The London Conference in absence of Afghanistan’s Civil Society?
“The London Conference in absence of Afghanistan’s Civil Society?” was the title of the 46th Goftegu (4th year) public debate, a bridge between the elite and the citizens, of Armanshahr Foundation that was held in the hall of Culture and Civil Society Foundation in Kabul on Wednesday, 17 February 2010.
Speakers who addressed the meeting were: Professor Seyed Massoud (KabulUniversity), Eng. Aziz Rafii (Director of Afghanistan Civil Society Forum), Ms. Arezu Ghane (Civil Society Activist and a participant of the London Conference), Ajmal Baluchzada (Head of Human Rights/ Armanshahr Foundation).
Mr. Rooholamin Amini, moderator of the debate, opened the meeting by reciting two stanzas from the Afghanistan poet Dr. Samay Hamed:
Two leaders sleeping on two beds
Two soldiers tired between two trenches
Two leaders laughing behind the peace table
Two flags on graves of two soldiers!
The main topic of discussion in the London Conference on 28 January 2010, with high-ranking representatives of the governments involved in our country, was talks with the Taliban. The participants backed the plan of the Afghanistan government to negotiate with the Taliban. The mechanisms that the Afghanistan government has suggested for peace include appointment of Taliban members to government posts, creating employment for them and guaranteeing their security, as well establishing a special fund to support those who lay down their arms. This issue has caused concern for many civil society and human rights experts and activists as well as ordinary people of Afghanistan under the present circumstances. Some people consider the talks to be a sign of weakness of the government and the international community, as a result of which there has been mention of “paying ransom” to the Taliban that may send to oblivion a large part of the achievements of the civil society and the Afghanistan government in the past eight years. Clear examples of such achievements are to be seen in the areas of human rights, in particular the women’s rights, as well as freedom of expression and the media.
The moderator asked a few questions to the speakers as follows:
1. Did the civil society institutions have an impressive presence in the London Conference to leave an impact?
2. What were the achievements of the civil society from the London Conference, while both the government and the international community sounded content with the plan to negotiate with the Taliban?
3. How extensive is the support of the people for the civil society?
4. Are the civil society groups unanimous in regard to an important question such as talks with the Taliban?
5. Whereas neither the Afghanistan government nor the international community have paid proper attention to the civil society, what fate awaits the Afghanistan civil society?
Mr. Aziz Rafii, Director of Afghanistan Civil Society Forum, started by asking: Why did the London Conference take place? He then started the discussion by answering that question:
“Our friends are of the opinion that the London Conference was more a political rather than a social move both on the international and the national level in Afghanistan. There have been different interpretations about the reason for holding the London Conference. For example, in America it was regarded as a means of legitimising negotiations with the Taliban. In Britain, it was seen as some kind of legitimacy for the Labour government of Mr Gordon Brown in the upcoming election. In Afghanistan, it was viewed as some kind of “societal” move to obtain a secondary legitimacy for negotiations.
“No healthy human being with a sound mind can oppose talks and discussions. Our religious and cultural teachings have brought us up to believe that the door to talks is always open and nobody can stop discussions. Therefore, the door to talks is always open both from the viewpoint of the civil society and otherwise, i.e. from the political as well as commercial point of views.
“A second opinion is that the London Conference was a precisely pre-determined event and even the participants had been determined before hand.”
His second issue of concern was the context and the emphases made in the conference, saying that the whole conference was geared to obtaining some kind of authorisation and legitimacy for talks with the Taliban. He went on: “The other issue is the recommitment of the international community toward Afghanistan. The government has undoubtedly made efforts to aggrandise this issue. The third issue is the substitution of military aid or directing the military aid in part toward humanitarian aid. The fourth issue is the development of Afghanistan which was a major topic.”
He argued that the London Conference had reached conclusions that had not been anticipated, but what was at issue in the context of the conference has been achieved, i.e. legitimacy for talks with the Taliban has been obtained and the so-called Bonn Agreement has been overturned; the Agreement that legitimised the Western action in Afghanistan is no longer legitimate, because the main thrust of the Bonn Agreement was directed at armed enemies, terrorists and the Al-Qaida. The London Conference has breached that Agreement.
