Meeting with NATO advisors in the MoFA

Yesterday I was invited to an important meeting with the close advisors of General Petraeus in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The question was the security situation in Afghanistan, peace talks with the Taliban, withdrawal of NATO, and future of Afghanistan.
The session was headed by Daud Muradian, Head of Strategic Studies of MoFA. There were two other Afghans too: one General Hadi Khalid, ex-deputy minister for the ministry on interior and a security expert; the other, Najia Hanafi, a women rights activist.
NATO fellows had specific questions. Every one expressed their views and concerns which were interesting and educative. The session went for around two and a half hours.

My points were as following:
A. Who the Taliban are and what is to be done with them:
I categorized the Taliban insurgents into four layers:
1) The top leaders with ideological claims. They regard themselves as the soldiers of God with the mission of implementing Shariah Law and establishing “Pure Islamic Government”. They regard themselves in the right path and call others as the “Pagans”, “Kafir” and “Enemies of Pashtun and Pashtunwali (the codes of Pashtun)”. They are in close link with Alquaida and regard that as their religious duty. They may have a wrong belief, but it is very strong and they expect all their rewards from the God. They want nothing other than the content of God in the Heaven and the ruling of Sharia on the earth.
2) The second layer with ‘political agendas’ and ‘religious slogans’. They are not confined to Cleric Taliban. There are a lot of figures who have the dream of monopolistic/totalitarian political power. They are pressing for more shares in the system. They are not happy with the idea of democracy and devolution of power. They want to have the old model of authority based on ethnocentric assumption. They may be shaved or unshaved. They may have tie or turban. Doesn’t matter. They want to have their traditional clinch on power and apply their wish at will.
3) The trouble-makers and bandits who profit from the insecurity. They are drug lords, highway robbers, killers, thieves, and all other kinds of criminals.
4) The oppressed ordinary people on the ground. They are the victims of corrupt administration. They have been suffering from the retaliation, corruption, intimidation, poverty, insecurity, etc. They have no choice other than finding shelter under the Taliban gun/money/religious demise.

Any of these layers need a separate solution:
1) For the first ideological group we can have no means other than providing the people with good message of our democratic and civil values. This has not (or at least rarely) been done in the past. The president calls his international allies as “Kharejian” (the foreigners/outsiders). What does it cross to the people other than saying that Taliban are right and ‘foreigners’ are wrong? The message is clear for the ordinary people: The NATO soldiers are not sacrificing their lives and time for our security and betterment. They are invaders, and they have to leave the country. The term “Kharejian” has the negative meaning in Afghan culture. It is not showing friendship or loyalty. It shows being stranger and alien. This is why the Taliban gets so strengthened and we are getting so weakened. We have not managed to cross even one simple message to the people: Taliban are not right when they are killing innocents, burning schools, beheading, spraying acids on the faces of the girls, making blind suicidal attacks… We have not said to the people that the international soldiers have come to save us from terror and insecurity. They are building schools to allow our kids learn and get education…. This is the conceptual gap that needs to be addressed. The terms such as “upset brothers” are not enough to counter Taliban misleading message for the villagers. “Upset brothers” cannot be blamed for their deeds at all!
2) For the second layer, we have to be ready for any kind of dialogue and political dealing. They have shown readiness to get integrated into the system. We have tens of them already in the system. They are ministers, MPs, governors, advisors, etc. They are not dangerous, but they want monopolistic power. You can address them with democratic political means. You can put them on the legal democratic procedure and ask them to gain their due share through sane political participation.
3) The third and fourth layers can only be addressed through good governance. Rule of law is their answer. When you have sane and sound government administration, you can maintain law and order and you can keep every thing in control. You cannot pay tolls and bribe to calm these layers. The ordinary villagers need safety, security and job. You have to reach them with your good authority. The bandits and criminals need to be caught and punished. You can do that with good police and good security forces.

B. Reconciliation or reintegration?
I said reconciliation means reaching to some sorts of agreement from both sides. Reintegration means bringing insurgents to the system and existing political structure. Now, president Karzai is insisting on reconciliation while the international community is aiming at reintegration. If we are to reconcile with the Taliban, what should we give to them to get their content and satisfaction? Their demands are clear: withdrawal of the “foreigners” and abolition of the constitution. Do we accept that? Our position has put us in a paradoxical status: Accepting that means that we have submitted to the Taliban. Rejecting that means there is no way to deal and compromise or “reconcile”. Taliban feel themselves in the victorious position. It is the government who offers peace and reconciliation to appease them. This is the government who calls them as “upset brothers” and they answer its call with repeated suicidal attacks, bomb blasts, and excommunicating decrees. We should fix our minds prior to offering reintegration or reconciliation to the Taliban.

