A United Nations-sponsored conference on Afghanistan is reportedly scheduled to take place in Doha, Qatar. The history of negotiations among conflicting groups in Afghanistan spans nearly half a century. Since the onset of wars in the 1980s, discussions on Afghanistan referred to as “intra-Afghan” dialogue, have taken place not only among mujahideen groups but also among various political factions. These talks have evolved, culminating in the latest phase between representatives of the Taliban and the delegation of the former Afghan government in Qatar. In any conflict, the necessity for dialogue to find a path to peace arises. However, the experience of peace negotiations in Afghanistan has shown that many discussions have been fruitless. Despite the majority eagerly anticipating reports of an end to hostilities and crises, the actual results have been discouraging. The disappointment is rooted in the failures that have often overshadowed intra-Afghan negotiations. It is crucial to contemplate why this is the case. Why are political and military group negotiations in this country not geared toward a solution, and why does this longstanding deadlock persist without opening a new chapter in its history?
The failure of political group negotiations in Afghanistan has multiple factors, some of which extend beyond their jurisdiction, as they relate to the politics of influential regional and international powers. However, one significant, yet perhaps less emphasized, factor is that many of these negotiations resemble bargaining for personal or group shares and lack a deeper foundation to make the discussions meaningful, valuable, and directed toward a sustainable outcome. When negotiations revolve around disputes over the shares of influential individuals or groups, their intrinsic meaning is lost, even if they appear to yield results on the surface. This is because individual and group interests are not a solid and stable foundation for meaningful dialogue. These interests change with shifting circumstances, leading to renewed conflicts.
Meaningful negotiations are rooted in dialogues between contrasting worldviews, different perspectives, distinct plans, alternative solutions, varied strategies, and divergent political philosophies. Major and complex conflicts are not merely disputes among influential individuals or specific political groups over immediate interests, although this layer exists and is undeniable. At their core, major conflicts arise from differences in worldviews, values, traditions, and overarching approaches, which manifest as tangible disputes and conflicting interests among individuals and groups at a lower level. While the crisis in Afghanistan involves conflicts between individuals and groups with conflicting interests at one level, at a deeper level, it is a clash between two opposing worldviews that manifest in different political and social approaches.
On one side are forces that do not believe in human rights, reject civic equality, and consider humans as subjects of religion, race, language, color, ethnicity, and region, rather than viewing these aspects as a reflection of their humanity and the basis for inherent rights. Furthermore, these forces are oblivious to the significant developments that history has undergone to reach this era, do not value modern knowledge, do not acknowledge today’s international structures, and overall distance themselves from the spirit of the modern age. These forces seek their ideal world in the distant past, where they could dominate some humans through force, enslave some, and justify subjugating others under the guise of religious or racial differences. Retrogressive forces seek glory in the imaginary achievements of their ancestors and are incapable of creating an independent identity for themselves, remaining subservient to the shadows of their forefathers and ancestors. These retrogressives may adopt a religious or racial color, but they are statues that must avoid any criticism and continuously reproduce themselves. As the late Iraqi writer and thinker Ali Wardi said about Arab societies: “All nations produce offspring, except Arabs who reproduce their fathers.” It seems that this characteristic is not exclusive to Arab nations but rather applies to all nations and groups that have not reached self-confidence and are helpless in the face of barrenness and incapacity, escaping into distant pasts and clinging to their imaginary ancestors to evade the emptiness and meaninglessness of their present.
On the other side, some forces have transcended the shackles of the past and have come to understand humanity, society, and history in a way that aligns with the present age and its demands. These forces can be called progressive, forward-thinking, or any other title, but the crucial aspect is the worldview and values that place humanity at its core. It is this worldview that leads to human rights, fundamental freedoms, and equality among the citizens of a land. The deepest layer of conflict in Afghanistan in recent decades has been the struggle between these two perspectives, and every political movement has been measured by its proximity to either the progressive or retrogressive inclination. The Taliban today epitomize a strong manifestation of retrogressiveness, while those standing against the Taliban, not just in slogans but in actions, are groups with progressive views that emphasize women’s rights, civic rights, minority rights, diversity, and pluralism as integral components of their thinking.
If future negotiations, whether in Doha or elsewhere, revolve around two political philosophies, two worldviews, and two modes of thinking, such negotiations will be meaningful, and if successful, the outcomes will be sustainable. Bargaining by individuals and groups for their shares will not lead anywhere, and it will not bring an end to this futile cycle. Serious dialogues between two modes of thinking and two worldviews, despite all difficulties, can eventually lead to a stable solution. This is the same path that many societies have taken to overcome chronic crises, crises arising from the conflict between tradition and modernity, and, as Seyyed Javad Tabatabai put it, the struggle between the old and the new.