The Resurgence of the Taliban
Hakim Hamidi is ICORN writer-in-residence in Paris, currently completing a Master in Human Rights and Humanitarian Action at Sciences Po at Paris School of International Affairs.
The Resurgence of the Taliban
Originally published by the Australian Hazara Federation
Taliban: "Militant group of students and religious leaders who established the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 1994 – 96 in order to end the lengthy civil war following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from the region in 1989. Led by Mullah Omar . Promotes Islam as a moral, stable, and orderly alternative to civil war, ethnic divisions, and warring tribal chiefs. Follows strict, literal, and conservative interpretations of Islam and Sunni Islamic public standards, including the implementation of hudud punishments. Influenced primarily by Wahhabi teachers and Pashtun tribal traditions. The regime was denounced by international human rights organizations for its refusal to allow the practice or presence of any other religion besides Islam in Afghanistan and for the absolute segregation of women. It was supported and recognized by only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It provided shelter for Osama bin Laden and his associates, who ran training camps for international terrorists. Forcibly removed from power by United States forces after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon."
(Oxford Islamic Studies)
Taliban is one of the Sunni Islamic extremist groups in Afghanistan, mostly found on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Here they have safe bases. On the 10th of October 1994 in the 'Spin Boldak' they arrived in the district of Kandahar. At that time the Afghan Mujahedeen were heavily involved in an civil war, fighting each other to have their own monopoly on power. Taliban entered the world of politics, with slogans on religion and Islamic values in Afghanistan. People who were generally illiterate, became interested in the Taliban slogans, and warmly welcomed the Taliban. The Taliban over time dominated large parts of Afghanistan. They commited many crimes in the mold of Islamic slogans. These implications can be seen today: Taliban hostility towards women and lack of commitment to women's rights were one of the outstanding characteristics of Taliban's Islam. Taliban's hostility to other ethnic groups, mainly non-Pashtun, was also extremely clear. For example, according to Human Rights Watch, the Taliban are accused of genocide regarding the Hazara people:
"This report documents two massacres committed by Taliban forces in the central highlands of Afghanistan, in January 2001 and May 2000. In both cases the victims were primarily Hazaras, a Shia Muslim ethnic group that has been the target of previous massacres and other serious human rights violations by Taliban forces. These massacres took place in the context of the six-year war between the Taliban and parties now grouped in the United National Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (the "United Front"), in which international human rights and humanitarian law have been repeatedly violated by the warring factions. Ethnic and religious minorities, and the Hazaras in particular, have been especially vulnerable in areas of conflict, and Taliban forces have committed large-scale abuses against Hazara civilians with impunity." (1)
Why the Taliban in Afghanistan are powerful, is the question that should be seriously considered. Answering this question sounds difficult. And certainly depends on the behavior of political actors involved in Afghanistan. To respond, we have to determine the nature of the Taliban and the real needs and interests of this group. There are main actors behind the scenes, those powerful countries involved in the project of the Taliban such as Iran, Pakistan and most importantly golf countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and some other major countries. The policy of the Taliban movement contains many contradictions. It seems like they have many clear demands, for example they have raised demands of the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and to change the constitution to establish an Islamic state based on Sharia law with their own interpretations of Islam. It sounds that these three conditions are the main and basic demands. But in reality, it is difficult to understand their underlaying demands.
In spite of this, the fact is, that in some cases, their desires and interests have been accepted by Afghan government and the international community. Also they received some privileges; such as the release of senior Taliban commanders from Bagram and Guantanamo, removing the names of some Taliban leaders from the blacklist of State Department of USA, establishing a Political Bureau in Qatar, having permission to travel to other countries on the pretext of dialogue with the international community and Afghan government delegations. These are the advantages that the Taliban have acquired in recent years.
