On August, 5 2009 Ali Payam of Afghanistan Watch sat with Mr. Hafiz Mansur Editor-in-Chief of Payam Mujaheed Weekly and a former member of Jamiat-e Islami Afghanistan to discuss transitional justice and reconciliation. As you can see below Mansur argues against the process of transitional justice seeing it as politically motivated and dealing with internal perpetrators of crimes and human rights violations in Afghanistan.

Q. Mr. Mansur! The subject of our interview is transitional justice and reconciliation. As the first question what is reconciliation in your view?

A. Reconciliation has two aspects: first, the agreement of the parties. Second, the voluntary cooperation of both parties and both the parties must agree to accept each other. This is called reconciliation. With the silence of war or putting some people as the representatives of people on the sides of table, we can not call it reconciliation. Many times they are brought together by force. For example, there was silence in the territory ruled by Taliban, but there was no satisfaction or voluntary cooperation in this area. May be some joined their rank to remain alive as they were poor and deprived. These two points are important I think.

Q. Thanks. If we want to know the relationship between justice and reconciliation, what do you think is the relationship between the meaning of both justice and reconciliation?

A. Both of them are key concepts of human society and particularly in current situation of Afghanistan. They are together and strengthen and support each other. However, in my view justice is a higher value sought by all human beings. It includes the meaning that in many occasions the struggle of humans for establishing justice is summarized in it.

What is important is that interpretations and meanings talked about justice are not equal in societies. These different interpretations many times have caused diversity in the views. For example when Taliban are fighting it does not mean they are fighting for peace. They fight for justice but their definition of justice differs with us. When Anwar ul Haq Ahadi writes a book about the solution of national issues he writes about justice and thinks of it. This is what the human society is like flock of sheep.

Who ever has the greater number of flock, he should rule. In principle justice is about recognizing the dignity and honor of human beings. There are some natural rights like freedom of speech and freedom of belief and likewise blood, property and respect that can not be achieved through votes. For example 27 million residents of Afghanistan votes for the killing of some one; however no one can kill that person with no reason or by violating the law. It can not be that 27 million votes for some one to change his religion. Unfortunately the personal and natural rights of people are not recognized. Therefore, the concept of justice has not taken the meaning of citizenship rights and we stress on the number of ethnic groups and language and who is minority and who is majority.

Here, we can not implement justice in real manner; since Sunnis are the majority the religion of Ja’fari is illegal? It is not justice, because they are not the issues to be solved by majority votes.

I believe justice is one of the pillars to establish security and peace in Afghanistan and without justice especially after jihad and resistance with all the destructions, one point was that no one is ready to be a servant or second rank in this country. We can not bring justice without respecting the natural right of every citizen.

Still we are fighting for justice. One side of struggle is the diverse interpretations that we have from justice. Since we accept foundations of justice in form, we ought to undertake extensive intellectual, cultural and legal activities to spread this invaluable value amongst our people.

Even those who carry out suicide bombings do not want to oppress others and sacrifice their lives for the Islamic justice that they believe to be implemented. How can we offer a transparent and inclusive interpretation which is satisfactory for and supported by a large majority if not all for all citizens.

Q. Thanks. In view what is definition of transitional justice?

A: I believe we have misused the beautiful word justice by transitional justice. Although everyone favors justice; however transitional justice is a political project and they want to suppress their political rivals. This project will bring tensions and uprisings instead of establishing security. I believe this project has brought no benefit for our people; instead it has been a controversial and divisive project for today and tomorrow of our country. I believe it is a political project.

Q. Then a serious question comes in mind what to do with the big parts of society who were victims of war during past three decades of war? There are two points here: first the victims of violence and second the violators of human rights which are the two basic elements of transitional justice. Now if we do not accept the process of transitional justice what will happen to transitional justice?

A: We can not say that the rights of victims be ignored and neglected. However we have our reasons that we claim the project is not aimed to bring peace rather it is a project for political revenge. Look at the fronts. During past thirty years of war in Afghanistan all came into this country from Ukrainian soldier to generals of Belarus plus Russian army. Moreover Punjabi, Bengali and Arab all came here but amongst them why only our countrymen are included in the list of human rights violators? Why they are not named? We must bring those into justice who planned all the atrocities in the background if we really want to implement justice.

From Republicans party Mr. Regan to many others. We carried out the firings but the supports were sent by them. It is true that the money was spent by us, but they were sent from Saudi Arabian and Iranian banks. Why do we not talk about all these issues? I remember that 23 countries voted in the favor of those at that time whom transitional justice wants to bring them into trial.

