The long and arduous road to peace

Policemen attending their graduation ceremony in Nimroz, Afghanistan.  A former Mujahideen leader told the second meeting on the subject, “US Afghan withdrawal analyses: regional and global security implications”, held by the Institute of Islamic Strategic & Socio-Political Affairs in London that the future shape of Afghanistan “has nothing to do with think tanks, California, the West, the EU, or the UN”.

By Denise Marray/London

Participants at the gathering, held this week in a committee room in the House of Lords, Westminster, London, included leading commentators and political figures from Pakistan, representatives, including former ministers from Afghanistan, former leaders of the Mujahideen, interested parties from the UK and the US, academics and journalists. 

The meeting was held under the Chatham House rule, affording confidentiality to the participants in order to promote free expression of views. What quickly emerged was the hard fact that old (and in the case of the Afghan conflict) fresh grievances are hard to bury. The idea of reconciliation between all parties engaged in decades of war in Afghanistan is a noble and necessary one – but with so many aggrieved parties, the road to peace will no doubt be long and arduous.

But first to examine the positive elements; the election in Pakistan of Nawaz Sharif was hailed by a former Mujahideen leader as a sign that what he termed civil society would be engaged in formulating policy. The deadly triangle of players - those fighting against terrorists, those fighting against infidels and those military elements fighting for their own vested interests - would at last, he said, be prized apart to include a fourth voice – that of civil society. Now is a time for the engagement of political parties, scholars, thinkers, universities, academia and media. Now at last, what he termed the silent majority could have a say.

He looked forward to having a leader in Pakistan who would not merely be viewing the situation in Afghanistan through intelligence reports tallying up how many killed and by whom.

He said that his hope for Afghanistan would be that civil society would take the initiative and start asking questions such as: “What do you mean by Jihad?” and “What do you mean by War on Terror?” These questions, he said, needed to be urgently addressed, analysed and reviewed by society at large. Otherwise, he cautioned “people are dying for something unclear”.

He reminded those present of the fact that in 1998 Nawaz Sharif as a politician and leader engaged with all the leaders of the Taliban in meetings to attempt peace and reconciliation. He had urged all present to come to an agreement on peace talks in Afghanistan but in doing so alienated parties with a separate agenda and failed to win support. He, in the view of the former Mujahideen leader, was at that time one of the victims of failed reconciliation talks. Now he is back in the game and ready to try again.

Voices of caution about the new political landscape in Pakistan and foreign influence flagged up the following concerns: government will be judged on how it resolves economic (including revenue collection) and energy crisis; dealing with the bureaucracy in Pakistan is like dealing with a beehive and good governance is difficult to achieve; radicals within the country outside of the mainstream pose a threat; the US will continue to rain down its hellfire missiles in its hunt for Al Qaeda; Pakistan military in dilemma over US military tactics; failing to contain an insurgency in Afghanistan post US and Nato forces withdrawal would create refugee crisis for Pakistan which is haunted by the spectre of a disorderly Afghanistan; foreign policy line of government of Pakistan unclear due to splits at top level of the political establishment.

Regarding the last point, a leading representative from Pakistan said the job for the country’s ambassador to the US would be made difficult as the envoy himself would not know “who to talk to” within the Pakistan administration in taking his brief.

However, it was pointed out by a British academic that this dilemma wasn’t unique for Pakistani diplomats. “It has been noted by a number of national governments on occasions here in Britain that ambassadors have found it difficult to know whether their first port of call should be the Foreign Office or Downing Street – but not the Ministry of Defence! – in Britain,” he said. He agreed that within Islamabad “there are multiple centres of power” but said that it was part of the job of ambassador to bring those centres together.

He added that as far as policy towards Afghanistan was concerned, in his view, he expected the Pakistan ambassador in Washington to be receiving on a strategic level a unified message from the different parts of the establishment in Pakistan.

With regards to the leadership in Afghanistan, Hamid Kharzai, was characterised by many present at the discussion as “part of the problem and not the solution”. It was suggested by a leading figure from Pakistan that the breakthrough on this issue of leadership would come from Kabul in the near future.

A former minister from Afghanistan, himself the victim of three assassination attempts, said that the country had difficulties with Pakistan’s hostility towards relations with India. He said that in his view the Afghan people had no problems with India and had never seen any evidence of India being behind terror attacks but had clear evidence of terror attacks from Pakistan. In fact, he said, the problem that Afghan people had with Pakistan was not related to the wider population but to the country’s Inter-Services intelligence (ISI).

A speaker from Pakistan said that the loss of life was a matter for regret, and the role of the ISI had been damaging to both countries, but the Pakistan state which had itself many thousands of victims of terror should not be held responsible for attacks on individuals.

A speaker from Pakistan said that in his view Sharif wanted to “get on well with India” but that the army took a more cautious line and didn’t want him to move too fast. In his view the handling of foreign policy would be a difficult challenge for the new prime minister.

On the subject of what type of political model would evolve in Afghanistan, the former Mujahideen leader said that this must be decided by internal dialogue within Afghanistan. For sure, a model of democratic government could not be shipped wholesale in from London or Paris, he said.

With regards to the role of women, he said that “a woman can be a governor without being Westernised, a woman can be a member of parliament without being secularist”. He added that the future shape of Afghanistan “has nothing to do with think tanks, California, the West, the EU, or the UN”.

The big challenge, he said, is finding broad-minded scholars who can construct a model of government that reflects the culture and traditions of the country.