The Taliban policies in Afghanistan however, show that they are committed to even more violent assassination, kidnapping, murder, suicide and mass murder of the civilians. In spite of Taliban rhetoric and their urge to be accepted as a regional power and an independent country, in practice, the massacre of civilians which is against the international norms and conventions, have introduced them more as war criminals. I believe that the Taliban's policy has always been accompanied by creating fear and terror. This policy has in fact been the main manifest of Taliban for many years, even when they were in the Power. They apply this policy even against the civilians. So I believe that the action of Taliban in the real world, can not represent a coherent group with a political ideology, a political movement, a party or a group with an incentive and program to achieve power. Their actions seem closer to a rebel group than a serious political movement. In other words, rather than calling the Taliban as a powerful political partner, a strong opposition , group and party .... we should see them as a project; A project to cause insecurity in Afghanistan, and to protect the interests of other countries such as Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The murder and assassination of civilians and the creation of terror and fear cannot be the rational strategy to reach power.
This issue shows that the Taliban works as a project, not for the establishment of government based on humanity and universal values; but is linked to other violent groups such as violent Islamic Extremist and fundamentalist groups: al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin, the Pakistani Taliban movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the Islamic State. Although the attempt to justify their actions with Islamic injunctions, however, their interpretation of Islam as violent and primitive reading cannot be acceptable in a democracy.
Among the Afghan people, the answer to why the Talibans have gained so much power is based on the "conspiracy theory". The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event". In other words, the conspiracy theory is often used by religious leaders. It has an important role to respond to this question. Below are a few examples of reasons of conspiracy theory.
Based on the conspiracy theory, behind the scene are big powers such as the US, Great Britain and Israel. Their aim is to provide a rough figure of Islam, to defame the religion of "Islam" and loot material resources of the Muslim countries and extend their territory. This view is further reinforced by the theoreticians affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran who will promote these ideas among the people. However, the number of educated and enlightened people are following the same theory in Afghanistan. But they attempt to submit the conspiracy theory in scientific format. For instance, they argue :
1- "The End of History" a theory by Francis Fukuyama:
The American philosopher, Fukuyama, believes that Western liberal democracy and school of liberalism is the end of history and the final form of human government. In" The End of History and the Last Man ", he tries to show to the people that the liberal democracy will be the final historical form of government..
" What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."(2)
With the collapse of the socialist-communist system in the East and the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama's point of view became further highlighted. Some Afghan and Iranian intellectuals and educated people are desperately trying to use this theory to show the people that the west is universalizing a model of USA liberal democracy to the world , and all the “games” launched by them, the terrorist groups equipped and supported by them, to achieve their demands. It means, the Taliban gained the power by support of those countries.
2- Samuel Huntington's theory of clash of civilizations:
Samuel Huntington is undoubtedly one of the most prominent theoretician of the West in the twentieth century. Huntington divided the world into the " eight major civilizations; Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization.
He believes, "civilizations obviously blend and overlap, and may include sub civilizations. Western civilization has two major variants, European and North American, and Islam has its Arab, Turkic and Malay subdivisions. Civilizations are nonetheless meaningful entities, and while the lines between them are seldom sharp, they are real. Civilizations are dynamic; they rise and fall; they divide and merge. And, as an student of history known, civilizations disappear and are buried in the sans of time."(3)
In general it can be said that Huntington believes that the clash of civilizations are between Muslims and non-Muslims especially. He points to the historical roots of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. So, the religious leaders, in Afghanistan, argue that from Huntington's point of view, Islam is the main challenge for western civilization . Therefore, Western countries support such kind of terrorist groups to introduce a very rough picture of Islam to the world. Eventually, everyone hates Islam and will follow Western civilization. They believe that the formation of terrorist groups and the focused attention on the violent aspects of Islam is precisely calculated and planned. Such as beheading, burning people, the destruction of monuments, capturing and stoning women, forced marriages and preventings girl from receiving an education.
3- Trade of weapons and arms:
Many people believe that behind this political equation, there is the economic interests of the mafia, guns and weapons and large-scale militia. In this way many safe countries are in a state of fear and anxiety. Thus, they are forced to purchase better weapons.
