Debate series: 'UN-led initiative key to peace in Afghanistan'

A UN-led initiative can bring sustainable peace in Afghanistan, but developing a consensus among all groups and economic viability are prerequisites to guaranteeing the war-torn country's neutral status. This was the consensus of speakers who spoke in an annual debate series organised by Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS) on Thursday.
Speakers debated on the proposition 'Given the History of External competition for Influence in Afghanistan, the Only Way to Bring about a Sustainable Afghan Peace Settlement is a Regional/International Agreement on Guaranteeing its Neutrality'. The director-general ISS Ashraf Jehangir Qazi was the mediator. Aziz Ahmed Khan, the former ambassador of Pakistan to India and Afghanistan, said that the Soviet intervention was the precursor to the US involvement in Afghanistan. In this situation, he siad, neighbouring countries could not keep themselves away from the turmoil.
Chaos in Afghanistan, he said, provided an opportunity to Osama bin Laden to consolidate his position and attack the US. The entire international community joined the US in its war against terrorism, he said.
In case of reconstruction and development in Afghanistan, there were parties excluded from the Bonn Agreement, he said, adding that Taliban were not the only players in insurgency, criminal gangs had also joined it. Aziz recalled Nadir Shah - the renowned Afghan king - who once said: "Afghanistan should become a neutral country, so that it could concentrate on its development and must retain good friendly relations with its neighbours."
"Swiss Model is the best suited to Afghanistan," he said. Aziz went on to say that the major question was how to craft the Afghan neutrality. He elaborated that the US Secretary General should ask eminent global personalities to talk to neighbours to commit not to interfere in Afghanistan's internal matters.
He observed that if Afghans failed to defend themselves or maintain peace and security, US forces "must be deployed, but this process should be Afghan-led". He maintained that Afghanistan needed a strong police, paramilitary force and nominal conventional army. "A strong commitment by Afghans not to interfere in internal affairs of its neighbours is a must," he noted.
Jehangir Qazi, who acted as a mediator, questioned Aziz's logic and asked would Afghans be able to accept neutrality and whether they would accept imposed solutions about their country. When he asked about regional consensus and the US willingness to move ahead to give peace a chance, Aziz said that a genuine process of political reconciliation was that if Afghan government felt that they were not capable of maintaining peace, they could be helped. "But the thing which needs to done is...ensuring that nobody will interfere in Afghanistan internal affairs," he added.
Dr Simbal Khan, who spoke against the proposition, gave two arguments, saying that moderation of external competition alone could not bring neutrality. Great powers' rivalry in Afghanistan, intra-elite struggle for power in Afghanistan and convergence towards left-leaning parties should be taken into account, she observed. She said that after two-decade of US/Nato military intervention in the war-torn country, revenue "stands at $1.2 billion against an annual expenditure of $14 billion".
Both US and India want to have Indian military presence in Afghanistan, she said, adding that India has been able to create soft corner for the past ten years. "Pakistan may become a transit country for regional pipeline to strengthen Indian economy...neutral state means to treat all belligerence impartially as in the absence of war, Afghanistan will become a buffer state," she maintained.
Leaving out Taliban from any talks like Istanbul means no agreement to be viable, she said, adding that Afghanistan "cannot claim neutrality with US bases on its soil". A participant questioned the validity of the proposition, saying if non-state actors became powerful, "how will you maintain that neutrality?"