C. Is accepting the Constitution a good condition for peace talk with Taliban?
I said, the third article of the Constitution says that no law can be passed if it is opposing Islamic Sharia. Now it is not as dangerous. Because we have different interpretation from Sharia that can be adjusted to the civil, democratic and human rights of the people too. But if it is mentioned as the condition for Peace Talk with the Taliban, that can be highly dangerous. Let’s say the Taliban may accept that and come to the government. What will happen then? … They will interpret Sharia and will abolish all the democratic and civil norms as “anti Sharia”. Who is then to oppose them?
I said this is not a good and wise condition. Sharia in the third article of the Constitution is the base and backbone of every other article in this document. The government is bringing the Taliban with this pre-judgment that they are “right” and we are “wrong”. Hence, they will be the one to interpret Sharia not we. Sharia leaves no ground for women rights nor does it accept democratic norms and values.

D. What will happen after the withdrawal of NATO?
I said, nine years ago, we were not well-known. But now, we are. We have worked and talked and campaigned for the new democratic process and now every one of us is famous for our works and activities. Still we are not at the position to help ourselves. We are simply helpless when our government and president are submitting at any cost to the traditional fanaticism. Let me ask what will happen to me and my hundreds of kids who have believed in the process and who have worked and come forward? …
Can we fight? … What are the means? …
Should we submit? … What is the guarantee for our safety and security? …
Can we flee? … To Where?
I gave the example of fanatical Shiite Clerics who attacked Marefat High School in 2009 because the students and teachers had opposed to the controversial Shiite Personal Law. Tomorrow if there is the rule of Taliban and Shariah, what will be the fate of these kids and teachers?
The same is the situation of the ethnic and religious minorities, the women, the media, the civil society activists, etc.

E. Can Afghan Army and Police stand on its own feet after the withdrawal of NATO?
I referred to the experience of Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviets. Dr. Najibullah had a strong army of around 400,000. They resisted strongly, but only for three and a half years. They were not weak in terms of their military might. They were defeated in their ideology. The Jihadi forces came and toppled their regime at length. Tomorrow, by the current move of the government, we will have a strong army but it will have no faith and trust in its righteousness. It will be defeated by Taliban, because the Taliban are right and the government is regarded as wrong.


F. What is the solution?
I said, despite all dark pictures from the side of the government, the solution is not something difficult if we are to show will and determination. My suggestions are as follows:
1. We have to choose between the old and new Afghanistan. New Afghanistan is the big change in the lower ground. Millions of people are profiting only from the opportunity and context they are given. This new Afghanistan is much deserving and powerful than the old one.
2. Civil society should be supported. Civil society is the people of the country who have developed greatly after the fall of the Taliban. Health, education, job, good governance, rule of law is the main and right demand of the people. Paying attention to these demands means the supporting of the Civil Society.
3. Shifting our reliance from individuals to institutions. President Karzai is an individual. He is your friend today and your enemy tomorrow. You don’t have any means to hold him accountable.
4. Strengthening democratic institutions against traditional tribal institutions. Parliament, media group, political parties, civil society groups, and modern schools should be supported against tribal Jirgas, grey-headed elders, mosques and traditional Madrassas. Now more then 95% schedule of the president is full of his meeting with the old guys: elders, Jihadi leaders, drug lords, warlords, etc. This is a symptom of attempted fortification of the old system and undermining of the new generation.
5. Theoretical gap in crossing our due message to the people should be fixed. Tomorrow you are leaving Afghanistan. But your leaving should not be interpreted as your defeat and as the Taliban victory. You should not be regarded as the “foreigner”. You should be called and remembered as the loyal and sincere friend of people who have sacrificed their lives and time for the good of Afghans. Your withdrawal should not leave a negative message as if the Taliban have defeated you in your mission and values. It will enhance the wrong vision of this country that we have smashed all the invaders! This is not good, not true and not fair. You have to be hauled and saluted whenever you leave this country. It can be done and it should be done.
6. Don’t forget that we are not weaker than nine years ago. This is the government and the president who depicts everything as that. We are much and much stronger now. We have thousands and thousands of educated people that were missing nine years ago. We have tens of active democratic groups who didn’t exist nine years ago. We have the people who have experienced democracy, human rights, free environment, freedom of speech and expression, etc. These elements were not existing nine years ago. The notorious leaders and gangsters of nine years ago are no longer as powerful and justified among the population. New Afghanistan and new generation has come forward. We should trust them and we should help them gain the realm of leadership and management. We should not give ground for fanaticism, tribalism, prejudice, discrimination, anti-democratic visions and activities.

G. What is your big concern?
My big concern is that by your withdrawal from Afghanistan, the resistance and war will gain other façade. The resistance to the Taliban is a must and unpreventable. But it will not be the same as the past. It will be much more bloody and tragic. Your role will be questioned then: what did you do when you came to Afghanistan and what did you accomplish when you left it with this bloody quagmire? … This will have the most dreadful and unacceptable consequence. All the insurgencies are not necessary to be fanatical and Taliban-type. It may be otherwise, however, your effort and sacrifice will prove counterproductive. This is my big concern.

G. What would you say if you had a short advice to the president?
Every one had an advice:
Najia said: respect women rights and empower them.
Khalid said: strengthen the national army and national police and get rid of the big fishes around your table.
I said: Time has changed, you have to change! With your change, everything will get changed and fixed!