The hot market arms trade will not be cold any time, and in this way a lot of money will go into the pockets of big companies and factories. For instance, they points to the arms trade between USA and Golf countries.
In the case of arm trade the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released its report. According to SIPRI; the world's biggest arms importers are: India 15%, Saudi Arabia 5% and China 5%.
Russia remains the world’s second biggest seller of arms behind the United States, increasing its share by 37 percent in 2010-2014. China has boosted exports by 143 percent, squeezing out Germany from the top three exporters.
Also it is very interesting to know the key importers are" India, Saudi Arabia, China, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan have become the largest importers of weapons in 2010-2014, according to SIPRI. India made 15 percent, while Saudi Arabia and China accounted for 5 percent each and the UAE and Pakistan for 4 percent."(4)
Nowadays, the main conflict geography and battlefield is middle-east, and the largest importers are in the Middle East, as well. SIPRI's report states:" The import of weapons in Europe fell by 36 percent while imports by members of the Gulf Cooperation Council grew by 71 percent, with the Gulf countries having purchased 54 percent of the total supplied to the Middle East. Imports to the region made up 22 percent of global purchases."(5)
Indeed, between the conflict spots in the middle-east and increasing arms trade, there is a meaningful relationship.
Although we cannot say all the arms trade market are only because of the Taliban and other terrorist groups, but it is an objective reality that insecurity and instability, is the cause of development and increasing the arms trade in the middle-east. So it can be acceptable by public opinion, when someone argues that some developed countries are behind of the insecurity and instability in middle-east and Afghanistan.
4- Creating fear among Western citizens for political - economic interests:
Proponents of this theory also believe that powerful countries like USA and UK, in fact, by the strategy of "Islamophobia" will keep their people obedient forever. Because as long as there are wars and conflicts and murder, Western citizens will not think of revolution and rebellion, therefore, they will feel the shadow of a government on its head. They will never intend to eliminate or take action against their government policies. In fact, from a political point, the followers of this part of the conspiracy theory believe that the strategy of western governments is to increase their life and continue their rule of law. Neither the public nor the big capitalists, will not act against their governments, but coming together and will support the government. They believe that experience has proven that people come together because of fear. And it is precisely this universal fear of Islam and Islamic terrorism prominent in public opinion has affected the people of the modern world; 11 September 2001 in USA, general public aboard London Underground trains and a bus in central London on 7 July 2005, Attempted car bombing in London ( Haymarket, Park Lane) on 29 June 2007, Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris on 7 January 2015 and black Friday the 13th in France and so on, has created many fears among the people in the world. On the other hand, war on terrorism is a good reason to ratify heavy military budgets in the major countries, especially the USA, UK and etc, that people do not properly understand the huge military budget approved each year in the name of combating terrorism, where and how they are used.
For instance, according to IHS report; " Defence Budget Ranking 2013"(6)
Rank Country $ (millions)
1 United States 582,424
2 China 139,203
3 Russian Federation 68,887
4 United Kingdom 58,854
5 Japan 56,842
6 France 53,091
7 India 46,183
8 Germany 44,688
9 Saudi Arabia 42,858
10 Korea, South 31,561
11 Brazil 29,516
12 Australia 29,444
13 Italy 27,790
14 Turkey 20,618
15 Canada 19,636
16 Taiwan 14,834
17 Spain 13,199
18 Colombia 13,190
19 Israel 13,097
20 Algeria 10,778But as " Business Insider UK" published a new report on Oct. 3, 2015 there is a significant rise in the military budget for each country: (7)
1- USA $601 billion
2- China $216 billion
3- Russia $84.5 billion
4- United Kingdom $60.5 billion
On the other hand, the modern world have to protect its citizens and their interests and preferences. The citizens are certainly willing to pay more taxes, to support their government, and large national and multinational and also, non-governmental companies.
