Interview with Ms. Fawzia Kofi, Head of Women Affairs Committee at Afghanistan Parliament

Interview by: Jawad Naaji

Question: what is your stand in relation to peace- talks and reconciliation with Taliban?

Reply: I think there are two points that must be differentiated: first peace, second reconciliation process. I believe that no human- particularly no woman can oppose peace; we (women) have paid the highest price for war in the country. Wars not only devastated the country to a great deal but it also cost lives of the nation’s children. Thus, peace is a social need and the ultimate desire of Afghan citizens.

Peace- talk with Taliban is different from “peace” itself. Reconciliation with Taliban doesn’t necessarily result into peace. There can be many reasons for this: first, Taliban is not a political party; it rather is an ideological group created and controlled by intelligence of neighboring and regional countries. Secondly, Taliban is a militant group that is fighting the government. That is why; offering privileges to an ideological and militant group won’t result into peace-building. This fact rather undermines the country’s nascent democracy and state-building processes. If we consider Taliban as a political party, then this political party should enter the power-sharing process through political mechanism such as elections. But this is clear that Taliban is an insurgent group that takes hundreds of lives on daily basis under the name of Islam and conducts suicide attacks that kills tens of innocent men, women and children. Therefore, one can say that since Taliban is insurgent and terroristic group reconciliation with such groups won’t bring peace and security.

Question: Taliban despite being an ideological group struggles to share political power in the country and Afghan official have frequently announced that Taliban can share power with government. This shows that Taliban is assumed as a political party?

Reply: well; one objective for Taliban is to strengthen the group’s role within Afghanistan political structure. I doubt Taliban is seeking a power- sharing deal. Taliban wants the whole regime. They want to found their own type of political structure which is indeed a despotic governing mechanism; they fight to rule the country alone. This in fact, is against democratic values in Afghanistan.

Over the last ten years there have been several ideological and militant groups in Afghanistan that have joined the peace process and rule of law through different mechanisms. For example, former Mojahideen and non- Mojahideen groups who were reintegrated into the society through processes such as DDR and DIAG.

If Taliban lay down their guns and undergo the DDR process, respect Afghanistan Constitution, adhere to women political and social participation, and admit freedom of speech as some undeniable facts, in this case, I don’t think anyone would oppose the political process of reconciliation with Taliban. However, I think for the time being Afghans have reached a certain level of political maturity that can understand who the Taliban are.

Question: do you think the insurgent groups or Taliban will accept what you have just called as democratic values?

Reply: It isn’t likely; usually in any country, when peace talk begins both parties show some sort of flexibility in their stands. Since 3 years Afghan government is seeking to talk with Taliban. In this period, Taliban has shown no flexibility. Taliban’s preconditions to peace-talk reject the country’s current values. For example, amendment to the Constitution, foundation of Islamic Emirate, denial of freedom of speech, freedom of media, unconditional withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan, denying women’s right of political participation and other facts that were experimented under Taliban regime. These preconditions aren’t applicable in current Afghanistan. In such circumstances, it seems unlikely that Taliban comes down and take and reconciliatory and participatory stand.

Question: How do you assess the role and impact of women on the peace process?

Reply: As a critic to the process, I want to make it clear that no country can achieve economic, civil and social prosperity unless women’s role is respected in their relevant reconciliation processes. Kingdom of Norway is a good example of economic development with highest rate of per capita income where women participation in political process is 55 percent. Therefore, I think Afghans should also seriously consider women’s 50 percent political participation.  Women should have their role in various social, educational and other processes and enjoy their rights. Otherwise, Afghanistan will head back and its achievements will deteriorate.

Question: currently 8 members of the High Council of Peace are women. Considering the country’s female population this number is very less. It was expected that women might criticize the process more seriously while it didn’t happen. Do you know why?

Reply: I think presence and participation of those women who disfavor the reconciliation process is very important to success of the process. Their participation and feedback will avoid violation of human rights and women rights. With due respect that I have to the 9 female members of the Peace High Council; I see that their role isn’t very important to the Council. The government intentionally, selects those women who favor the process and for those women with different views, there would be no chance to participate in such processes.

Generally speaking, I don’t think that Afghanistan reconciliation process and the High Peace Council  launched unilaterally by the government can do anything to secure peace in the country. In the worst scenario and circumstance two things might happen that I will explain later. The best scenario would be this that Afghanistan fulfills its primary responsibilities, expand good governance and address the basic needs of ordinary Afghans. Agendas beyond the control of government such as fighting Taliban or terrorist groups which are regional and international phenomena are out of our abilities and we can’t bring peace in our country through current reconciliation process. I again emphasize that these phenomena have got their own regional nature. As I said in the worst scenario two things can happen: first, submit the country to the Taliban for the second time; two, ignite another civil conflict in Afghanistan. There are individuals and groups who don’t want Taliban to rule the country and start fighting which would be another civil war in Afghanistan. However, in both cases this is ordinary Afghans who will pay the price.

