Afghan Capital Hosts Parallel Presidential Inaugurations
Afghanistan’s Capital Hosts Parallel Presidential Inaugurations
(Bloomberg) --
The Afghan capital hosted rival presidential inaugurations after U.S. efforts failed to broker a rapprochement between its two would-be presidents.
Ashraf Ghani, the former president, took the oath of office on Monday, after he was declared the winner of the country’s contested presidential election. Abdullah Abdullah, the former chief executive who’s also declared himself the winner of the poll, held a parallel ceremony in the capital. Both men claimed victory in the contested vote on Sept. 28 that was marred by allegations of vote-rigging.
U.S. special envoy for Afghan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, who recently came from Doha after concluding a peace deal with the Taliban, failed to broker a power-sharing deal between the two candidates aimed at preventing the country from being pitched into a political crisis.
“As of now, the mediation has not produced any meaningful results, and there are no talks and negotiations between” the two teams of candidates, Fazl Ahmad Manawai, a top aide for Abdullah, told attendees at Abdullah’s inaugural ceremony. Ghani’s offer to Abdullah to have a 40% share in the cabinet has been declined, said Omid Maisam, a spokesman of Abdullah’s camp. In turn Abdullah has asked for the position of executive Prime Minister, a proposal which Ghani rejected.
Ghani, after taking oath as the president, said his government wouldn’t “monopolize” power and will work to establish an inclusive administration that represents everyone. “The republic system is our national umbrella. I call on my competitors to work with me.”
Blasts and gun fire could be heard in the vicinity of the presidential palace as Ghani made his speech but he restarted speaking once the noise subsided telling attendees to “stay calm and sit down please. It was just some explosions.”
After a peace deal with the U.S., the Taliban had said it would begin negotiations with the Afghan government only after 5,000 of its prisoners were released. Ghani said he would issue a decree on Tuesday to release prisoners in exchange for a “considerable” reduction in violence.
In the meanwhile Abdullah also refused to to stand down.
“If we would have accepted a fraudulent election, democracy would die in Afghanistan,” he said. “We pledged to our people that we wouldn’t accept a government that resulted from election-rigging. We’re still sticking to that,” he told supporters.
History Repeated
It’s a repeat of the situation that occurred in the previous presidential election in 2014 between the same candidates. Then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry intervened and brokered a last-minute deal before a civil war erupted that involved the creation of the chief executive position for Abdullah.
“The current state of play represents the worst case scenario for Afghanistan’s politics,” Michael Kugelman, senior associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center in Washington. “At a moment when the country needs to set aside its political differences and unite to seize an unprecedented opportunity to launch peace talks, we’re instead looking at the formation of two separate governments.”
The latest crisis comes just days after the U.S. signed a peace deal with the Taliban in Qatar where the militant group has its political office. The agreement aims to wind down the war in Afghanistan after more than 18 years of fighting that turned into the longest conflict in American history.
It calls for U.S. troop levels to fall to 8,600 within 135 days, from about 13,000 now, and for all U.S. forces to withdraw in 14 months if the accord holds. It also sets the stage for the Taliban to engage in talks with Afghanistan’s government to decide the political future of the nation.
U.S. opposes “any effort to establish a parallel government or any use of force to resolve political differences,” U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said on Twitter. “Prioritizing an inclusive government is paramount for peace,” he added.
But the squabbling between mainstream Afghan politicians leaves the future of such intra-Afghan talks in serious doubts.
“The intra-Afghan talks have no meaning if the Taliban is the only coherent party there. The mainstream in Afghanistan should be posing as a united front, instead they are bickering,” said Harsh Pant, professor of international relations at King’s College London. “So it’s advantage Taliban whichever way you look at it.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Eltaf Najafizada in Kabul at enajafizada1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Ruth Pollard at rpollard2@bloomberg.net, Muneeza Naqvi
©2020 Bloomberg L.P.