- Bow before Valkyrie, NASA’s ‘superhero robot’ entry in DARPA challenge
- 10-year-old Pennsylvania boy suspended for pretend bow-and-arrow shooting
- Tea partiers turn on Capitol Hill budget deal
- Budget deal to get quick vote in the House
- Comma on!: Twitter erupts over Obama-Castro ‘marriage’
- Sebelius calls for review of Obamacare rollout woes
- American dream dying, but many see free market as solution: Poll
- Air Force base in South Carolina boots Nativity scene
- Israel poised for a $173M boost from the U.S. for missile defense
- Leon Panetta named as source of ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ scriptwriter’s information
Taliban not demanding monopoly on power
Women’s rights part of statement
KABUL, Afghanistan — Taliban representatives at a conference with government envoys did not insist on total power in Afghanistan and pledged to grant rights to women that the militant Islamist group itself brutally suppressed in the past, according to a Taliban statement received Sunday.
The less-strident substance and tone came in a speech delivered at a conference in France last week. The French hosts described it as a discussion among Afghans rather than peace negotiations.
It was hard to determine whether the softer line taken by the Taliban representatives reflected a real shift in policy or a salvo in the propaganda war for the hearts and minds of Afghans.
The speech said that a new constitution would protect civil and political rights of all citizens.
It promised that women would be allowed to choose husbands, own property, attend school and seek work, rights denied them during Taliban rule, which ended with the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. The speech was emailed from Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.
“We are not looking to monopolize power. We want an all-Afghan inclusive government,” according to the speech delivered by two Taliban officials during the conference Thursday and Friday.
Afghanistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said the government welcomed such talks but did not expect them to bridge the gap between the warring sides.
The United States started to embrace the idea of peace talks after President Obama took office, but discussions stalled in recent years, despite the formation of an Afghan government council tasked with reaching out to the Taliban and the establishment of a Taliban political office in Qatar.
“The peace initiative is a process, and one or two or three meetings are not going to solve the problems. But we are hopeful for the future,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Janan Mosazai said.
He said the government’s preconditions for the talks with the Taliban have not changed: a cease-fire, recognition of the Afghan constitution, cutting ties with international terrorists and agreeing to respect the rights of Afghan citizens, including women and children.
The Taliban speech reiterated the group’s own longtime policies, declaring that the current constitution is “illegitimate because it is written under the shadow of [U.S.] B-52 aircraft” and that the Taliban remain the legitimate government of the country, a reference to the U.S.-led campaign that drove the Taliban from power.
It also called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and said a 2014 national election is “not beneficial for solving the Afghan quandary” because it would take place while the country is still under foreign occupation.
Most NATO forces are scheduled to be withdrawn by 2014.
The Kabul government and its international backers hope that a peace deal can be brokered with the Taliban and other militant groups before the pullout.
NATO still has more than 100,000 troops, including 66,000 Americans, on the ground. Washington is determining the size of a scaled-down force the United States will keep in Afghanistan after 2014.
“The occupation must be ended as a first step, which is the desire of the entire nation, because this is the mother of all these tragedies,” the speech said.
By Donald Lambro
Growth spikes are little more than trend-free anomalies
- Teen thugs in DC run wild -- even while wearing GPS ankle bracelets
- New budget accord saves $23 billion -- after $65 billion spending spree
- CARSON: Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?
- VEGAS RULES: Harry Reid pushed feds to change ruling for casino's big-money foreigners
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- More than a quarter million sign up for Obamacare in November
- Gov't Motors: Obama fudges math on auto bailout, $10.5 billion loss for taxpayers
- Somber duty: U.S. presidents in hot demand at Mandela's memorial
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- MILLER: Dick Heller challenges D.C.s gun registration, files for summary judgment in Heller II
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
An objective, analysis-based perspective of D.C. sports as seen through the eyes of lifelong D.C. sports enthusiast, John Heibel.
All of the world’s problems, solved on your back porch
Human interest stories to feed interest, satisfy curiosity and see outside the box.
Politics, economics, and business from a real world perspective.
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow