The Negotiation Doctrine
Is negotiation with the Taliban legal?
Zeynab Malakoutikhah
For several years, we have been observing war, conflict and terrorist attacks in Afghanistan with the Taliban being the one most responsible for this turmoil. Since 1966, the United Nations Security Council has established thirty sanction regimes and there are fourteen ongoing sanction regimes in place, three of which are related to terrorism, including ‘the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida’, ‘the 1988 (the Taliban)’ and ‘the 1636 (Killing the Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others in a terrorist attack)’.
As a result of terrorist attacks conducted by the Taliban, it was the sanctions under the Resolution 1267 (1999) of the United Nations of Security Council which determined that the failure of the Taliban to comply with a demand to stop providing sanctuary and training for international terrorism, as well as cooperating in order to bring terrorists to justice, constituted a threat to international peace and security. It is only the UN which recognises the Taliban as a terrorist group alongside Al-Qaeda and ISIS, not the UK, the US or the EU. In this regard, as the Iranians were sometimes a victim of the Taliban’s attacks, such as the killing of Iranian diplomats and journalists in Afghanistan in 1998, Iran recognised the Taliban as a terrorist organisation. Under international law, due to the structure and terrorist activities of the Taliban, for Iran to designate the Taliban as a terrorist group was the correct move, however under international relations and international politics it can be a different subject. In international relations what is important for any specific state is to persuade the other party of its national interest, which in many circumstances can be achieved by negotiation. Negotiation should not be a taboo.
The fact is that the Taliban is a powerful organisation in Afghanistan and with it governing some parts of Afghanistan this cannot be overlooked; the process of peace must be through conciliation with the Taliban. Because of this, the United States and the European countries do not designate the Taliban as a terrorist group. Negotiation with a terrorist group implies a de facto recognition of the group with equal rights and a legitimate counterpart of the negotiation process. Sometimes, for example in the case of the Taliban, the ‘no negotiation’ doctrine is more of a strict view rather than a realistic approach.
In terms of negotiation with the Taliban, one important criterion can be the effectiveness of the negotiation and each country must answer this question: ‘to what extent will the negotiations with the Taliban be effective in order to establish peace in Afghanistan after these dramatic years of turmoil?’. In addition, it must be borne in mind that if negotiation by the Taliban is accepted, the issue is not negotiation per se, it must be a proper negotiation, in that it must be in line with the process of peace in Afghanistan not the recognition of the legitimacy demands or accepting the Taliban’s behaviour or activities. If Iran is serious in negotiating with the Taliban, it must firstly remove it from the terrorist list. Secondly, all steps that are taken must be in consultation with the current legitimate government of Afghanistan. Finally, the negotiation must be effective for both Iran and Afghanistan’s peace and security.
Endless suffering
Abbas Abdi
The purpose of dialogue in any context is to reach conclusions relevant to that context. Whilst scientific dialogue is focused on reaching the truth, cultural dialogues are aimed at reaching a common understanding. In addition, where economic dialogue aims to improve the equilibrium of the market, political dialogue also focuses on reducing violence and the suffering of people, reducing tensions and finding ways for less costly engagements. Of course, all types of dialogues, as the case may be, have some preconditions that are not the subject of this article. The most serious type of dialogue is direct and face-to-face confrontation, such as with Iran and the United States who are sending messages on a daily basis, but it can also be conducted in the form of correspondence.
Political dialogue is perhaps the most important type of dialogue because, in many cases, whilst people will be sat facing each other they may be in a hostile environment. The Paris Peace Talks surrounding the Vietnam War is a good example of such negotiations as they were held at the tense time of the escalation of the war and military attacks took place between the parties.
Political dialogue also does not mean endorsement of the other side’s views but rather an attempt to reduce suffering and achieve peace or less violence. It does not involve boasting about each other’s past but about how to prevent past events from happening again in the future. Identifying the de facto position of the other party is a necessary part of political dialogue but it does not mean confirming the thoughts and ideas of the other party. The aim is more about clarifying the existing facts to prevent further complications in the future. If the talks are successful, this identification can become official and permanent.
The significance of Nelson Mandela’s attempts in entering into dialogue and peace talks was with the racist apartheid regime, which had committed the worst kind of crimes. In fact, Mandela’s approach to dialogue complemented his battle approach which, if it had not, his battle would have ended up like that of Mugabe’s battle in Zimbabwe.
In this regard, one of the most outstanding negotiations undertaken during the last decade was with the FARC rebels in Colombia.
Originally formed with the goals of the revolutionaries from the 1960s, the FARC rebels eventually got involved in organized crime and drug trafficking. Over the past fifty years, more than 200,000 citizens were killed in the Colombian civil war. However, about five years ago, the FARC rebels finally merged into the Colombian political structure as a result of successful negotiations.
In this specific case, for example, it would have been easy to state that, since the FARC rebels were criminals, they should have not been allowed to negotiate but, on the other hand, the FARC rebels could have found the Colombian government guilty of criminal offences. Therefore, both sides had ample evidence to substantiate their claims. They were fighting for fifty years which caused enormous economic damage, poverty and misery. Will they really have to fight for another 50 years? That was a very good question to be answered.
