Americans.

Sections

Axios Local

Axios gets you smarter, faster with news & information that matters.

About

Subscribe

Michael Kugelman

Stories

Afghan-Taliban talks advance with "roadmap" to peace

Modi’s election victory likely to extend strong U.S.–India ties

Advances in U.S.–Taliban peace talks offer cause for cautious optimism

Canceled Taliban talks bode ill for peace prospects in Afghanistan

Trump's hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan could imperil peace process