The Intra-Afghan Peace Talks and the Prospects of State reformation and Peace Building in Afghanistan
Occasional Report no 1
Executive
Summary
Afghanistan
faces many issues and challenges in the development into a viable and
self-reliant nation-state. Ethnic tensions and grievances, challenges in
economic development and a growing insurgency has considerably increased over
the last two decades.
This
research commissioned by the “Centre for Afghanistan Policy Studies”, reviews
the wider context of state formation and conflict in Afghanistan and analyses
the drivers of conflict, enablers as well as spoilers of a possible trajectory
for peace and state modality. The paper further discusses plausible scenarios leading
to ending the violence and forming a viable state.
The
findings suggest that the current peace talks – notwithstanding the challenges
and hardship, provides an unprecedent opportunity for the concerned parties to
reach consensus and end decades long bloodshed and violence. It emphasis on
importance of a regional approach for bringing stability and peace in the
region, highlights the importance of maintaining regional consensus, and recommends
creation of a dedicated regional body to coordinate actions of different
actors and oversee implementation of peace in Afghanistan.
It
provides insights on the real characteristics of the Afghan society, the
importance of protecting women’s rights as well as the place and origin of
Taliban Emirate vs a broad based, pluralistic republic of Afghanistan. Moreover,
the paper discusses different models of governments, draws relevant examples
from other countries, underlines the challenges of the existing system of
governance and provides recommendations that, subject to reaching some sorts of
political settlement as an outcome from the intra-Afghan peace talks, a move towards
a decentralised or full-fledge federal system of governance with maintaining
national unity and territorial integrity - can provide a more effective and
viable alternative to the existing centralised system of government.
Lastly,
the findings highlight the critical importance of continued international
support to peace and stability in Afghanistan and broader region after a peace
agreement is reached between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The
findings warn that any abrupt withdrawal of international military and civilian
assistance, will prove devastating and can possibly lead to civil war and
broader regional instability.
Background
The
theory of modern state formation, peace and stability in Afghanistan is
historically deeply entangled with the political and security development in the
wider region, particularly the sub-continent. After the United Kingdom agreed
to partition of India and formation of Pakistan, amalgamating the eastern and
north-eastern Muslim majority parts of British India, Pakistan was created as a
state on the basis of Islamic ideology. The relations between Afghanistan and
Pakistan has historically been tensed and since Pakistan’s establishment, no
Afghan ruler has explicitly recognised the territory knowns as Khayber Pakhton
Khwa as part of Pakistan and the border dividing the two countries remains
contentious at least from the perspective of Afghan governments. On the
Pakistan side, they continue to ostensibly reinforce their border with
Afghanistan and consider the border as an internationally accepted line between
the two countries. On the other hand, Pakistan’s relations with India has been
tensed since its formation. Therefore, Pakistan sees its influence in
Afghanistan vital for its survival. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers
and both compete to have greater leverage in Afghanistan.
Founded
on the basis of Islamic ideology and surrounded by a strong rival Indo state on
the east, the soviet invasion provided a fertile ground for Pakistan to pursue
its strategic goal in Afghanistan, initially, hosting and supporting Mujahedeen
fighters whose roles and Jihad was not only important for defeating the Soviet
invasion but meanwhile shielding Pakistan from Communism aggression. During
Soviet invasion, with support from the US, Saudi Arabia and some other Golf
states, Pakistan hosted, trained and equipped Afghan Mujahedeen to fight
against the Russian invasions. This process continued even after the Russians
left Afghanistan and a new generation of fighter (the Taliban) were hosted,
equipped and trained in Pakistan to replace Mujahedeen parties that had failed
to form a government when they took Kabul in 1992 after toppling the last
Communist Government.
Pakistan
continues to believe that an ideological alliance with its neighbour in the
west is vital for keeping its leverage in Afghanistan and defending against
India. The Soviet invasion followed with subsequent episodes of civil war and
formation of Taliban are continuation of Pakistan’s pursual of its strategic
depth in Afghanistan. Thus, many Afghans perceive the Taliban as proxy fighters
loyal to Pakistan using religious ideology as a tool to curtail modernism and
progress achieved over the last two decades. Pakistan’s approach of using
radicalism to terrorise a war-torn nation through proxies has reinforced a
strong anti-Pakistan sentiment in Afghanistan which may not prove conducive for
creating a peaceful relation between the two nations.
Iran
is another important neighbour with strong and vested interest in Afghanistan.