5- Israel's role and management of the world:
This part of the conspiracy theory undoubtedly has Iranian roots and platform. The Iranian regime has tried desperately to use the fear of Israel strategically to increase their power, a kind of “Israeliophobia” On the one hand it keeps people silence, on the other hand they are using this fear to purchase more military equipment, especially nuclear weapons. In fact, they believe that Israel wants to destroy Islam and Muslims and pave their way to a dominance of Muslim lands.
But, finding a clear respond to this question, cannot only be possible by conspiracy theory. So many aspects should be investigated.
Pakistan and Taliban:
Pakistani support for the Taliban is very clear. Human Rights Watch wrote about this in 2000:
" Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support." (8)
Despite the HRW's report, some researchers at Geneva academy believe that the relationship between Pakistan and armed group in Afghanistan is not known.
" The precise nature of the relationships between the different armed groups within Afghanistan and in neighbouring Pakistan is not known."(9)
As Pakistan was supporting the Taliban from the outset, still, they are the biggest supporter of the Taliban. One of the major reasons for Pakistan which is supporting the Taliban is the Durand border problem with the Afghan government. The Afghan government does not accept the Durand Line as a border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Joseph V. Micallef wrote an article in Huffington Post. He tried to review the historical roots of Durand Line. from historical perspective, this area was very important. It was also the shortest route from central Asia to the Indian Ocean. A short, but useful analysis of the author, expresses as well the importance of the issue. He explained:
" In the nineteenth century, Afghanistan became a pawn in "the Great Game" between the Russian Empire and Great Britain for control of central Asia. As Russia gobbled up one central Asians khanate after another, the steadily expanding Russian Empire began to encroach, in British eyes, dangerously close to British India. In an attempt to preclude any further Russian expansion south, Great Britain twice invaded Afghanistan only to be defeated by a guerilla army drawn primarily from the Pashtun tribes that inhabited the region." (10)
Great Britain wanted to maintain its strategic position in the region and, in principle, to prevent the influx of Russians into the land of India. They decided to create the border. He writes:" In an effort to secure control of the strategic Khyber Pass, in 1893, Great Britain dispatched a British diplomat, Mortimer Durand, to negotiate an agreement to delineate the border between the Emirate of Afghanistan and British India. The resulting agreement resulted in a frontier that ran from the Karakoram Range in the northeast running south through the Spin Ghar mountains (Safed Koh and Toba Kakar Ranges) before turning west along the Chagai Hills to the border with Iran." (11)
But in fact, this border divided Pashtun people into two parts. This division of the Pashtuns, was not so important at the beginning, but over time when countries such as India and Pakistan were formed, it became more prominent.
" The new border, dubbed the Durand Line, divided the Pashtun tribal lands, a region informally referred to as Pasthunistan in two, with half of the Pashtun tribal region now part of British India and the balance remaining part of Afghanistan. The line also resulted in the loss of the province of Baluchistan to British India, depriving Afghanistan of its historic access to the Arabian Sea. The Durand Line also ensured that there would be a thin strip of Afghanistan running to the Chinese border, thus separating the Russian empire from British India. The Durand Line would become one of the principal issue of Afghanistan's foreign policy for the next century and even now remains at the heart of Afghanistan's relations with Pakistan."(12)
So, nowadays, after Pakistan and India became independent countries, most of the Pashtun leaders in Afghanistan will not accept the border. Finally, he believes: " The most enduring and destructive legacy of five centuries of European colonialism are borders that were drawn for the sake of political and military expediency but which, given the region's underlying history, culture, and ethnicity, make no sense today. The dispute over the Durand Line is just one more example of an ill-conceived frontier that continues to inflame the long running dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan and which will shape the region's politics well into the twenty-first century." (13)
Iran and Saudi Arabia's position in the image of Taliban:
Human Rights Watch in their report of Saudi Arabia states:" In the case of Saudi Arabia, also they wrote:” After the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989 and the overthrow of the Najibullah government in 1992 Saudi aid to Afghan factions was driven primarily by a desire to counter Iranian influence in Afghanistan by opposing the growth in power of Iranian clients such as ISA leaders Rabbani and Massoud. Once Pakistan threw its support behind the emerging Taliban movement in late 1994, Saudi aid increasingly followed suit. Saudi Arabia was a major financial supporter of the Taliban between the defeat of Hizb-i Wahdat and Hizb-i Islami forces by the Taliban in Kabul in 1996 and the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by a group of persons who were suspected of being followers of the Saudi expatriate Osama bin Laden. The Taliban's decision to shelter Bin Laden led to U.S. pressure on Saudi Arabia to terminate its support of the Taliban. Official Saudi aid reportedly stopped, but Saudi money and support has continued to find its way to the Taliban in the form of private contributions." (14)
As long as Saudi Arabia is involved in Afghanistan, Iran's regime reserves its right to support some other groups to compete with Saudi Arabia.