Why do not you bring the UN Secretary General to a court? Why they are not named? If it is not a political project then why Regan is not held accountable? If they (the Mujahideen) are violators of human rights they were supporters behind the scene. They were helping in political, propagatory and economic areas. Arab Sheikhs, Pakistani leaders and the leaders of Iran. We must organize an international court and bring all those to justice who were involved. You search and find your poor and weak countryman who has nothing even any other place.

Others try to create tensions in our country and we are also helping them by raising the issues of transitional justice. We must forgive each other. If the evidences and proofs are clear and obvious it is ok. Those whom transitional justice calls human rights violators are either MPs or ministers. The United Nations and the people forgive them. For example, Golabzoi is forgiven by his people. Who for transitional justice talks?

If it is talking for the people it is the same people of Paktiya who voted for Golabzoi. General Ulomi received votes from Kandahar and he is now an MP.

The transitional justice has made him representative. The people have forgiven them by their votes and even helped him. Even they say that he is better than transitional justice. The Parliament has rejected it in a public decision.

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) emphasizes that it is true they have authorities and many of them are presidential candidates for example Mr. Shahnawaz Tanai. I do not understand on which basis they want to try them? Is it on the basis of public votes, international community or the constitution of Afghanistan?

Transitional justice is a base for creating tensions. It is a ground for thrashing their rivals. If they really have proofs they should bring them so that all the people see. We also see it. You see that they have not presented the necessary documents. The victim of war has gone now and only his children are alive. Or may be there are some victims who have lost their legs. So what is the use of transitional justice for them?

If they say the truth why they said that the ministry of martyrs and disabled should be removed? We proposed that 2 percent of national income and international aid should be allocated for them. Enlarge the ministry and make some arrangements to pick up the beggars from the streets. These are helps for the war victims. If they want they should feel sympathy them instead of making noises. They should do something for the family and children of the victims so that they can stand on their own feet, their economic situation should be improved and they should be given opportunities to get education.

This is our proposal. It has been the trend of all wars around the world that ministry of martyred and disabled undertake the issues not only for those who were in one side of the issue but for all those who were at any side; they are part of this country. Instead of buying couch and furniture or cars made of Japan, they should give the money to the victims. This is called transitional justice and it includes all the victims whether that is Baluch, Pashtoon or Hazara and regardless of whether he was part of Jamiat or any other party. We believe this is the right way. If their intention is to shoot, why not?

First of all they should bring Verninkof of Russia who was commander in this country. Hamid Gul, the backbone of Taliban is still alive. Javier Perez de Cuellar, the former Secretary of United Nations should be brought into justice. Reagon is dead but Bush is alive. Keisy, Head of CIA is still alive. How far they are committed to the process of transitional justice in reality? At least they should have this courage to include these all too, if the process is not political.

Q: There are several models of transitional justice implemented in the societies that recovered from war. These include many examples like compensation? Does the proposal you mentioned include compensation for the losses?

A: This is one side of the story and the other side is that we should stop damages and sacrifices in the future. Does the tension you create under name this title help them recover their rights or not? When we are making the environment insecure and disrupt the peace, we should know that many more will become victims.

We said some unrelated statements and for sometimes beat about the bushes so that we could say to the world we are intellectuals. Democracy is new in Afghanistan. Amir Amanullah Khan wanted to do everything in one night with some mottoes. Many times the mottoes divert us from real path and take us far away from our target. I want to say compensation of losses is one issue and ensuring stability is another.

Third point is to educate and increase the knowledge of people about the concepts of human rights. Most importantly there are many who have suffered from financial aspects. To enable them develop their financial knowledge let us arrange separate classes for them. Many of the people are deprived from education during jihad. The transitional justice should establish a separate university for them and take separate examination from them so that they become part of the society. They should be provided with jobs so that they get their rights. We know many ways in this regard. We do not see any truthfulness in accusing people. At least there is no limitation by Constitution that who is accused can not be minister or presidential candidate. It means that there should be evidences and proofs that they could not be ministers on the basis of that.

Q: In my view we need to treat transitional justice in more proper manner. Do you think of without creating noises the process is dealt with logically and based on realities, will help? Compensation, rehabilitation and reconciliation can all be important elements of a transitional justice. What do you think about a general amnesty?

A: These are considered mainly on the basis of national interest. When some one has misbehaved with a particular person or has problems with him it is a legal issue and should be pursued according to the law. However in other issues like Shahnawaz Thanai was Minister of Defense and in his term a village in Urozgan was heavily bombarded and destroyed here the decisions are taken considering national interest.

It is the same with Mr. Sayaf, who was the leader but did not fire. However his soldiers have killed people and similarly, Hekmatyar, Rabbani, Fahim and Khalili. Here two parties are fighting. Decision making should be collective. The National Assembly has the authority to consider amnesty about these issues. It is possible that people become angry. But the National Assembly postpones trial for the sake of national interest as parliament passed a resolution which was almost the same.

