On January 28, Afghan leaders, along with representatives from NATO, the United Nations, the EU and other international organizations, gathered in London for a one day conference to discuss the future of Afghanistan. The conference focused on three key areas: security, governance and development, and regional support. By the end of the day-long event, assembled representatives from over 60 nations reaffirmed their long-term commitment to the country. In a concrete measure, Afghanistan was granted $1.6 billion in debt relief. Nations also pledged an estimated total of $500 million for various projects. President Hamid Karzai’s opening address provided a positive development in an otherwise telegraphed event. The President unveiled a six point framework for achieving much-needed security. The first point of this framework will seek to establish a National Council for Peace, Reconciliation and Reintegration. The government of Afghanistan will officially endeavor to end hostilities and establish a sustainable peace through a political process. The President stated that the government "must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers who are not part of Al Qaeda or other terrorist networks, who accept the Afghan constitution." *Response to the proposed peace process* Prior to the conference, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration "offered cautious support" for the peace initiative. The newspaper quotes Defense Secretary Robert Gates as stating that "reconciliation has to be a part of the ultimate conclusion here, just as it was in Iraq." By the end of President Karzai’s speech, The New York Times described US officials as "caught off guard" by some of the details of the proposal, such as the tribal peace conference. Differences also emerged regarding NATO and US troop engagement in the region. In her press conference, Secretary Hilary Clinton noted that US and foreign military presence may continue on for some time, "as it does in many countries," however the "combat role will diminish and transition out." Secretary of State Hilary Clinton maintained that the United States has a "clear understanding of what we expect from this process." She expected "foot soldiers" from the Taliban to be the intended audience, but stressed the need for strong incentives in order for soldiers to leave the battlefield. As for reconciliation with high-level figures such as Mullah Omar, Defense Secretary Robert Gibbs informed reporters on January 19 in New Delhi that "I'd be very surprised to see reconciliation with Mullah Omar." After President Karzai’s remarks, it did not appear that the United States had changed its position. The official conference communiqué stated that "participants welcomed the plans of the Government of Afghanistan to offer an honourable place in society to those willing to renounce violence, participate in the free and open society and respect the principles that are enshrined in the Afghan constitution, cut ties with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and pursue their political goals peacefully." Some members of the international community were already viewing the Taliban within the prism of Afghanistan’s socio-political reality. Mr. Paul Reynolds of the BBC cites British Foreign Secretary David Milliband’s recent comments before the US Foreign Relations Committee: "We do not conflate or confuse al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban government in Afghanistan in the 1990s provided a supportive environment for the al-Qaeda senior leadership…But the Taliban leadership do not have as their principal aim al-Qaeda's violent global jihadist agenda. The vast majority of its low- and mid-level fighters are certainly not motivated by it." *Reconciliation process already underway* Speaking to Al-Jazeera’s English news service, Mr. Haroun Mir, deputy director of the Centre for Research and Policy Studies in Kabul, noted that President Karzai and other Afghans have informally discussed such a plan for some time. According to Reuters, in 2008 informal talks occurred between representatives of the Afghani government and members of the Taliban. The meeting took place in Saudi Arabia at the behest of President Karzai. Both sides denied that the discussions, which took place during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, were an attempt at reconciliation. On January 8, the UN and its special representative to Afghanistan, Mr. Kai Eide, met with senior members of the Taliban in Dubai. The two sides discussed the possibility of laying down arms. News of the Dubai meeting surfaced at the London conference, which, according to the Financial Times, caught UK officials "by surprise." In addition, Reuters reported that Pakistan had already reached out to "all levels" of the Afghan Taliban, to "encourage reconciliation in its war-torn neighbor." *Political reconciliation – Afghan style* Details of how the National Council on Reconciliation will operate were not provided. A Grand Peace Jirga, or tribal council, will also be convened to aid the process. A Jirga consists of an assembly of tribal elders, who gather in an effort to resolve conflicts or reach a consensus on the key issues. The government of Afghanistan has officially employed the system, known as the Loya Jirga, as part of its governmental structure. For centuries, this mechanism has been used by Pashtun tribes in the region. France 24’s Mr. Armen Georgian reported that the formation of a Peace Jirga could establish President Karzai’s credibility amongst Pashtun tribes. He noted that in 2001 "tribes felt excluded" when the first Karzai government was formed. His November 2009 re-election did not help alter this perception. In the August 2009 Presidential election, a UN inquiry uncovered widespread fraud throughout the country, tainting President Karzai’s victory. The election results followed by the November run-off were described by observers such as International Crisis Group as "deeply-flawed" and exacting a "critical blow to his government’s legitimacy." In the November run-off, Mr. Karzai reclaimed the Presidential office, defeating his former foreign minister, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Tribal elders may be in a good position to persuade fellow clansmen amongst the Taliban to lay down their arms. This effort could be further bolstered by incentives, such as money and jobs. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton identified this as one of the strengths of Taliban recruiting efforts. Throughout the period of conflict, the Taliban offered greater monetary incentives than Afghan security forces. *Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund* In an effort to aid in the reconciliation and reintegration of Taliban members, conference participants plan to establish a "Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund." The fund will serve as a vehicle by which those defecting from the Taliban would be provided jobs and security. The goal is to lure low to mid-level soldiers off the battlefield. At the conference, Japan made an initial pledge of $50 million for the Fund’s coffers. Secretary Clinton stated that the United States had no plans to add money to the reintegration fund. She explained that the US is already providing funds through its military, which supports various efforts of a similar nature. The Trust Fund is only in the proposal stages, with details yet to be formulated. Some analysts believe that such a mechanism may backfire. Matthew Green of the Financial Times points out that although such schemes have been used in other conflict zones, such as within various African nations, the creation of funds occurred after the fighting stopped. In the wake of the surge in US troops, the fighting may intensify. Furthermore, the Fund addresses only one reason for why Afghans joined the Taliban: the lack of jobs. Motivations for joining run the gamut. Ultimately, this mechanism may not achieve its intended objective. In the face of a military surge, implementing the plan may be difficult. Members of the Taliban told Al-Jazeera that "fighters would not be swayed by financial incentives." In addition, New York Times reporters, Mr. Mark Landler and Ms. Alissa J. Rubin state that amongst "former Taliban members who have taken part in previous government reconciliation programs, there is deep skepticism that a new program will be any better than earlier versions, which left them impoverished, jobless and at risk of being attacked by their former comrades. Other problems may ensue. Mr. Landler and Ms. Rubin argue that offering money and jobs may "breed resentment among other poor Afghans who have little to show for their loyalty to the government." It could also lead to further divisions amongst ethnic groups, such as the Tajiks and Hazaras "who fought the Taliban for 15 years. They may see the rewards as an unfair windfall for the Pashtuns, who make up most of the Taliban’s recruits." *Regional Cooperation must play a critical role* Regional cooperation, which constituted the sixth point of President Karzai’s framework for security, will play a significant role in the proposed reconciliation. All countries within the region, especially Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors, have a vested interest. The President called on King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to help broker this peace, along with its neighbors to the east, Pakistan to play a supportive role. Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s involvement in the formation and rise of the Taliban has been well documented. When the group gained control and administration of Afghanistan in 1996, only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates officially recognized their governance. Now, the Saudi Arabian and Pakistani governments are being called upon to help broker and mediate peace with members of the movement they helped create. Current realities within both countries may motivate Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to play a robust role in any reconciliation efforts. Since 2001, there have been various attacks on Saudi installations from Al-Qaeda and other splinter groups. This has led some within the Kingdom to alter their outlook. According to the New York Times, the Saudi Arabian government has stepped up its counter-terrorism efforts, placing a greater emphasis on advanced training of elite units. The government has also implemented a rehabilitation program for former members of Al-Qaeda and other ideologically sympathetic groups. Unfortunately, the Saudi Arabian government has also used the opportunity to silence peaceful dissent. According to a 2009 Amnesty International report, the government, under the guise of counter-terrorism, has severely curtailed governmental opposition. The report notes that many individuals have been detained "in virtual secrecy," held "incommunicado" with closed trials and no access to attorneys. "Of the thousands detained by the authorities, some are prisoners of conscience, targeted for their peaceful criticism of government policies." Pakistan and its stability are inexorably linked to Afghanistan’s stability and viability as a state. This link has been noted by the State Department, in a 2010 report entitled "Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy." Taliban and Al-Qaeda soldiers have used the porous and rugged border between the countries to evade attacks and reconstitute. During the conflict in Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban has gained in prominence and strength. The State Department report states that a "major focus of the President’s policy review was the importance of Pakistan to our efforts in Afghanistan," with the hopes of establishing "regional stability." Pakistani journalist Ms. Ayesha Siddiqa believes that India and Pakistan should seek to play a prominent role in establishing peace for Afghanistan. In an article