Papering Over the Fissures Inherent in the Afghan Reconciliation Process

Photo: Evgenia Novozhenina (Reuters)

In the wake of last month’s highly publicized peace agreement between the US and the Taliban, as well as the recently concluded Presidential elections, political turmoil in Afghanistan has once again taken center stage. While both these developments represent much welcomed progress of sorts in helping stabilize a fragile and war-torn country on the surface, there still however remain a whole host of underlying issues that have cast even greater uncertainty over the prospects of achieving lasting peace and stability. The kind of peace that would benefit not only the Afghan Nation, but the wider South Asian, Central Asian and Persian Gulf regions.

These issues include the finer points of the US’s agreements with the Taliban particularly regarding prisoner exchanges, as well as the highly public rifts within the Afghan state apparatus that have brought serious challenges to the legitimacy of its newly re-elected President and his accompanying cabinet. The kind of legitimacy which otherwise holds the key to presenting a united and credible negotiating team to represent the Afghan government in its dealings with the Taliban. Thus, taken together, these issues present dangerous obstacles which need to be overcome if the country’s nascent peace process is to stop from being derailed even before having properly begun.

 

For instance, the spectacle of two rival presidential inaugurations that were aired in split screen throughout Afghan news channels earlier this week represented the clear schism that exists within the country’s more mainstream politics. Fueled by yet another controversial presidential election result, this tussle for power between former president Ashraf Ghani and his long-time rival Abdullah Abdullah manifests the deep-rooted differences that have existed amongst Kabul’s ruling elites for almost two decades since the US toppled the Taliban. Hence, it is no surprise that both Mr. Ghani and Mr. Abdullah, despite their diverse support bases within the war-torn country, have repeatedly relied on the US as a key mediator and power broker within the Afghan political system.

These difficulties are in turn further indicative of the immense complexity associated with the many tasks assigned to the US Special Representative for Afghan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad. Not only has Mr. Khalilzad been made responsible for bringing about an equitable peace deal between the US and the Taliban from a position of relative weakness, but also to reconcile the deep seeded political differences that have permeated through the Afghan democratic system, most of which are of the US’s own making. In fact, the very advent of a democratic Afghanistan since the creation of its 2004 constitution is of the US’s own making with all its so-called victo

The Afghanistan Papers that were released just a few months back have presented ample reasons for these outcomes. They have provided key insights into the unrealistic expectations and lack of appreciation on the US’s part for the extremely difficult task it had set out for itself in its ‘nation-building’ experiment. Attributed to a clear lack of goals and strategy, the US is estimated to have spent $133 billion just to have built up Afghanistan, with only rampant political instability and insecurity to show for it. What’s worse, the US (ironically along with Russia) has had to now condemn and downplay recent statements from boisterous Taliban representatives that they would soon be restoring the Islamic government that had existed before the US invasion in 2001. Hence, nullifying whatever achievements the US had to show for in terms of bringing an inclusive democracy backed by a capably enforced rule of law.

The initial catchphrases of ‘empowering’, ‘bringing freedom’ to, and ‘enabling political representation’ for the Afghan people were touted globally as huge successes. Built on the back of championing women’s rights and amidst promises of unfettered development and investment these presented as one of the many goals the US had achieved over the course of its campaign in Afghanistan . However, the succeeding lawlessness, rampant nepotism and corruption that has since plagued the Afghanistan has marred whatever political gains the US had to show for on the international stage over the last decade and half.

Rather, one of the very reasons why the Taliban have gained so much traction politically, and why they still enjoy a considerable support base amongst the local population, is primarily because of the rampant corruption and bureaucratic in-fighting that has since characterized the US backed Afghan government. It also stands as one of the primary reasons why the Taliban beyond its power as a militant force has still come to politically represent considerable swathes of the Afghan population. Thus, representing a reality which even Pakistan had been trying to get the US to realize ever since the US embarked on its hunt for Al-Qaeda in the Af-Pak theatre.

However, considering the haste and forced manner in which the US is going through with its current exit in Afghanistan, it seems there are still key lessons the US has once again ignored. Despite its attempts at fostering political reconciliation, empowering the Afghan military and police, as well as bringing about some semblance of modernity in what by US standards was an archaic country, the US is nowhere near achieving these ambitions for all its military and economic might. Instead what appear to be the primary factors driving Afghan reconciliation at the moment are the much-needed headlines and photo-ops required for an embattled president to win re-election. Not to mention the mounting domestic pressure to bring US troops back home from an unending quagmire that has seen the US sink limitless amounts of blood and treasure in. A glaring truth which no optics or spin doctoring has been able to convince the American public let alone the rest of the world.