On the plan of the international community for the London Conference, he commented: “The international community had longed to gain success after seven years of fighting in Afghanistan. Lack of coherence among the international institutions operating in Afghanistan and the countries involved with the Afghanistan problems, has prevented them from succeeding. The international community has tried to convince its public opinion that the war in Afghanistan has lasted more than it was expected.”
Ms. Arezu Ghane, who represented the civil society in the London Conference, argued that the achievements of the Afghanistan government were those of the civil society too. She reasoned that topics such as security, commitment to improve the system in Afghanistan and combating corruption were the views of the civil society which did not contravene those of the government; those views supported one another.
Underlining Ms. Ghane’s remarks and her emphasis on shared views of representatives of the civil society and the government, the moderator asked: We are facing some problems regarding the rights of women in Afghanistan, which we may notice in the media as well as the remarks of experts and women’s rights activists; considering that one of the central issues in the London Conference was the accord over talks with the Taliban, would such negotiations not close the door on a better future for women in Afghanistan?
Ms. Ghane pointed to one paragraph in the resolution proposed by the Afghanistan civil society, saying: “It says, talks should not be directed at destroying of trampling the rights of women. We stated clearly that all talks should be transparent. The presence of women in conferences and talks is very important. If women take part at the negotiations table, if those talks are all transparent, if justice is served and the constitution protected, as people wishing to have a stable and peaceful Afghanistan, we do not oppose talks. But any talks must provide for rights of women.”
Ajmal Baluchzada, Head of Human Rights/ Armanshahr Foundation, centred his discussion around two statements issued by the Transitional Justice Coordination Group and Women’s 50% Campaign.
Pointing out that the TJCG comprises 24 groups demanding justice for Afghanistan, he said: “The statements that the 50% Campaign (consisting of 70 organisations and 11,000 supporters) and the TJCG both had two aspects: demands to the government of Afghanistan and demands to the international community. Some of those demands were similar in the two statements, but the women’s statement contained certain specific demands of the women too. One of the most basic demands in both statements was withdrawal of amnesty for criminals and expediting implementation of transitional justice in our country.
He outlined the outcome of the London Conference as follows:
1. Names of five Taliban leaders were taken off the UN black list;
2. $140 million was allocated to support negotiations with the Taliban and those who join the process;
3. The war started in Helmand;
4. The government announced that it shall not implement the transitional justice plan but the civil society institutions should pursue mot.
The last speaker was Professor Seyed Massoud of the KabulUniversity, who said the public debate and its title were interesting and argued: “I believe we should go through three channels to discuss this issue. First, the channel of self-criticism; second the government’s attitude that has always underestimated the civil society; and finally the international community that takes both of us for naught.
Let’s put ourselves on trial first. Has the Afghanistan civil society done what it should have done? Do we share a united idea and thought? Do we react to things or have we occasionally offered plans? We are always waiting for something to happen and then do something about it. If we were prepared for it, I believe London was a historic event where we could create specific plans and exert pressure on the international community and the government. Instead of sending those people to the conference, we could do many things, organise other conferences and seminars elsewhere to offer our views. Nevertheless, there were certain accomplishments.”
He went on to say: “We should not complain much against the government and the international community. They always consider their own aims and goals and do not go back. I think Mr. Karzai made a very interesting political move in London Conference that brought all topics under the cover of reconciliation.
“Let’s note one thing. Reconciliation is never bad. Even with your enemy, you can never close the gate. Diplomacy itself means you can never open or close a door forever.
“The Afghanistan civil society is never opposed to reconciliation with the Taliban, but the point is the fundamental guidelines that the civil society puts forward. It is the civil society that should determine the criteria for reconciliation. The question should be: What should be obtain in exchange for reconciliation? In exchange for all the civil liberties that we have achieved?In exchange for the values that we have achieved by shedding our blood? Should we submit to a short-term reconciliation that would be followed by a long-term war? Neither the Afghanistan government nor the civil society had a specific guideline toward national reconciliation at the London Conference. In this context, I believe the civil society did not do well either.”
Invitation
