Why Afghanistan continues to elude internal peace and security

International meetings and consultations play an important role in defusing inter-state or intra-state conflict. Much depends not only on the deliberations of such conferences but also on how the promises made on such occasions are translated into concrete policy measures. Do these consultations cause meaningful changes in the ground realities?

A good number of international conferences and consultations have been held on the Afghanistan conflict in the past couple of years which included not merely the neighboring states but also other countries that had a strong interest in the country. However, Afghanistan continues to elude internal peace and stability.

Two recent conferences were held in Kabul toward the end of February 2018 and Tashkent, Uzbekistan, on March 26-27, 2018. The latter conference was a widely attended meeting which included several states, including the US, China, Russia, the European Union, Turkey, India and the immediate neighbors.

These two consultations are more significant than the earlier efforts because Afghanistan has shown more flexibility in seeking a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban. President Ashraf Ghani made a major offer to the group at the Kabul conference which included an acknowledgement of the Afghan Taliban as a legitimate political party, Afghan passports for their officials, establishment of their office in Kabul or somewhere else, the release of their prisoners and the ultimate removal of the names of their leaders from international sanctions/terrorist lists.

Positive statements were made by the participants of the Tashkent conference and Uzbekistan offered to host the proposed dialogue if and when the Afghan Taliban accepts the offer. The Tashkent conference extended support to an “Afghan-led” and “Afghan-owned” peace process. They also talked of an all-inclusive and comprehensive dialogue for an internal Afghan political arrangement.

The problem with these consultative efforts is that the Afghan Taliban are missing. They have not given any clear view on Ashraf Ghani’s new offer. They have their own internal problems as a number of groups among them compete with one another for eminence. It is quite possible that some groups agree to talk while others continue to fight.

The only occasion when the representatives of the Kabul government and the Afghan Taliban met was in 2015. The meeting was facilitated by Pakistan at Murree, a hill-station near Islamabad. Before the second round could take place, the Afghan government sources disclosed the news about the death of Mullah Omar –– almost two years ago. This led to the postponement of the second round, which was never revived.

Another problem is that the divergent foreign policy agendas of participant states often make it difficult to follow up the conference decisions with concrete measures. Therefore, the joint statements of the consultative processes do not always translate into result-oriented policies. A couple of days before the Tashkent conference, the US accused Russia of supporting the Afghan Taliban. This charge was denied by Russian authorities. The mutual distrust between the key global players such as the US, China and Russia often have a negative impact on the efforts to improve the situation in Afghanistan. Both Russia and China would like the US and NATO to completely withdraw their troops from Afghanistan in due course. However, the US does not want to make any commitment on this.

Still another obstacle to translating conference decisions into policy measures for controlling terrorism is the troubled relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both countries face the menace of terrorist groups and these elements move across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in both directions. If the Pakistani Taliban are based in Afghanistan, elements of the Afghan Taliban visit Pakistan and often melt into Afghan refugee camps. Instead of cooperation for controlling such elements and adopting tough security measures on their border, Afghanistan and Pakistan pursue counter-terrorism policy to the exclusion of the other.

Afghanistan often covers up its failure to control domestic violence and terrorism by accusing Pakistan’s intelligence agencies of harboring the Afghan Taliban and encouraging them to engage in violence inside Afghanistan. Pakistan comes out with its charge sheet against the Kabul government for allowing its territory to be used by anti-Pakistan terrorist groups.

A major reason why Afghanistan never hesitates to frame terrorism charges against Pakistan is that this policy enjoys the backing of the US and India. These two countries have their own axes to grind.

Peace and stability in and around Afghanistan is possible if Afghanistan and Pakistan stop trading charges and counter-charges, which encourage terrorism. Reciprocal cooperation and mutual trust between these two countries offer credible prospects for controlling terrorism in both countries and ensuring peace and stability in Afghanistan.

— Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi is a Pakistan-based political analyst. Twitter: @har132har