Question: do you think that Afghanistan once again will turn into an Islamic Emirate?

Reply: the current process, the recent tendency of Afghan government to bring peace at any cost, and the stand taken by regional countries such as Pakistan seems to direct Afghanistan towards Talibanisation. Now we have to look at the role of international community.

For the time being, the US Secretary of State has announced that US troops withdrawal from Afghanistan isn’t hundred percent sure and will take place in view of the country’s situation. The Secretary has also announced that they will support the reconciliation process as long as it doesn’t contradict the democratic and civilized values of Afghanistan. However, one has to see that how the situation develops over the next few months. I think that the current government of Afghanistan isn’t a reliable partner for the international community to fight terrorism. In the current situation, if Afghan government persists to follow its reconciliatory efforts while ignoring the parliament, political parties, Afghanistan citizenry, and civil society organizations as the main party to the conflict these efforts will result into violating citizenship rights and can do nothing for peace. Naturally, those opposing the process will get frustrated and start a new internal conflict. Keeping in mind that Afghanistan hasn’t disarmed all illegal groups and individuals, if these groups see that their interest aren’t served through democratic processes, the easiest way for them would be to start violence as Taliban is doing it.

The above scenarios are really the worst possible options that one can assume and I hope that such scenarios won’t be given any space to realize; but the current process is tending towards such scenarios.

Question: taking into consideration the Taliban ideology, do you think that the mechanism of peace- talks with Taliban is right? And do you think peace is achievable?

Reply: I reiterate that there are two different themes and we need to be careful not to confuse the two facts. Peace- talks with Taliban and the “peace” itself. Peace- talks with Taliban won’t necessarily result into peace. If you go back to 1990s, a similar “national reconciliation process” had been initiated by government of Dr. Najeeb and everyone was of the opinion that the process would result into ultimate peace for Afghanistan. When Najeebullah’s regime collapsed and Mojahideen came to power, we saw that things turned to the contrary. Now if we compare the two situations, we see that in 1990s ordinary Afghans wanted peace and they considered Mojahideen as part of the nation who were fighting to liberate the country, but now, Afghans don’t consider Taliban as a national resistance force. So, keeping in mind that fact that the nation doesn’t want Taliban, the peace- talk process with them will result into nothing.

Today no one can guarantee that the process would be successful; no one can assure that the reconciliation process with Taliban is indeed a peace process. As I said, there can be two scenarios: a new phase of internal conflicts and a Talibanized peace process that will lead the country backward and turns it into a place where people live like spiritless creatures that can’t dare to react against the regime. Afghanistan under Taliban can’t be a peaceful country; it rather would a country of spiritless creatures.

Question: Do you think peace-talks with Taliban enjoy grassroots legitimacy or it is just a political and government owned process?

Reply: this is more a government process rather than a public one. Public support is realized only when a process is initiated based on some sort of social contract. Social contract based on state- building principles is created when you specify the party(s) to a conflict, create some guaranteeing mechanisms for materializing your objectives, and then achieve the desired results. For the time being, many things are unclear with the process and these vague parts in the assumed social contract between Afghanistan citizenry and Afghan government has confused results of the process.

Question: what would be the political and social consequences of the peace- talk and reconciliation process with Taliban?

Reply: If the government neglects its fundamental duties to address the primary needs of its citizens and instead involve itself in issues beyond its authority and continue to ignore role of other state institutions such as parliament, this will either take the country back to 1990s or if the government while neglecting all other state institutions and Afghan nation and the MPs persists on its reconciliation efforts this will result into Talibanization of Afghanistan.

Question: What has been the reaction of Afghanistan Parliament in relation to the reconciliation process?

Reply: So far, the important issues such as reconciliation and other state fundamental policies in this regard haven’t been referred to Afghanistan parliament. While article 64 of the Constitution says that part of the responsibilities of the President is to determine and approve the fundamental policies of the government in coordination with the country’s parliament.

The parliament is a policy making state institution and represents the nation. So far, as public representative, we haven’t been consulted regarding the peace process. If the parliament that represents all Afghans is neglected, then how the reconciliation process reflects the national interest? With this situation I think that further isolating of the parliament will cause confrontation of power and will undermine the government from inside.