.jpg)
Multilateralism and Afghanistan
1 / 2 / 2010
Beril Dedeoglu
Meetings about the future of Afghanistan take place from time to time in different parts of the world. The most recent of these international gatherings was hosted in London, where representatives from 60 countries discussed this critical subject.
Before this meeting, another meeting was hosted in İstanbul earlier this week, bringing together Afghanistan’s neighbors. India has conveyed to Ankara its disappointment about not being invited to this meeting. Both the lack of an invitation to India and this country’s uneasiness have their reasons.
India is one of the most important actors in the region and is affected enormously by the turmoil that reigns both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. New Delhi does not have the choice of remaining indifferent to this issue because a large Muslim community lives in the country, a community that has a conflicting relationship with other religious groups, especially with Sikhs. Additionally, terrorist attacks attributed to Islamists frequently occur in this country. The border conflict with Pakistan and the Kashmir issue are also worth drawing attention to.
Turkey didn’t invite India to the İstanbul summit because this wasn’t conceptualized as a wide platform and because of fear that some potential participants could weaken Turkey’s role as the regulator of the relations of both Afghanistan and Pakistan with the West. The general impression is that Turkey’s weight will grow stronger on this issue. But first, the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan must be convinced that Turkey’s growing role is necessary to facilitate the resolution. This was one of the objectives of this small gathering in İstanbul. Yet, if some important actors are not invited, one mustn’t expect them to contribute to the peace process. The measures will be as efficient as the number of states that contribute to stability through diverse instruments. Naturally, before all else, both Pakistan and Afghanistan must accept the methods, the participants and the instruments of this process.
However, a conflict resolution model will be hard to shape unless the multiple dimensions of the problem are taken into account. The complex nature of the Afghan crisis necessitates that different kinds of players do their bit in harmony. In other words, even if multilateral platforms with a large number of participants are promising, the fact that all participants are state actors creates a fundamental problem because it is doubtful whether those who sit around a table on behalf of the Pakistani and Afghan states really do represent their respective peoples. Leaders may make decisions in the name of their nations, but this doesn’t mean that these decisions will be considered legitimate by their citizens. It’s a known fact that states are not the only actors on the ground. There are diverse groups, organizations, political parties and clans who are as influential as the state mechanisms, and most of these are not represented at all within the governments in charge. It’s obvious that these actors will not simply obey the decisions made on their behalf. They are already complaining that they are ignored both in their own countries and at an international level. The Taliban’s declaration against the London summit emphasizes this particular point. There is also the serious money-laundering issue that should be taken care of during the resolution of the Afghanistan problem. Almost every actor in Afghanistan is somehow connected to this phenomenon. Consequently, as long as a way to convince them to renounce this colossal income is not put in place, the dialogue will not get satisfactory results.
*Published in TODAY's ZAMAN on Jan. 30, 2009
Reads: 11
|
|
|