Peace in Afghanistan: Some unanswered questions
https://arab.news/4ydn7
There has been flurry of diplomatic activity lately related to the efforts to bring peace in Afghanistan. Gulbadin Hekmatyar was in Pakistan as was Abdullah Abdullah earlier on. Zalmay Khalilzad has also been active on the diplomatic scene. One set of the diplomatic campaign is targeted at Pakistan and the other at the Taliban. Regardless of the appearances however, the underlying message to both is to “do more.” These are not happy signs for intra-Afghan dialogue, especially as there is an uptick in violence and a downturn in dialogue.
While intra-Afghan dialogue may still be a cause for hope, it does not inspire much optimism. Hope, because there may not be another peaceful way to bring the long Afghanistan conflict to an end. But there is no optimism because the two sides are poles apart politically and ideologically, have an opposing assessment of their own negotiating strength and legitimacy, and there are conflicts within the conflict in Afghanistan-- a country that is not just one crisis.
Dialogue alone may not be able to resolve these differences and crises especially as the Afghans arguably treat talks as if they were an armed contest that has to be won in a winner-take-all approach showing little tolerance for compromise.
Afghans are a great people but as a nation they face many challenges. The country has serious fault lines – ethnic, tribal, regional, and ideological—and the rural-urban divide, that lies at the heart of its multiple tensions.
Pre-1973 monarchic Afghanistan provided some semblance of stability. But since the overthrow of the monarchy, the country has lost stability while enduring one of the most devastating conflicts of our time due to military interventions by big powers, interference by its neighbors, and most importantly by the Afghans’ own unending struggles for power.
Both want to be the dominant power in a future dispensation but neither can achieve this objective through talks. So the Taliban’s tendency to return to fighting, and the government and its allies’ inclination to walk away from the talks is inbuilt in the dialogue. The truth is, Afghan contestants are nearly always walking a thin line between talking and fighting.
Touqir Hussain
Afghanistan has since tried three contrasting models of governance: Marxism, democracy and theocracy-- and all have failed. True, in the past two decades, Afghanistan’s infrastructure has improved, education and healthcare have expanded, and women’s rights have advanced. But Kabul has failed to create effective economic and security institutions and governance structures, and lacks a writ over nearly half the country.
So one might ask whether legitimacy justifies Kabul’s claim to power. Equally, one might question if an undefeated insurgency has the right to lead the country while lacking constitutional backing, domestic legitimacy, and broader support of the population? The truth is, Afghanistan’s traditional fault lines and divisions now operate under the rubric of these two failed systems.
It is said that the Afghans need reconciliation. But the fact is you need reconciliation with someone who is disaffected. The Taliban are not disaffected. They are rivals in power. It is also suggested there should be power sharing. You can share power but not the ideology. Besides, how do you have power sharing or coexistence when the Afghan government and the Taliban subscribe to two different political systems. So what sharing of power are we talking of? Kabul shares power with the Taliban or the other way around?
Both want to be the dominant power in a future dispensation but neither can achieve this objective through talks. So the Taliban’s tendency to return to fighting, and the government and its allies’ inclination to walk away from the talks is inbuilt in the dialogue. The truth is, Afghan contestants are nearly always walking a thin line between talking and fighting.
Abdullah Abdullah’s recent visit to Pakistan ended with words of praise for Pakistan. Yet this may have less to do with what Pakistan has done than what it is hoped or desired to do to influence the Taliban.
But for Pakistan, it is a tough call to act against the Taliban. At issue are cultural, ethnic and religious affinities with them, as well as domestic political reasons and foreign policy considerations.
– Touqir Hussain, a former Ambassador of Pakistan, teaches at Georgetown University and is a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, National University of Singapore.