Given the "Pajhwok Afghan News" quoted from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan: “We do see certainly Iranian activity to use both soft power in the way that they shut off the fuel going into Afghanistan a couple of months ago, and also certainly to influence the political process there as well in ways similar to what we saw in Iraq.”(15)
“We did interdict a shipment, without question the Revolutionary Guard's core Quds Force, through a known Taliban facilitator. Three of the individuals were killed… 48 122 millimeter rockets were intercepted with their various components,” Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee.(16)
Iran has “without question” provided weapons, training and funding to the Taliban, Petraeus said, but added it was still in measured amounts. “It's certainly not an all-out escalation or something like that. And we think, again, that's because they are conflicted,” he noted, adding that they want to provide enough assistance to the Taliban so that they make life difficult for the US, but not so much that they might actually succeed.”(17)
Radio Farda (2015) claims" A high-level delegation of Taliban traveled to Iran on May of this year and they said the meeting was fruitful. One of the Taliban senior official Qatar-based said to NBC news: Iran has guaranteed us from their support to solve the problems of the region."(18)
So, it means, Taliban is receiving Iran's support to fight against ISIS. Radio Frada says : "Some Afghan officials and Taliban leaders say the two old enemies are now working in covert operations that attempt to prevent the influence of "the Islamic state" (ISIS) in Afghanistan."(19)
So, according to what I mentioned, Afghanistan's security prospect seems very ambiguous. Finding the solution sounds very difficult; the every country, illegal armed groups and de facto authorities like Taliban has different interests and preferences. This diversity of interests and preferences has made the situation very complicated.
Afghanistan and Peace talks scenario
Before the setout of "peace talks" we have to ask; who are the Taliban? What do they want exactly? What is the position of the Taliban in the international laws?
Gilles Dorronsoro in Huffington Post answered the question. In this article he has looked at different aspects of the Taliban. In this article he tried to express the temporary motivations of the people to join Taliban. He claimed that you can't split the member of Taliban by money. Because they are not committed for money to leave the movement :" As for buying allegiances in the interest of fighting al-Qaeda, we have never been able to buy out the Taliban. It's never worked. You can give them money, but that doesn't mean you can split the movement, or bring about changes of strategic significance. They'll accept your money simply because it's in their interest at the moment to do so, but buying out these people is not a realistic option, because money is not their main objective." (20)
Indeed, he is trying to show the Taliban members are very committed to the movement's objectives, And they are fighting because of injustice in the Afghan government and also because of the American bombarding their houses. He argues: " Most of the fighters do not join the Taliban for money. They join because the Afghan government is unjust, corrupt, or simply not there. They also join because the Americans have bombed their houses or shown disrespect for their values. For young people, joining the Taliban is a way to earn social status."(21)
But I would like to ask him, why American doesn't bombard Bamiyan, Daykundi and many other provinces in central, north and west of Afghanistan? Why American have bombarded the areas which belonged to Pashtuns?