The pro-Iran parties of Mujahedeen mainly belonged to the Shitti community that
were hosted, trained and equipped in Iran to wage Jihad against the Soviet in
Afghanistan. Iran’s relations with the Taliban, during their ruling (1996-2001)
was tensed. However, considering Iran’s hostile relations with the US, there
are growing evidence that Iran gives support to some elements of Taliban which
Iran denies. On the same vein, Iran has not been involved in the peace talks
between the US and Taliban which preceded and provided the basis for the
intra-Afghan peace talks. This shortcoming could undermine or weaken the
results of peace talks if not addressed as process moves forward.
Russia
is another important global as well as regional player with vested interest in
Afghanistan. Russian has expressed concerns over the growing insurgency in
Afghanistan and has cautiously supported the US led peace talks in Afghanistan.
However, unverified evidences suggest Russia’s support to some elements of
Taliban but like Iran, Russia denies any link with the group. Russia plays a
key role in the region and it is important to ensure their support to the
current peace talks.
India
has played a key role in rebuilding of Afghanistan and the country has expanded
its economic and humanitarian support to Afghanistan since establishment of the
new government in 2001. Since India’s relations with Pakistan is tensed,
Pakistan has always feared India’s involvement in Afghanistan and has accused
India for using Afghanistan’s soil against Pakistan’s interest. India is
strongly supporting the Afghan government and has been one of the main aid
provided to the country. India seemingly supports the ongoing peace talks and
their role is important for stability in Afghanistan.
Regional
consensus and the need for creating a neutral body for coordination and
oversight of peace in Afghanistan
Despite
all the challenges and conflicting interests of the countries, evidences
suggest that there is reasonable degree of consensus in the region that a
stable Afghanistan can lead to greater stability in the region and improve
economic development, trade and transit between Central and South Asia. This is
an important factor and in order to maintain contact among different players,
there is need for a dedicated body for coordination of actions and
communication and such a body can also play a neutral role and later on provide
oversight over the peace process in Afghanistan.
Radicalism
and the Afghan Society:
The
Afghan society is characterised as a modern and thrilling nation in the region,
pro-development, pacifist and moderate Muslims who respect coexistence,
diversity that is willing to live in peace within and with their neighbours. A
moderate interpretation of Islamic sharia was commonly acceptable in the
society and the country was on the path to prosperity and development. After
1960, King Zahir Shah, provided space and freedom for political and civil
participation which was welcomed by different segments of the society. Thus, it
is safe to claim that the hard-line interpretation of Islam is a misalignment
with the spirit and content of the Afghan society and does not genuinely
resonate with the nature of majority of Afghans. It was after the Soviet
invasion that the ideology of radical Islam was fostered in the region and
unfortunately continued to be used as a foreign policy tool by some countries to
secure their influence in Afghanistan.
Islamic
Emirate and how it originated:
The
term and notion of Islamic Emirate is imparted to Afghanistan by the Taliban
after they took the capital Kabul in 1996. It is copied from the Golf states
and is an Arabic terminology mainly used to depict an autocratic divine
sovereignty by a male ruler. There are some examples of Emirate system in the
Gold countries which are oil rich and culturally vastly different from
Afghanistan. During their five years of ruling, Taliban were unable to
elaborate their Emirate and transcend it into a modern state structure. They
continued to rely on using the remaining of state apparatus from the previous Mujahedeen
government.
It
is evident in history that Afghans have strived very hard for freedom and
dignity and have revolted against autocratic rulings at different times in
history. What is more is that despite the challenges and flaws in the existing
government, during the last two decades of experiencing democratic governance
system, the society has gained greater confidence in democracy and societal
freedom.
The
composition of Taliban delegation in Qater mainly manifests Pashton Sunni
Muslims with a handful of members from other ethnic groups and no
representative of Shitti or other religious communities. They try to portrait
Afghan society as a radical Sunni Muslims mainly dominated with one ethnic
group. The reality however, is that Afghanistan is a rather diverse nation with
different ethnic, linguistic and religious groups which hard line radical Islam
does not resonate with their characteristics. It is therefore, crucial that in
any reconciliation and political settlement, the real characteristics of the
Afghan nation is preserved and respected. This is a determining factor in order
to stetch a political architecture that can endure and have broad based
societal acceptance. The question remains that if Taliban are reconciled with
the rest of the Afghan society, will they moderate their position and
demonstrate respect for diversity and coexistence? History shows that they did
not display such qualities during their ruling in 1990s however, it will remain
to be seen whether they are able to show flexibility during the ongoing peace
talks and whether they can appreciate the reality as they move into next stages
of talks with the Afghan government delegations.
