Afghanistan: Rights Experts Have Doubts about Reconciliation with Taliban

Leading Afghan human rights experts are voicing caution about President Hamid Karzai's efforts to reconcile with the Taliban.

The Afghan government has proposed a law that would grant amnesty to Taliban fighters in order to peel them away from the radical Islamic movement and to promote a durable peace in Afghanistan. The government, however, has not made public details of the legislation, including who would be eligible for the amnesty, what crimes might be excluded, and what Taliban members would have to do to be eligible for the amnesty. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"That ambiguity and unclarity has generated a lot of debate, and mostly fear, of losing what was gained in the last eight years among ordinary Afghans, especially women," said Nader Nadery, a member of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

Nadery spoke at an April 1 discussion at the US Institute of Peace, entitled "Peace vs. Human Rights? Implications for a Peace Settlement with the Taliban." [Editor's Note: Nadery is a board member of the Open Society Institute Afghanistan. EurasiaNet publishes under the auspices of the Open Society Institute in New York].

Nadery expressed doubt about the timing of the reconciliation process, hinting that the chances for success, at least from a democratization standpoint, were low. "With a weak government, an international community that is eager for withdrawl, a people that is disillusioned and slowly growing more frustrated with the situation, the Taliban are overconfident," Nadery said. "And if they come to the table, they will come with their own terms."

At present, Nadery contended, "there is no reason and incentive for [the Taliban] to . . . join the political process" without major government concessions. He argued that the international community should focus on strengthening the Afghan government before probing reconciliation possibilities with the Taliban. Afghan public institutions need to demonstrate an ability that they can provide a basic level of service, as well as show that they can apply justice in an even-handed manner, before a critical mass of Taliban elements could realistically be persuaded to rejoin the political process, Nadery suggested.

Another Afghan civil society activist, Farishta Sakhi, expressed alarm over the possibility that Taliban representatives might be brought into the Afghan government, saying such a move would likely lead to the erosion of women's rights. "This whole discussion of negotiation with the Taliban is happening because the international community and the Afghan government did not have enough military and development strategies on the ground," she said. "And my question is, why should the Afghan people pay the cost of these failures?"

Although Karzai has stressed that the Taliban must accept the existing Afghan constitution as part of any amnesty, Sakhi observed that the constitution "has many contradictions" and is open to multiple interpretations. Although she accepted that an amnesty might be required under certain circumstances, Sakhi demanded that any new peace negotiations respect human rights.

Sakhi complained that the Afghan government's work so far on reconciliation does not make it seem as though government officials are interested in protecting basic civil rights. "Unfortunately the team which has been recently assigned by the government to convene this negotiation excludes totally civil society [actors] and Afghan women."

Michael Semple, a fellow at Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights, was more hopeful about the prospects of negotiations. He agreed that every step of the peace process had to consider human rights, but he contended that most Afghans shared common values upon which a peace deal could rest.

Semple added that a "continuation of the conflict is one of the key sources of abuse" and that ending or easing the fighting could open new opportunities for the Afghan people to . . . achieve rights." Semple insisted that, "for someone who is concerned about human rights . . . the status quo is unacceptable" so "we have to think about how we go forward" and help people protect their rights.