Reconciling Public Safety and National Security Via A Renewed Focus on Bio-Security

As the broad ranging consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic wreak havoc across the global political economy, there have also simultaneously come up several issues pertaining to policy and governance particularly related to International Security. These include for instance the growing emphasis now being laid on biosecurity which under the current context of an unprecedented global pandemic has greatly exposed the failings and lack of preparedness of even some of the world’s most developed
countries.

One has to merely glance at the fast-rising death tolls in the US, UK, Italy and Spain to gauge how some of the world’s foremost economies and health services have been left devastated owing to a severe lack of preparedness. Countries which boast some of the world’s most robust military industrial and technological complexes, have been unable to otherwise safeguard not only the health and safety of their own populations, but also to preserve what can be only described as their entire way of life. Something for which they have been more than ready to go to war in the past.



Its hence no surprise that the US for instance, in its incessant need to scapegoat (or to just simply bomb)and divert mounting public outrage has been consistently directing blame towards China. This has ranged from alleging China to have deliberately engineered the virus, to holding the Chinese government accountable for having initially covered up the severity of the outbreak in a bid to safeguard
its own economic and diplomatic standing. While it is unlikely that the US would go to war with China solely over this, the dramatic deterioration in relations that has been witnessed in the kind of rhetoric and proposals that have been coming out from both countries stands as cause for grave concern for the world at large.

Yet, what’s lost amidst this blame game that has dominated headlines for over a month, has been perhaps the more important and timely discussion that had arisen on the importance of incorporating  more robust bio-security measures. This is understandable considering how the term biosecurity has itself over the last two decades come to be associated more in relation to enacting safeguards against bio-terrorism and bio-chemical weapons. Aspects that were directly based for instance on the anthrax


and smallpox scares that had dominated US policy discourse shortly after the September 11 attacks. Or for instance from the more recent threats issued by ISIS regarding the use of such weapons against Western targets. The above linked report from the Hudson institute for instance evaluates the US’s need to enact such biodefense (or biosecurity) measures within exactly such contexts.
However, it is this very context related to terrorism and homeland/national security which in dominating US policymaking circles is more attuned towards focusing on the perpetrators of such threats; be they state or non-state actors. Consequently, the whole aim of the US – and also arguably its closest allies – has been to justify its more interventionist and hands-on approach to mitigating such threats before they reach US shores. Hence, the emphasis being more on preventing such biological ‘attacks’ from occurring in the first place as opposed to dealing with them once they’ve ‘hit’.

While justifiable in its own right, what this approach however misses in its overarching focus on national security, is perhaps the more pressing need to address public health and safety domestically. Which in essence is what national security is premised on defending in the first place – an effective Civil Defense of sorts.

For instance, a widely cited comparison of the ‘Western’ response to the Coronavirus with that of certain East Asian countries such as Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and Japan shows how these latter countries’ more recent experiences in dealing with the SARS and MERS outbreaks had contributed immensely to their relatively better responses to this pandemic. By already having in place certain
contingency and policy directives grounded more in a domestic public health and safety perspective – as opposed to an outward looking national security one – each of these states was able to mount a more coordinated, timely and socially aware response to this crisis.

Most importantly their responses had public support and sympathy directly built in to their policies which saw the overall public perception of their governments’ measures as wholly necessary and compulsory; as opposed to being forced and reactionary. This latter aspect for instance is manifest in how several countries have witnessed severe public and political backlash towards the social distancing and lockdown policies that were enacted the world over. This includes backlash witnessed in countries ranging from the US to Pakistan, where the economic costs of such policies – which once again are tied directly to externally inspired national security concerns – were given unassailing primacy over domestic public health and safety.

Talking specifically of Pakistan and its long history of being portrayed as a security state, such threats to national security from a potential bio-chem attack, are already prioritized along the lines of a potential WMD attack considering the primacy such threats hold for a Nuclear Weapon State. However, even within such military dominated approaches to bio-security, there is a still a public safety and awareness component from a Civil Defense perspective, that even in the case of any WMD attack remains already lacking. Thus, belying the prioritization afforded to deterring external threats, rather than on eliminating such shortcomings within, just like the US.

The current global pandemic has provided a rare chance to have this conversation regarding the very premises and priority this concept of Bio-security has been accorded within government policy circles. It has afforded a previously unfound impetus and political capital to enact and fund such measures. Instead of being squandered however, such impetus should be used to mitigate such lapses that have now been brought to the forefront of governance and policy discourse the world over. Unless these realities are adapted to, life is likely to become even harder in a world that has changed dramatically in just the last few months.

Gender Gap: An Uncured Curse

Despite tiresome endeavors of NGOs and iNGOs the dilemma of gender discrimination still remains unresolved. Feminists, individually as well as communally, are pervading their vigorous part for the main stream struggle around the globe.