Q: You mean National Amnesty Charter passed by the Parliament?

A: Yes, I say the Commission for transitional justice should not talk from the people side. On one hand there is the parliament of Afghanistan and another option is referendum. If a hundred or two hundred people are recognized criminals they should be tried regardless of which tribe or ethnic group they belong to.. It is a national way to put the decision to the votes of people. We must be cautious that if we try Gulabzoi, we will confront the people of Paktiya. Similarly, Mr. Ullomi, Fahim or Ismael Khan. Therefore we require votes of people from all around the country. We must not let political figures or political competitions to disunite the nation furthermore.

Q: What kind of disunity? Does the recovery of victim’s rights mean disunity of the nation? What do you mean by referendum? Considering the public opinion poll from 6000 people 68 percent demanded for the trial of human rights violators. What do you think?

A: I do not mean it is the only way. But I say it is a national decision. We must act according to a national decision. Parliament is one of the bodies that can take such decisions. Referendum in a country can lead to decision like these.

Q: It is said that National Amnesty Charter passed by Parliament is approved by violators of human rights themselves so that they could have signed their own amnesty.

A: What is democracy then? When these accuseds are elected with majority, is it not a democracy? Hence is the debate of transitional justice an intellectual one? They can talk and prepare a plan and wait for thirty to forty years to implement them. However what people want is in contrast to transitional justice. People vote to the person who is accused to be criminal by transitional justice. The violators and criminals are the majority and the determination of the country also goes with them. They will win in referendum too. You say 6000, Ismael Khan can bring 200,000 persons voting in his favor and your 6 thousand will vanish. Mr. Khalili can gather 100 thousand. When parliament decides that is approved.

Q: Do you think the parliament can decide on the private rights of individuals?

A: There are two issues. First, as an example I was a commander, or police official and caused harms to you. There are also eyewitnesses for this. This does not fall under transitional justice. Both sides are known and the court can decide on this case. However the other issue is general. For example we include Mr. Rabbani who did not fire. Likewise other Jamiath soldiers are also included who did something in Sholgarah. You bring Mr. Mujaddadi for the trial or amnesty. These are not the only individuals. The parties of both and left and right should be involved.

From Habib Mangal to Hamid Karai, that once served as finance officer of Taliban. It is not that foreigners make list for us; however the list is obvious from Mullah Omar to all those involved. Even some were against jihad like Sima Samar who was the member of an organization that operated against jihad and the people of Afghanistan. She is included in the list of criminals. Even I am included in the list of accused ones as I have fired no rocket but I have inspired the rocket launchers by my poems and articles. I have issued the decree and written the philosophy of war. It is not that those poor men who fought are responsible, however those who had pen in their hands and wrote the slogans on the walls or newspaper are also part of transitional justice. I have talked of amnesty several times. Mullah (religious Scholar) has issued decree and I have written. The boy who could not write any think has launched rockets.

Q: The people want a lasting and stable peace in this country. What can we do to keeping in view the interests of both victims of violence and the high interests of the country?

A: We can discus several issues regarding justice. Firstly we must recognize the citizenship rights. The decisions should not be based on the majority and minority existence of certain people. Who is right? Who makes the right arguements? Who consider the public interest? For example, in a way to mark differences, we look into some of activities of Ramazan Bashardost to be fair. Every one belongs to a particular ethnicity.

His national program brought him votes from Kandahar and Paktiya. He never says he is a Hazara and even goes to Nangarhar to campaign. So, the recognition of citizenship rights paves the way for the participation of all ethnic and qualified people. Secondly, instead of talking about transitional justice and making it the issue of Usman’s Cloth, or buying cars and creating a monthly income with good job, we must reach out the victims of war and help them from economic and educational perspectives.

The third point to achieve reconciliation, I think is to provide people with awareness and knowledge about the purpose of justice that when we talk of justice people should understand the concept of justice- something said by justice itself.

Many say there are two big ethnic groups: Pashtoon and Tajik. Pashtoon should become the president and Tajik vice president. Is this justice?

Justice is something else that does not talk of ethnicity. It considers the rights of all human beings. I suggest that we should provide people with precise information through media, books and education about justice to raise the understanding of people and it is a great foundation that can be laid by us. Likewise we must consider an equal opportunity for the religious, ethnic, linguistic rights and identities of all people within Afghanistan. In national institutions and national anthem we must introduce the personalities and great characters existing in official calendar of Afghanistan. It is actually paying respect to all.

Justice does not have a static concept that we look for however it is a dynamic terminology that refers to progress, growth, development, welfare, comfort and improvement in the lives of people. Reconciliation can be reached through justice. Without considering justice we will not gain peace. It is true that the people want an equal distribution of food. On the other hand they demand development too.