Women’s
role in the current peace talks
With
exception of the period of Taliban ruling, (1996-2001), women have historically
played an active role in every aspects of lives and one of the most visible
gains of the last two decades is women’s presence in economic, social and
political processes. Taliban did not let Afghan girls to go to school or work
outside home and their role was confined to raising children and staying home.
Their five years of ruling left devastating impact and created a huge backlog
of girls out of education. The 2004 Constitution provided equal opportunity for
men and women as citizens and provided an enabling space for women to re-gain
their rights, participate in social, political and economic processes and play
an active role in all walks of life.
Given
Taliban’s perception of women’s role in the society and their record during
their ruling, presence of no women in their negotiation team is not a big
surprise, however, a handful of women as part of a large delegation from the
Afghan government is indeed an under representation. During the negotiation
process, Taliban have repeatedly mentioned that they will be amenable towards
women’s rights and provide women with the rights given to them by Sharia.
Although Sharia does encourage education for both men and women, Taliban
position and views are clearly inconsistent and they have not provided any
convincing explanation as to how they will change their position in the future.
The
Afghan government delegation seemingly emphasis on protecting women’s rights
and achievements made over the last two decades. Not only is this an important
position to stick to, but given that an overhaul of the current political
system could be on the table as part of a possible peace deal, it is vital to
create sufficient safeguard to prevent any compromise over basic rights and
freedom for women. Any lasting peace depends on granting basic human rights to
women and therefore, the Afghan government and its international allies need to
give sufficient assurance to the Afghan women that no compromise will be made
over their rights as human beings.
Current
level of violence and need for cease fire
It
is quit disillusioning that the Taliban have not only continued their fighting
but have increased the level of violence since announcement of a peace
agreement with the US in February 2020. They originally justified their
fighting as Jihad against foreign invasion but after signing of the agreement
with the US, they have refrained from attacking the foreigners and increased
their attacks on Afghans. They have failed to provide any convincing
justification for killing and increasing violence against Afghans.
While
in any peace process, cease fire and decreasing the level of violence is
naturally a first step to reach peace, it is confusing that it was missed in
the US-Taliban agreement. It was also further missed before the intra-Afghan
talks begun last month. Not only is this a clear shortcoming but increased
level of violence in the last two weeks can derail the ongoing peace process
and therefore concerned parties need to show immediate restrain to decrease the
level of violence and eventually reach a complete cease fire so that the talks
can move forward.
The
challenges ahead and future of State formation:
The
UN-sponsored 2001 Bonn Agreement created a sense of unity amongst Afghans
following years of internecine conflict and international isolation that ended
in the Taliban-run Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996-2001). Not only did the
agreement chalk out a timetable for bringing urgent political stability,
security and rule of law to the country, it also outlined provisional
arrangements for the re-establishment of permanent state institutions, which
had been destroyed under a Taliban rule opposed to modernisation. On one hand,
continuation of conflict during the last two decades has seriously hampered the
efforts of state building and development and on the other hand, a widening
drift among political elites and repeated episodes of chaotic elections
compounded with rampant spread of corruption in the country, puts the
effectiveness of state architecture agreed in 2001 in Bonn and later enshrined
in the 2004 Constitution under serious question.
Afghanistan
has long had a hybrid system of governance, consisting of a central government
with varying degrees of control over the centres of population, operating in
parallel with regional power brokers as well as decentralized structures
organized along tribal lines and within local communities. The majority of the
population, living in rural areas, has tended to rely on local strong men or
collective action for the provision of public services, and has utilized
traditional dispute resolution mechanisms rather than formal institutions of
justice to deter crime and adjudicate disputes.
Centralised
Presidential System
More
than two decades of experiencing a presidential system of government with focus
on strong central administration, Afghanistan is still far from having an
effective, capable, or responsive system of government. Adding to the
shortcomings of the formal system, armed conflict seriously contributed to a
deterioration of the effectiveness of local and traditional governance
structures. Thus, even long before the intra-Afghan peace talks with the
Taliban begun, reforming the current centralised presidential system has been
one of the central demands of the major political parties and individual
political contenders.
