KABUL OBSERVERS DOWNBEAT ON LONDON CONFERENCE

Eurasianet, January 29, 2010

Observers and humanitarian aid workers in Kabul are giving lackluster reviews to the London conference on Afghanistan.

Participants at the London gathering on January 28 touted a peace and reintegration program that hopes to induce Taliban militants to lay down their arms. To do that, foreign donors and the Afghan government rolled out what they described as a $500 million Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund. Skeptics have already dubbed it the Taliban Trust Fund.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai stoked some controversy in London with an appeal for a so-called "peace jirga," or broadly inclusive reconciliation conference, which would seek to engage the Taliban leadership. US and NATO officials are at present reluctant to reach out to top-tier militants. The London conference also mulled a timetable for the transfer of security responsibilities from foreign forces to Afghan military and police units.

In Kabul, the London conference results generated little enthusiasm. Instead, analysts remained concerned that the country’s fragile democratization process was being undermined by the international community’s preoccupation with a questionable security plan. To some, Western leaders seem more concerned about setting a timetable for withdrawal, something that would resonate with domestic political constituents, than with establishing a realizable and sustainable development blueprint for Afghanistan.

"The London conference was not about Afghanistan, but about [UK Prime Minister] Gordon Brown’s reelection campaign," said Aziz Hakimi, a political analyst who heads an NGO working on building civil society capacity in Kabul.

For many in Kabul, the most divisive issue discussed in London was the peace and reconciliation plan. Women’s groups and human rights activists offered the most vocal criticism of what they perceived as an attempt to forgive and forget the Taliban’s past behavior.

Prior to the conference, a meeting of Afghan women facilitated by UNIFEM and the Institute of Inclusive Security demanded guaranteed protection of women’s rights in all reconciliation initiatives. The group expressed concern at reconciliation proposals and the lack of consultation and consideration of the needs and views of civilians. A statement emphasized that there should be "no compromise on human rights" and that any reintegration should be based on "justice and respect for human rights."

A female delegate in London, Arzo Qanih, one of two civil society representatives at the conference, told the gathering: "Women in Afghanistan are critical partners for peace. Women’s engagement is not an optional extra component of stabilization and recovery: it is a critical precursor to success."

Waliullah Rahmani, director of the Kabul Centre for Strategic Studies, suggested that the Afghan government’s security agenda could have ominous implications for civil society development in the country. Achieving "security by any means and at any cost" could result in the sacrifice of hard won civil rights attained at the cost of human lives, he said.

"The Taliban do not believe in the concept of citizenship and democracy and human rights and security will come at a cost. This is not good for the entire population. A broader approach is required," he added.

Hakimi, the Kabul NGO activist, criticized the reconciliation fund, saying, "the international community talks about corruption and then wants to make payments to the insurgents. Is this not bribery?"

Hakimi added that paying insurgents to lay down their weapons was a simplistic approach. "So far Karzai has been mute on the political claims of the Taliban. The whole policy is very fuzzy," Hakimi said.

Meanwhile, Taliban leaders weren’t exactly leaping at the opportunity to engage the Afghan government in a political dialogue. One major Taliban group, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, lambasted plans for reconciliation. Western powers "announce that they will provide money, employment and opportunity to have a comfortable life abroad, for those Mujahideen [holy warriors] who agree to part ways with Jihad. They think that Mujahideen have taken up arms to gain money or grab power or were compelled to turn to arms. This is baseless and futile," read a statement posted on the Internet on January 28.

Other Taliban representatives indicated that militant leaders were adopting a wait-and-see approach.

It’s unlikely that many key Taliban elements can be coaxed to sit down at a negotiating table, said Rahmani of the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies. "It is necessary to have a strategy to deal with different groups in different ways. The top-ranking Taliban is irreconcilable."

Kabul-based observers were also skeptical about the idea that Afghan government institutions would be able to assume responsibility for the country’s security in the near future. Rapidly expanding Afghan military and police forces would likely dangerously undermine command-and-control capabilities. "I am not sure the Afghan army will be ready to take over the role," said Hakimi.

Shahmahmood Miakhel, chief of party at the United States Institute of Peace in Kabul, said the London conference’s success or failure would be determined in large measure by how the Karzai administration "progresses on governance. Both [improvements in governance and security] need to happen at the same time."