He wrote: ” Most of the Afghan people are illiterate. They don't have political education as we understand it. So they are not, in the modern sense of the term, "ideologues," but they do have values. Traditional Pashtun values include protecting the honor of women, dressing modestly, and other conservative Muslim customs. Many westerners interpret the Taliban's lack of sophisticated ideological discourse as a lack of commitment. The fighters are basically farmers. Most of them are very young. Their world view is not very complex, but they certainly have one. It is a narrative of morality, justice, religion, and freedom from foreign forces. These values resonate deeply. The Pashtuns may be inarticulate in explaining it, but their way of life is still very much there.” (22)
At least he gave us a picture of the Taliban:
1- They are form Pashtun people, they are not fighting because of money, they are not surrender and they are fighting because of their believes and honor of women and so on.
2- Most of the Afghan people are illiterate, young and former. They don't have political education as we understand it.
3- The Taliban also try to maintain control of contraband, like opium, or make deals with the people who control it. The networks running opium in the South of Afghanistan are linked to the Karzai government, and the Taliban merely take a cut of the business.
4- They are connected to Al-Qaeda.
5- U.S. estimates Taliban strength in Afghanistan at around 25,000. But he is skeptical of that figure, because there are part-time as well as full-time fighters. There are also seasonal variations.
Despite, I do not agree with him on some part of his viewpoint, but at least now we have a little information about Taliban. In my point of view, this information can be used as a temporary strategy but are not very satisfactory for designing long-term policy. As he made a conclusion at the end of his article to answer this question:
What strategy should the NATO coalition pursue instead? ”To succeed, the coalition must control Afghanistan's cities, where institution building can take place, and the population is neutral or even favorable to the coalition. The Afghan army and, in certain cases, small militias must protect cities, towns, and the roads linking them together. That will reduce the number of coalition troops who get killed. And fewer casualties will buy the coalition more of the resource it needs most--time--helping it build up the Afghan security forces to the point at which they can stabilize the country and keep out al-Qaeda.”(23)
But the peace talks have began, without deep and rational research, analysis and definition, even without the recognition of the nature of Taliban. It seems like all the parties, politicians and all the incidents are leading towards a reconciliation process between Afghan government, Western allies and Taliban so as to have lasting peace in Afghanistan. But the main problem is that it is not clear when the peace talks started; when, where and who started the negotiation: Afghans government, Taliban or USA? But what is clear is that the secret negotiations have started a long time ago. Because it has lead to the opening of an office in Qatar for Taliban. After the reports of Taliban office in Qatar, there have been claims even by the Taliban that they are having negotiation with the US regarding a peace deal; the claim of Taliban's supreme commander Mullah Omar in this regard is the most considerable one. According to a report on "Outlook Afghanistan" website (January 11, 2012) United States of America has shown the green light to negotiations. Although, the State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, in this regard, mentioned:
"It is for the Afghans to decide on their peace talks, and the United States will support any such Afghan initiative…. This is not a peace that can be negotiated by us. It has to be negotiated primarily among Afghans... US officials, taking initiative, announced that Taliban are 'not enemy' so as to pave the way to negotiation and there are reports that some of the Taliban prisoners who were kept in Guantanamo are going to be released so as to proceed with the negotiations."(24)
After some preliminary hesitation, the Afghan government was prepared to enter into negotiations. But over time, the Afghan officials and western countries have also been emphasizing on the Afghanization of the peace talks process. There reasons for Afghanization of peace talks are significant and acceptable.
"Nevertheless, there are doubts about the process being Afghanized – not only because Afghan governmental authorities have been kept aloof of the process but because of the process being kept alien for the people of Afghanistan. There is lack of accountability in the process and lack of representation of all the people of Afghanistan. There has always been a gap between the ruling elite and the common people. The ruling stratum has not been able to penetrate within the lives of the common people. The people, in fact, suffer from the lack of basic requirements of life which can be easily attributed to the insecurity in the country. They cannot have the luxury of talks for the sake of talks. They want tangible results and that can only be achieved when the process is really Afghanized – not just for the sake of the news!"(25)
I believe it is impossible. Because the Afghanistan's problem is not only between Afghans, but it is a regional and trans-regional problem. The reduction of the Afghan peace negotiations into Afghanization, is only removing the issue. Afghanization of the peace talks process is only possible if both sides in the negotiations have total authority, clear interests and specific demands. Also they must represent the interests and preferences of the people. But these issues, cannot be seen in both side of the conflict in Afghanistan; The Taliban are not independent in practice and their demands are not clear, of course, they are not real representative of the Afghan people. Also, the previous state and National Unity Government use the peace process in Afghanistan, as a political maneuver and even worse, as a project to cause instability!