Corruption:
People all over the democratic world,
irrespective of their socio-economic level, expect their governments to provide
“good governance.” An essential feature
of good governance is probity and high standards in public life. Those in
positions of power, whether they be in the Executive or Legislative, are
expected to hold their offices in trust on behalf of the People. There is a
deep concern about the potential for abuse of authority by those holding public
office, and demands everywhere for an effective definition of the term
“corruption” and for wide ranging criminalization of corrupt related acts of
commission and omission. There are also sustained civil society campaigns
against corruption in many countries. The international community is engaged at
the global and regional levels in establishing Conventions and other
instruments to address the problems of national and transnational
corruption.
Afghanistan is a country in conflict. It continues to experience armed conflict
across large swaths of its territory.
The Afghan government is at a critical juncture in its state building and
development efforts. Combating corruption is a key to the development and
prosperity of Afghanistan, as well as to increasing the legitimacy of the
government. Despite some progress in education, health, and other areas, the
government has had difficulty in expanding its control and connecting with the
Afghans to win their support. In fact, absences of governance and rampant
corruption have served to alienate many and have created openings for
insurgents to exploit. Afghans’ primary concerns remain inadequate security,
the scarcity of employment opportunities and the generally poor state of the
economy but corruption is still cited as a factor contributing to Afghans
disillusionment with the government. There is general consensus among the
political elites that the current centralized system has been one of the main
factors of spreading corruption and poor governance.
Socio
Political development since the 2001 Bonn Conference
Politics
seemed to have failed to mobilize people on the basis of ideology or clear
agenda for reform and change. Instead political and elites
deal has always been characterized by shifting alliances and extreme fluidity
with the use of ethnic and subethnic solidarity to coordinate political action which has increased ethnic polarization of Afghan
society. Ethnic diversity and conflicting pressures for the demand for
the recognition has taken the country to the brink of more turmoil and instability
due to absence of institutions with the capacity to accommodate ethnic
diversity and reconcile conflicting demands for the recognition of distinctive
identities.
The
slow progress in development and nurturing of political parties and political
ideologies can in part be attributed to the implicit or explicit policies of
the leaderships in the government over the last two decades that seemed to
benefit from reliance on power brokers and influential individuals to buy
political allegiances. Absence of political system and parties has more
importantly manifested itself in weakness in the legislator which is one of the
key institutions of democracy with the power to provide oversight over the
government actions.
Elections
are the legal means of peaceful power transition in a democratic society and
governments obtain their legitimacy at polls. However, experiences of the last
two decades of elections in Afghanistan indicate that the institutions in
charge (the electoral bodies) need far more time and capacity to mature and
gain public confidence to maintain their impartiality, integrity and
credibility as trusted offices to hold national elections.
Prospects for establishing a more legitimate and
inclusive system of governance throughout Afghanistan are also conditioned by lack
of national consensus among political groups, ethnical leaders, and elites
which has been manifested in inconclusive elections and creation of
extraconstitutional bodies which underlines the need for a different system of
governance. A number of political parties, mainly Tajiks and other ethnic
groups, have expressed their desire for a parliamentary system of government
with an elected Prime Minister so it can guarantee more space for
participation.
Centralised vs Decentralised
and Federal system of government
The Afghan Government and the International donor
community have devoted considerable effort to rebuilding the formal
institutional structures of national government, in part reflecting the Constitution
of Afghanistan adopted in 2004, which prescribes a unitary state in which key
responsibilities (including revenue-raising and expenditure authority) are
reserved for the central government.
Today, the country stands at an intersection in
history with peace talks providing an opportunity to urgently but carefully
re-form the existing system and agree on an alternative model, one which can
accommodate distinctive features of Afghan society, preserve the rights and
freedom of citizens and is effective, capable and responsive to provide public
goods.
As discussed above, the current centralised system
faces many difficult challenges but is the country ready for shift to out-right
federal or decentralised system? Over the last two decades, despite strong involvement
of international community, no significant progress was made in decentralising
the current system. Although the 2004 Constitution provides for a Unitary
system of government, it does call for actions to improve social and economic wellbeing
of citizens which could have provided an entry for reforming the excessively
centralised state structures. In the section below, we discuss whether
federalism would provide an alternative option for reform and look into
experiences from other countries.
Federalism:
Federalism as a panacea has repeatedly surfaced
among political elites, to the extent that some political parties, propose
federalism as the only way out of the current crisis. No doubt that federalism
is an optimal system of governance and there is sufficient evidence to claim
that it is a system of Governance that works in other countries and prosperous
nations have governed their affairs for centuries using a federalism but to
what extent it can work in the context of Afghanistan is subject to different
interpretations.
