Interview with Sari Kouvo Head of Afghanistan Program of the International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)

There is currently much focus on reconciliation in Afghanistan, and the Afghan government has recently launched the Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation Program (APRP) and appointed the High Peace Council (HPC). Afghanistan Watch asked Sari Kouvo, Head of the Afghanistan Program of the International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) and analyst with the Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) to reflect on the notion of reconciliation and on its relationship with transitional justice.

Afghanistan Watch: Can you tell us a little bit about ICTJ and its work?

Kouvo: ICTJ is an international non-governmental organization established nine years ago whose founding members had been involved in the work of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. As suggested by this origin, ICTJ’s mission is based on a conviction that when countries transition from conflict to peace – or authoritarian rule to democracy – they need to confront their past in order to move towards justice and sustainable peace. ICTJ currently works in about thirty countries in all regions of the world, from Colombia to the Solomon Islands, in societies emerging from repressive rule or armed conflict, as well as in other societies where legacies of abuse remain unresolved. Given this broad experience, we have learned that this “confrontation with the past” can take very different forms, including symbolic measures to commemorate key events and recognize the suffering of victims; documentation and truth-seeking; reparations; and prosecutions. It also often involves disarmament, institutional reforms, and vetting. In Afghanistan our work has largely focused on capacity-building and mentoring and we have provided technical assistance to UNAMA, the AIHRC, civil society, and others.

Afghanistan Watch: How do you understand reconciliation?

Kouvo: Reconciliation is a tricky concept. It has a very positive connotation; it sounds almost like peace. It is important to remember however that reconciliation is used in many different contexts and can mean very different things to different users. International IDEA, an organization working on supporting democratization, uses a definition of reconciliation that I think is interesting for the Afghan context. For IDEA reconciliation is “finding a way to live alongside former enemies – not necessarily to love them, or forgive them, or forget the past in any way, but to coexist with them, to develop the degree of cooperation necessary to share our society with them, so that we all have better lives together than we have had separately.”1 The key word here is “coexist.” Whether the reality of coexistence comes closer to “peace” or to “power/terror balance” will largely depend on how inclusive the reconciliation process is and how it deals with difficult issues such as justice and accountability. When due attention is paid to underlying causes of conflict and to demands for accountability and justice, reconciliation can contribute to sustainable peace. However, if the process is mainly a forum for elites to decide they have a mutual interest in reconciling with no credence given to the demands of the people, sustainable peace is an unlikely outcome.

Afghanistan Watch: Given ICTJ’s comparative experiences, are there examples of reconciliation programs that have worked in other post-conflict countries?

Kouvo: ICTJ has a history of providing technical assistance to the various aspects of peacebuilding, including providing advice to peace processes on the ground. While peace processes are context-dependent, there are some general lessons that can be drawn from an analysis of recent cases: (1) Peace processes should be inclusive to allow for civil society participation and mechanisms for consultation with broader segments of society need to be developed; (2) While it may be important to tread carefully when it comes to certain issues, peace processes should not shy away from

dealing with underlying causes of conflict, including legacies of war crimes and human rights violations; (3) When chosen well, mediators can help ensure inclusiveness and map redlines and necessary compromises; (4) International law provides some guidance on redlines (mainly forbidding blanket amnesties) while other non-criminal justice focused transitional justice mechanisms can enable the uncovering of the truth (documentation, truth-telling) and strengthening institutions (vetting).

Afghanistan Watch: What do you think about the ongoing Afghan-led peace negotiations with Taliban and other insurgent groups?

Kouvo: I think it is positive that the Afghan government and its international partners are moving towards seeking non-military means to solve the conflict. Having read the Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation Program (APRP), I also think that it is positive that better governance and fighting impunity are viewed as integral to the reconciliation process. That said, there is a bit of opportunism and naivety in the plan: the reconciliation agenda seems very much driven by short-term national and international political agendas rather than a commitment to “do what it takes” to move towards sustainable peace in Afghanistan. As I noted earlier, reconciliation processes can aim towards peace or power/terror balance. I worry that the APRP will mainly contribute to the latter.

The appointment of the High Peace Council also suggests that the government is not really seeking to ensure a justice-sensitive or inclusive peace process, but that the focus is on deal-making between elites.

Afghanistan Watch: How it is possible to draw a mechanism for reconciliation that supports transitional justice in Afghanistan?

Kouvo: First, I am convinced that there can be no sustainable peace in Afghanistan without a serious attempt to address the underlying causes of the conflict and grievances of the population. Second, reconciliation does not equal forgiveness; rather it is a process through which those involved in the conflict – and those suffering the consequences of the conflict – are enabled to discuss and decide what is needed to coexist. Forgiveness is a part of it, but documentation, truth-telling, vetting and accountability are imperative.

For example, I think that the efforts to document past and current war crimes and human rights violations by the United Nations, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, and civil society organizations will provide important information for a more inclusive reconciliation process. I also think that the reconciliation process would benefit from truth-telling and vetting mechanisms. At a minimum, victims should be allowed to have their suffering officially recognized and they should be able to feel confident that – going forward – they can trust the government.

Afghanistan Watch: Anything else that you would like to raise?

Kouvo: I just want to thank you. Afghanistan Watch has done an excellent job with “The Truth” over the past year, and I think it has become an excellent source of information on issues relating to peace and justice in Afghanistan.

------------------------------------------------

1) Reconciliation After Violent Conflict. A Handbook, David Bloomfield, Teresa Barnes, and Luc Huyse, eds. (Stockholm: IDEA, 2003), p. 12.