The dismal and miserable depiction of the situation reroutes our attention toward the necessity of action beyond the traditional methodologies assumed to mitigate issue. Contrary to all these endeavors to reducing the gender gap, some countries have proven to become even more vulnerable. Women and girls are still married off as minors, trafficked into forced labor, sex slavery, refused access to education and prevented from making personal choices in their private lives.

Albeit Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) proposed by UN ranks gender equality at top of the priority list and perked up apparent status of women but such efforts have failed miserably to change mindset among patriarchal world society. It shows that the roots of this curse sprout from dogmas and not essentially from individual frame of mind.
Gender gap, according to oxford dictionary, is; “the discrepancies in opportunities, status, attitude, etc., between men and women.” Keeping in view, the definition of gender gap, one can easily point out violations happening around even in educated and civilized milieu. From sacred religious outlets to the higher educational institutes and from brick kilns to the parliaments, women are wretchedly exploited.

World Reports 2017 proposed by Human Rights Watch shows that 700 women were killed in Peru during the period of 2009-15. In Afghanistan, 2,621 cases of domestic violence were reported in the first eight months of 2016. Iraq’s Ministry of Planning’s study in 2012 found that 36 percent women were domestically violated by their husbands. An estimated 32 percent women in US have suffered physical violence and 19 percent have been raped either by their partner or by others.

According to Human Rights Watch, around 1,000 women are killed, in the name of honor, every year in Pakistan. Though cases of Zeenat Rafiq and Amber came into spotlight but the alarming fact is that even in top varsities girls are sexually assaulted by male faculty members on daily basis. On the other hand, senior male parliamentarians’ attacks on female MNAs’ self respect show the sensitivity regarding this grave issue by the current government regarding women rights. Hence all endeavors, in such a hypocrite milieu, have proven fruitless in Pakistan.

It is need of hour to incorporate women into all walks of life. Besides this, social and religious values and norms should be protected. In Pakistan, there is a sharp contrast concerning gender gap area wise. In modern areas female are even more superior to their partners while in slums a woman is no finer than livestock. A balanced psychologically designed unified course of education and training can be the only cure of this curse.

Hypocrisy and double standards, found in behaviors, must be denied. This can be achieved by presenting parables by leaders, reformers and activists. Since gender gap is a multi-faced issue hence it also requires multi-pronged efforts. Just nominal awareness campaigns, seminars and celebrations are not enough to tackle this challenge. We need solemn and serious behaviors if we want to bring women in main stream of development in this modern world.

Sexual harassment: a misused concept

Inspired by the global Me Too movement, a lot of women in Pakistan have since come forward and accused various men of sexual harassment. It all started when a few girls took screenshots of their DM and posted them on Twitter to expose the harassers. Not surprisingly though, the victims received tremendous support from many as they should have.

However, doubts regarding the veracity of such claims were raised when one of the accused posted screenshots of the original conversation he had had with the ‘alleged’ victim. It turned out she was completely OK with him sending those inappropriate texts and seemed to have enjoyed the conversation. Later after developing personal issues with the person, she deleted her responses from the conversation which portrayed the accused as if he was continuously sending inappropriate texts without her consent.

The question is, can we call it harassment if it involves ones consent at the time? Also, can one retrospectively go back in time and call an act or a conversation as sexual harassment even though he/she was totally fine with it at the time?


Another prime example of fake sexual harassment allegations is that of Ayesha Gulalai’s. She created a storm in the country by her startling revelations against Imran Khan and received massive support from feminists. She blamed Mr. Khan of sending her inappropriate messages. However, she’s yet to show those lewd messages to the public or any court of law despite her numerous promises.

Recently the case of Meesha’s allegations against Ali Zafar has taken everyone’s attention. However, it is different in a sense that it doesn’t involve texts or anything that could be used as an evidence. Although one can’t really expect Meesha to have recorded Ali’s alleged sexual advancements when she was being harassed but that doesn’t mean we should accept Ali Zafar as a harasser and boycott him just because Meesha said so. Given the absence of any evidence, it’s essentially Meesha’s word against Ali’s.

Who do you trust is just a matter of one’s personal opinion. Legally though, Ali is innocent unless proven guilty. We must not draw conclusions based on mere allegations of someone.

Having said this, the best way for a woman to fight sexual harassment is to stop it right there at the beginning. Say NO if you are not comfortable with it. A decisive NO will suffice for more than 99 percent of men. For the remaining one percent, if it’s online conversation, there is a reason almost all of the social media platforms have a “block” option available. Use it.

However, if you really want to choose social media to shame a harasser, then you must be prepared to share some proof otherwise  you can’t blame people for asking you proof.