How federalism can be used to provide recognition
and accommodate ethnic groups is an important topic in any multi-ethnic
communities around the world. Examining how institutions of multi-ethnic states
have been designed to accommodate ethnic diversity while at the same time
maintaining national unity needs further in-depth studies in the context of
Afghanistan to reconcile the conflicting pressures of the demand for the
recognition of distinctive identities (on one hand) and the promotion of
political and territorial integrity, on the other. Ethnic
heterogeneity rather than homogeneity characterises the populace of many
countries around the world. More than 90% of the current 180 or so states
in the world are ethnically plural in character; these states are home to
almost 95% of the world’s population.
As a concept “Federalism is defined as a system
of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of
government.” Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for
broader governance of larger territorial areas, while the smaller subdivisions,
states and cities govern the issues of local concern. Both the local and
national governments have the authority to make laws and both have certain
level of autonomy from each other.
Federalism (as a normative concept) has two
essential aspects: autonomy and union. Simply put, the autonomy aspect is a
reference to self-government and about making self-rule possible for the
constituent units. The union aspect is (on the other hand) a reference to the
co-management of the whole society and about the desire of people and polities
to come or stay together for common purposes.[1]
The legal basis for federalism is often
constitution of countries which designates level of sovereignty and
distribution of powers to different units of governments. In Unites States for
example, there is dual sovereignty in which states have surrendered some of
their sovereignty to the federal government. The most
commonly cited characteristic of American federalism is ‘dual federalism’. This
refers to constitutionally delegated powers for the federal government and
reserve powers for the states, with each level administering their own
policies. In case of conflict, federal law is supreme so long as the federal
government is authorised to act by the constitution. In Germany,
“federalism is also sometimes described by German scholars as ‘dual
federalism’, That is, it often means ‘dualism’ in the sense that the federal
level is responsible for passing most legislation, and the states for
implementing the legislation on their own responsibility, usually with only
legal supervision by the federation”.[2]
In India, federalism describes the
distribution of legal authority across national, state and local governments.
The Constitution of India establishes a federal structure to
the Indian Government, declaring it to be a “Union of States”. India’s
Constitution is aid to be federal structure only because it is said that it has
clear demarcation of boundaries between central and the state government
similar to the United States. India having legislative and executive authority
divided between the centre and state.[3]
In case of South
Africa, the 1996 Constitution adopted three distinctive, interdependent and
interrelated levels of government. It is followed by the German model which
emphasises concurrency, provincial delivery of national policies, and
provincial representation at the centre. Implementing this model, with new
institutions, actors and processes has proved difficult because the governing
party is inclined to a relatively centralised polity and there is low level of
administrative and fiscal capacity at the sub-national level. In short run, the
system seems to have fairly established itself however; its success in the long
run in institutionalising democratisation, good governance and conflict
management is subject to further studies.
In 1991 Ethiopia
established an ethnic federal system which granted full recognition to ethnic
autonomy, while maintaining the unity of the state.[4]
Its new constitution created a federal system largely consisting of
ethnic-based territorial units. The constitution aspires to achieve ethnic
autonomy and equality while maintaining the state. The federal system is
significant in that its Constitution provides for secession of any ethnic unit.
It encourages political parties to organise along ethnic lines, and champions
an ethicised federal state with a secession option.
Comparative case studies of South Africa and
Ethiopia as the two federal systems could provide a contrasting approach to
issues of ethnic diversity suggesting new ways in which federalism might work
which will help to build an all-inclusive society which could be relevant in
the context of Afghanistan. The Ethiopian federal system is unique in its
constitutional marrying of political pluralism and the right of secession. But
there is a mismatch between the liberal-democratic political-pluralist elements
of the constitution and the political praxis of the dominant party; it is
wedded to the modus operandi of democratic centralism, inhibiting effective
decentralisation and democratisation. In the short
run, the viability and stability of the political system is dependent on its
flexibility and adaptability. In the long run, the success of ethnic federalism
will be contingent (in good measure) on a more balanced share of power between
the three major ethnic groups[5].
Afghanistan
faces many issues and challenges in the development into a viable and
self-reliant nation-state. Ethnic tensions and grievances, challenges in
economic development and a growing insurgency has considerably increased over
the last two decades and in particular after the formation of the national
unity government which was concurrent with withdrawal of the international
military forces. Improving Afghanistan’s current political system has never
been more urgent and would be a critical step towards stable and legitimate
state capable of maintaining territorial integrity and inclusive society.