For instance, "Afghan High Peace Council" was established on 2010 by former president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. "Afghan President Hamid Karzai has formed a committee to seek peace talks with the Taliban, his office has said. It follows the endorsement by tribal leaders in June of a plan to engage militants in a reconciliation process. The Taliban, who were ousted from power in 2001, have been fighting to overthrow the US-backed government and expel foreign troops from Afghanistan."(26)
Although the Afghan government's efforts for peace-building and negotiation with Taliban was very important, it was from the very beginning associated with some skepticism. In particular, this was clear amongst the council members; The majority of members of the High Peace Council are Mujahedeen leaders, who have fought with the Taliban for years. So it is very difficult for the Taliban to be interested in negotiating with them.
Let me give an example of the talk in Sudan, Darfur with non-state actors (2003-2012) . There is a report in this case and has explained about peace talks process in Sudan.
"Initial contacts between rebel movements and humanitarian actors occurred in a variety of ways, inside and outside Sudan. According to senior SLA leaders, contact was first made during the N’Djamena negotiations, and the first substantive discussions between the SLA and NGOs began after the agreement was signed. Many UN agencies, including OCHA, and donor representatives were introduced to rebel leaders at a conference organised by CHD in Geneva attended byAbdul Wahid Alnour, Minni Minnawi and their newly appointed humanitarian coordinator, former politician Suleiman Jamous. Other UN agencies and NGOs established contactwith the rebels during subsequent negotiations in Asmara, Eritrea, and Abuja, Nigeria."(27)
An inclusive process with the participation of the stakeholders and actors, international institutions, political activist and prominent figures, seen in this case. But in Afghanistan it is not the same case. Despite holding several rounds of formal and informal talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, the results have not been positive; firstly, the Taliban are not independent; because the Taliban are not fighting for themselves, there are a range of purposes from Pakistan and Iran and Saudi Arabia behind the Taliban , and some intelligence networks and mafia teams. Therefore, dialogue with such groups and with this situation, will have difficulties reaching any result.
In such a situation, in my point of view, the peace process in Afghanistan looks very difficult, complicated and even impossible, if we do not understand at least three elements:
First; understanding the needs and interests of neighboring countries and the other countries involved in Afghanistan.
Second; understanding the history of war and conflict in the region; in what period of time and how it has shaped the country.
Third: The third and more important factor is without knowing about the sociology of Pashtuns in Afghanistan, Communication and interaction of Pashtuns with other ethnics, power structures in Afghanistan and beliefs and their culture and traditions, the gates of peace cannot be in Afghanistan. The fact that, unfortunately, for political reasons, it is less likely to be discussed; but it must be admitted that the Taliban and other insurgent groups are among the Pashtun people. Pashtuns came into power in 1747, and has always been at the top of the pyramid of power; at the same time, always in the form of central government dissident groups have fought. Many other countries have been invited to eliminate their opponents in Afghanistan; for example, Shah Shuja and British forces, Soviet union occupation and even the involvement of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the affairs of this country generally taken by Pashtun leaders. Even Hamid Karzai after the conference, "Ben" with the support of the international forces entered Afghanistan, especially the USA.
On the other hand the distribution and extent of the Pashtun population on both sides of the Durand border, the claim to revive Great Pashtunistan with a poor geography and lack of education has led the Pashtuns in terms of scientific and cultural knowledge are extremely backward. So these structures are narrow and complex issues which should carefully be examined. Without understanding the complexity of seemingly simple and basic structures, the depth of the problem in Afghanistan cannot be understood.