Political dialogue has been an underestimated concept in the Iranian political environment and the term is stuck in the fabric of past radicalism and is still viewed from the same angle in society generally. We are now facing a phenomenon in Afghanistan, being the Taliban, for which its petrification and anti-human actions are, undoubtedly, condemned. However, in recalling a fact is that twenty years ago, when the United States and its entire allied army invaded Afghanistan, everyone assumed the Taliban would be eradicated. The irony occurred last year in Qatar when the US Secretary, Mike Pompeo, and the Taliban negotiated from equal positions. As such, what was destroyed in Afghanistan was Al-Qaeda, not the Taliban. The Taliban survived because whilst a country can be occupied, its culture and social structure cannot easily be changed, although the reactionary Taliban is influential because it has a social background. War and underdevelopment strengthen reactionary forces but their approaches will also change as a consequence of the social and economic development of their country of origin.
In these circumstances, two political approaches are available: to continue the status quo or to start a dialogue for an inclusive presence. The US will, sooner or later, reduce its presence in Afghanistan and the Afghan government will, it seems clear, not be able to survive without the US’s cooperation. On the other hand, other countries will also not allow the Taliban to take full control in Afghanistan but such a dilemma will increase the possibility of starting a new war in the region. As UN reports indicate, the killing of civilians, Shiites and other ethnic and religious groups has increased on a much larger scale in recent years. These are all devastating and paint a bleak future for Afghanistan.
Furthermore, without a peaceful and developing Afghanistan, Iran will also face serious problems. Therefore, as was seen in 2001, neither the continuation of the status quo nor the war is the solution to Afghanistan’s dilemma. In such circumstances, the principle of political dialogue must be confirmed, provided that it is aimed at reducing the violence against, and the suffering of, the Afghan people and moving towards peace and tranquillity.
None of these means, however, acknowledge the ugly thoughts and actions of the Taliban. If that were the case, there would be no dialogue and they would continue their endless war. Of course, a part of the criticism of negotiating with the Taliban in Iranian society addresses the necessity of developing the possibility of dialogue and negotiation inside the Iranian political sphere, starting to negotiate with other controversial countries. While such a criticism is valid, the solution is in approving the possibility of commencing negotiations with any controversial side. The principle of dialogue with any other country and power or with any domestic political group should not be rejected.
What is said here is to neither confirm nor reject the approach of negotiating with the Taliban because for a valid analysis the details of the talks must also be clarified. However, it is worth remembering that the aim of politics is not to issue verdicts against individuals and punish those who have committed crimes in the past but rather defend any kind of dialogue, unconditionally at any level, provided that it reduces violence and suffering and moves towards understanding, peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately, some officials are alien to this concept, as are their critics.
Taliban – A bitter reality
Mohammad Ali Bahmani Qajār
Negotiating with the Taliban militant group is an issue that has pros and cons in Iran but, in order to analyse and judge these actions, one must consider the points that are very effective in the final analysis. All countries involved in the Afghanistan affair and all influential actors have taken their turn in negotiating with the Taliban and the government and political groups inside Afghanistan are negotiating with the militant group. This means that not only have all the foreign governments involved in this issue negotiated with the Taliban but also the government and opposition political groups in Afghanistan, which illustrates that the Taliban is a bitter reality in Afghanistan. Given the Taliban’s power and authority in parts of Afghanistan, negotiations with this group are virtually inevitable. The interpretation of this inevitable negotiation as “negotiation with an anti-American group” is a misinterpretation and a result of ignoring the realities of the region. The existence of the Taliban is the result of the policies of the Pakistani army and the Pakistan Intelligence and Security Agency, and there is no doubt that Islamabad is dependent on the West and the United States.
Even the late Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, stated that the creation of the Taliban was the result of cooperation between the United States, Britain, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. This group also signed a peace agreement with the US and, under no circumstances, can the Taliban claim to be an anti-American group. The Taliban is not and will not be an anti-American group and the more this group gains power in Afghanistan, the more Iran will suffer. The Taliban’s opposition to Shiite Iran is inherent and, as a result, this group cannot be considered to be a friend; Iranian society has never had and will never have such a view. Despite these explanations, the Taliban is still an undeniable presence in Afghanistan, which has taken over large parts of the country’s territory, leading to all influential countries from China and Russia to Qatar, Iran and the United States negotiating with this group. It cannot be said that the very nature of these negotiations is wrong because it is inevitable and necessary to ensure national interest and security.
Iran has often taken a positive and constructive stance on Afghan issues and, indeed, the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, thereby recognizing the constitution of the country. Iran supports the current political system of Afghanistan and considers it a guarantee for the views of different ethnic and political groups to be seen. If the Islamic Emirate is to be re-established in the same style as in the late 1990s, and come to power without elections, ethnic and religious pluralism in Afghanistan will be denied and the result will be nothing but insecurity, instability, war and poverty. Such issues would certainly be detrimental to Iran’s national interests and, for this reason, efforts should be made to implement the demands of the Afghan people democratically through a political mechanism.
Meanwhile, a change of government in the United States will also change the political situation in Afghanistan. The Donald Trump administration was simply trying to remove the United States from the region at any cost and, as a result, paid a lot of money to the Taliban, but this is now different in the case of the new US administration. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, and the US President, Joe Biden, will likely put the “responsible exit” strategy on the agenda and prefer to support the official and legitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, rather than rush to withdraw US troops and tarnish the image of the US to the rest of the world, and ransom the Taliban militants that are fighting their people.
دیدگاهتان را بنویسید لغو پاسخ