The
country is ethnically diverse and made up of ethnic groups who identify
themselves with the same ethnic groups in the neighbouring countries. In
addition, to the ethno-centralism, the geography of the country lends itself to
further ethnic isolation. In addition, Afghans historically and culturally see
themselves in a reverse Western order of hierarchy of belonging which makes it
difficult to discern a single national identify. Within the Western world,
people generally see themselves as a member of their country, state, town, and
then their unique family unit. Afghans understand this in a completely reverse
order. They see themselves as first belonging to their family, their extended
family, their clan, their tribe, their ethnic group and then part of Afghanistan.
This further compounds ethnic divisions within the country and creates an
atmosphere of strong local governance. Historically, this has led to a strong
desire for local leadership and a dislike of external influence upon the local
authority.
One
of the primary ideas behind Federalism is its ability to balance divergent
interests. “One of these interests is to secure a peaceful, stable social
environment and political order by creating a broad set of options for
cooperation and mergers among nation-states.” Federalism, within this capacity,
protects the cultural distinction of one people and the right of the nation
state to have its own internal sovereignty.
Opponents
of Federalism argue that it would lead the country to disintegration and division
considering that major parts of the country is under so called illegal armed
groups and insurgents. This is a valid concern and it has to be addressed. On
the other hand, as seen in the cited examples from other countries, lack of
space for political participation could result in creating “gap” that might be
filled by forces other than the national government. In addition, if the gap is
not filled and space for equal participation of all ethnic groups is not
provided, it creates space for external forces to intervene and would further
lead to disintegration. If the peace intra-Afghan peace talks move forward
successfully, it can significantly address the concerns for existence of
insurgency.
Another concern voiced by the opponents of federalism is ethno-centric
federalism that could lead to disintegration. It is clear that federalism is
not a panacea for all challenges of ethnic diversity. As institutional device
and as a political philosophy, it is not enough to respond to the challenges of
ethnic diversity. A federal design that is constructed to accommodate ethnic
diversity must go beyond the traditional institutional features of a
federation. It must include non-traditional institutional features of a
federation and other non-federal features in order to give full effect to the
institutional principles that respond to the challenges of ethnic plurality.
Conclusion:
The way forward needs to encompass all the conflicting views into
account so that the current intra-Afghan talks provide an opportunity for
discourse among conflicting parties to reach consensus on how to live together
and transform the country from the current situation to a future where all
ethnic groups can have their desired autonomy and embrace peace and prosperity
and enable socio-economic development. Economic development takes place and the
future generations live free of fear and atrocity. This is a critical juncture
for the country and its imperative for both the Afghan Government and the
Taliban to realise that military solution is not the answer to the problems and
they must agree to end the violence and seek a peaceful solution.
To agree on formation of new government, it is important to take
the lessons of the last two decades into account and agree on whether out-right
full fledge federal system or gradual decentralisation, the response needs to
be found with great care and patience taking into account all aspects of any
model that would best respond to the challenges the country is facing.
The hard-earned achievements of the last two decades namely the
socio-political rights, gender equality, and human rights, and freedom of
speech must be preserved and promoted. The Taliban must appreciate the diverse
and distinctive feature of the Afghan society and their desire for moderate
interpretation of Islam and living in peace within and with others. Only then,
can the peace talks move forward successfully to open the way for formation of
a government with broad based societal acceptance.
Considering the importance of Afghanistan’s relations with
Pakistan, it is important for Afghanistan’s international allies with the US in
the lead to facilitate development of a mutually beneficial relations between
Afghanistan and Pakistan as the two neighbours share many prospects for peace
and prosperity which can go beyond their borders and benefit the broader
region.
Last but not least, it is important to maintain regional and
global consensus created around the current peace and stability in Afghanistan
and for this reason, concerned parties should seek ways to create a dedicated
body to coordinate with the regional players and later on provide oversight
over the peace process. For its security and development, Afghanistan will
continue to rely on international support to build its indigenous institutions.
Thus, given the strong role and involvement of the international community, an
abrupt abandoning or decline in international support to the Afghan government
might prove catastrophic and should be avoided by all means. The international
community with the US in lead, must continue to support Afghanistan as it
embarks onto a new journey of peace and prosperity.
About:
The Centre for Afghanistan Policy Studies is an independent, non-partisan and not for profit think tank focused on public policy research and analysis. As an indigenous think tank, CAPS seeks to link Afghanistan with knowledge, wisdom and expertise. It works to provide a platform for public policy debate and serve as a hub to connect Afghan intellects for rebuilding the Afghan society.