for the Pakistani newspaper Dawn, she explains that after US withdrawal from the region, India and Pakistan may "suffer the most after they are left to confront each other’s interests in Afghanistan." This should persuade both countries to "think of a joint strategy" for peace. If greater instability ensues, it will mean "that there will be more youth who will be deprived of their right to education, a better and hygienic environment, greater access to health and personal security." Iran could also play an instrumental role in the Afghan peace process. Although representatives from the government did not attend the London conference, the country has been involved in previous meetings regarding the future of Afghanistan. Bloomberg news reported that a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry maintained that the meeting was not intended to examine "the root of problems" but instead sought to increase "the west’s military presence in Afghanistan." For many years, Iranian representatives have called for a cessation of military operations in Afghanistan, in favor of political processes. Mr. George Gavrilis, the International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations notes that Iran has served as a better neighbor than Pakistan. On numerous occasions, President Karzai praised the Iranian government for providing aid to the country. Mr. Gavrilis explains that behind the scenes Iran has played a critical role in Afghanistan, particularly after the fall of the Taliban in 2001: "Behind closed doors, Iranian diplomats urged the United Nations to lead rebuilding efforts and insisted that the new Afghan government be composed not of ideologues, but of technocrats who could effectively govern." *The peace process: are both sides ready* In February 2009, The Times of London reported that UK Foreign Secretary David Milliband admitted that British and NATO forces were stuck in a stalemate with the Taliban. Professor William Zartman of Johns Hopkins’s Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies, describes a stalemate as the critical juncture when a conflict is ripe for settlement. In his book, Ripe for Resolution: Conflict and Intervention in Africa, Prof. Zartman dubs this point as a "mutually hurting stalemate," where both parties maintain the capacity to harm the other but neither is capable of all-out victory. In the context of Afghanistan, what does reconciliation mean? This is a question only the Afghan people can answer. In their book International Conflict Resolution: Consensual ADR Processes, law professors Jacqueline Nolan-Haley, Harold Abrahamson and Pat K. Chew provide a general definition of reconciliation. The authors describe the process as "being connected with notions of restorative justice; a concept that seeks to rehabilitate the social relationships affected by a conflict rather than simply punish parties for crimes committed." A mediated approach to reconciliation may help the parties avoid potential pitfalls. In an article published in the "Fordham International Law Journal," Mr. David M. Rothenberg, a former legal advisor for the US State Department, analyzed the failures of the 1994-95 peace between the Sri Lankan government and Tamil Tigers. After roughly 25 years of civil strife, in the spring of 2009, Tamil Tigers surrendered. Had various peace negotiations succeeded, thousands of lives could have been saved. Mr. Rothenberg explains that part of the reason for this failure was the absence of third-party mediators. "After years of bitter conflict and rare and brief dialogue, the parties were unfamiliar and inexperienced in the process of communication in such a setting." A mediated settlement is long overdue. The conditions in Afghanistan and the protracted nature of the conflict warrant such a move. But are both sides ready to meet? According to Professor Dean Pruitt of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University this "readiness" point may occur when combatants "are maximally motivated to settle but are having difficulty meeting or going forward - when they are fed up with the conflict but are unable to escape it." All indications point towards this shared readiness. After meeting with various state and international actors, the Taliban may be demonstrating their willingness to negotiate a settlement. President Karzai’s speech has laid the foundations for the process to begin. 7 2010-02-05T01:11:47Z false true 120 image/jpeg 4310561471_038e5fbd80_o.jpg 485085 2010-02-05T01:11:46Z president-karzai-urges-partnership-for-af Downing Street Breakfast meeting ahead of the Afghanistan Conference in London, January 28, 2010. http://www.flickr.com/photos/downingstreet/4310561471/ 3 On January 28, Afghan leaders, along with representatives from NATO, the United Nations, the EU and other international organizations, gathered in London for a one day conference to discuss the future of Afghanistan. The conference focused on three key areas: security, governance and development, and regional support. By the end of the day-long event, assembled representatives from over 60 nations reaffirmed their long-term commitment to the country. In a concrete measure, Afghanistan was granted $1.6 billion in debt relief. Nations also pledged an estimated total of $500 million for various projects. President Hamid Karzai’s opening address provided a positive development in an otherwise telegraphed event. The President unveiled a six point framework for achieving much-needed security. The first point of this framework will seek to establish a National Council for Peace, Reconciliation and Reintegration. The government of Afghanistan will officially endeavor to end hostilities and establish a sustainable peace through a political process. The President stated that the government "must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers who are not part of Al Qaeda or other terrorist networks, who accept the Afghan constitution." published 59 2010-02-05T01:11:47Z 245