"...if a force from the outside hits an egg, a life is lost, but if you hit it from the inside a life is produced. So positive and sustainable change must start from the inside".
I believe that peace in Afghanistan will require a political-cultural approach. On the political dimension, peace would not be achieved without a national, regional and trans-regional consensus. At the national consensus, government should accept official border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and Afghan government must abstain the unsubstantial claim against Pakistan territory. Pakistan must stop supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan to be broken up and virtually deadlocked peace. Secondly, the people of Afghanistan, especially the Hazara and Uzbek and Tajik and other ethnic groups must be a part of the peace process and their views should be considered. Peace talks in secret and behind closed doors, in other countries and without the national agenda, is certainly not possible. At the regional consensus, countries which are involved in Afghanistan should commit to stop their interfere in Afghanistan affairs and stop proxy war. Otherwise, they should face with various and serious measures of the United Nations. At a trans-regional level, undoubtedly, the role of big powers like the US and NATO is highlighted. It would be better that they take more serious actions; for example, exporting weapons and military equipment to be banned for groups like the Taliban.
But the main work should be done in the cultural sphere. Although this is time consuming and requires time and cost; to attain a sustainable peace, political and military actions must be coupled with the "soft power".
Identifying new characters and intellectuals of Pashtun and intellectual movements in order to promote the activities of civil society, is essential. Of course, any change will not be sustainable unless it start from the inside of the society of the nation; For example, if a force from the outside hits an egg, a life is lost, but if you hit it from the inside a life is produced. So positive and sustainable change must start from the inside. Historical experience has proven that Pashtun society is more resistant to external changes and tough reaction show this. If these changes start from the inside of Pashtun community, it may ensure stability in the future.
As professor Steven Lukes writes: Soft power is "not merely the same as influence. After all, influence can also rest on the hard power of threats or payments. And soft power is more than just persuasion or the ability to move people by argument, though that is an important part of it."(28)0
...the means the Bush administration chose focused too heavily on hard power and did not take enough account of soft power. And this is a mistake, because it is through soft power that terrorists gain general support as well as new recruits.
In the case of soft power efficiency, Professor Joseph S.Nye, believes: "In the context of the war on terror, the means the Bush administration chose focused too heavily on hard power and did not take enough account of soft power. And this is a mistake, because it is through soft power that terrorists gain general support as well as new recruits." (29)
As we are seeing the political situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, as stated in Nye's arguments, is true. More generally, Nye argues that:
"the countries that are likely to be more attractive and gain soft power in the information age are those with multiple channels of communication that help to frame issues: whose dominant culture and ideas are closer to prevailing global norms (which now emphasize liberalism, pluralism and autonomy) and whose credibility is enhanced by their domestic values and policies."(30)
Paris, November 2015.
References:
(1) (https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/afghan101.htm)
(2) (Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History?", The National Interest (Summer 1989))
(3) (http://edvardas.home.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/huntington.pdf)
(4,5) https://www.rt.com/business/241005-russia-second-arms-exporter/
PDF available; http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1503.pdf
(6) (http://press.ihs.com/press-release/aerospace-defense-terrorism/global-de...)
(7) http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militari...
(8) https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm
(9) https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/review/2011/irrc-881-bellal-giacca...
(10,11,12,13) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-v-micallef/afghanistan-and-pakistan...
(14) https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm
(15,16,17) http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/03/16/concern-us-over-increasing-iranian-...
(18,19) http://www.radiofarda.com/content/f12-iran-taliban-cooperation-against-i...
(20,21,22,23) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gilles-dorronsoro/who-are-the taliban_b_335592.html
(24) http://outlookafghanistan.net/editorialdetail.php?post_id=3088#sthash.ad...
(26) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11188294
(27) http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinio...
(28) Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2005. ISSN 0305-8298. Vol.33 No.3, pp. 486
(29,30) Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2005. ISSN 0305-8298. Vol.33 No.3, pp. 487
Latest news
-
26.03.24
-
21.03.24
-
08.03.24
-
28.02.24
-
20.02.24