Q: In your view how successful the Peace Commission has been?

A: I think the Commission for Strengthening Peace (CSP) is more alike to the peace project of Najibullah. The government and the international community are following the path of Soviet Union and the Khalq Democratic Party. They once called them rebels, there was reconciliation and at the end they allocated seats for parties. The CSP has repeated the same works.

The national reconciliation policy of Najib included making militias and these people are forming local forces known as “Arbaki” in Afghanistan. They have reached the same opinion that Soviet Union had thought of. They have failed to set up basic requirements for bringing peace. They are not ready too. However they have relied on apparent things like positions and salaries. They can not bring peace as they have failed to do so far. They give amnesty to some Taliban members that make Taliban more effective. They are imprisoned and then freed by the Commission.

I believe to bring peace we must build the foundations. The CSP wants to act in the framework of Constitution. We do not accept the same Constitution. In the mean time the vice presidents also want to bring change in this constitution. Then how could you negotiate with some one who control large territories and have foreign relations? I believe these are not serious talks.

The concept of peace is higher than this. It is higher than the constitution. Constitution is written to manage the affairs. If we wan to be act seriously, we have to change the constitution several times. Our plan was to organize a public vote on the kinds of systems: Islamic Emirate of Taliban, Hizb-e Democratic Khalq, Monarchy or Republican.. We should resolve it through votes. I say that the Taliban is not good, and then do you believe people will vote for it? If representatives had really voted against the Islamic Emirate of Taliban while approving constitution in Loya Jirga the insurgents will have been washed away today. The PDPA shared the fate if it was put to public votes.

They have the right to say that when did you vote? Hence, all these movements are nothing but to deceive public opinion, superficial and shallower than the national reconciliation policy of Najibullah.

At the time of Najib, the ministry of defense was laid vacant for Ahmad Shah Masood for several months. However today we do not give a part for Taliban in election, ministries and provinces and then we have expectations too.

Q: In an interview that I had with Shah Nawaz Tanai, he said that implementing the process of transitional justice will sacrifice justice once again. I want to ask your opinion that the process of transitional justice and trial of human rights violators will bring what new problems?

A: Transitional justice means to narrow the ground for justice and increase the number of victims, because before everything else, justice requires security.

Q: We speak of peace in the meantime the victims of violence like fires under bushes. . What is your opinion about this?

A: I said that the door is always open for those who have known legal problems. . Secondly, addressing the needs of people who have suffered in important wars is always possible both for the state and the people.

Third, compensation of economic damages and help to pave the grounds for getting higher education. It is not like fires under the bushes. We have no better option than this. We are not comparable with Iran war or war of the Soviet Union against Nazi of Germany, because in those countries the two parties were obvious. Or it was internal and external. In Germany, when Nazis were defeated then leaders were tried. In Afghanistan no one is defeated but all. We have no one victorious that could try others. In the meantime we have become helpless. Practical way I mentioned earlier but the way which is not practical is to chant slogans.

Q: We strongly believe that justice does not mean revenge. However I want to ask you what the difference between justice and revenge is?

A: It depends on our understandings of both concepts. If we take revenge as creating incidents or troubles and follow the past it has no relation with justice. However if it means to prevent widespread crimes and eradicate it on the spot, just like Qisas and Hudood in Islam I believe it is suitable. Justice is not only a religious discussion. If police exist in all countries around the world and stop people from doing anything wrong and try them that is the real justice. It is not revenge but limiting corruption and crime.

Q: As the National Reconciliation Policy [of Najibullah] was not successful in bringing peace, if we compare it with Peace Strengthening Commission, will the later be successful in bringing stability and peace? I want to know your opinion?

A: The People's Democratic Party wanted the formation of civil society during their rule. However outside of the government they had considered some government posts for the opposition, Mujaheedin factions, to satisfy them join the government. The result was contradictory and the regime exploded from inside and was dissolved. Unfortunately the same experience is once again repeated by Americans today.

It seems history is repeated and blunders are committed once again. Only names differ. I believe that as Najibullah failed to reach his desired results, we can not reach from this way either. We require a revolution and complete change to bring peace and reconciliation including change to system and change in the constitution. Even if we really want to establish peace, the Taliban should be given power in many provinces.

Even they should have their laws. A countryman in Helmand does not want to go to school. You have taken the whole Afghanistan as hostage. Let them not go to school for a few years. A few years later they will go to schools.

Will there be any change in the laws of American States if here be no Tolo Television? In the US they have different laws in different states. If you want peace and survival, then you should consider the same thing for Paktika. It does not mean we are pessimists. We should reach peace step by step and be prepare ourselves for the participation of all.