Oct. 7, 2003

Nation Building in Afghanistan

Quadir Amiryar is an visiting professor of political science, CCAS, and a manager in Gelman Library. He also serves as a commissioner on Afghanistan’s Judicial Reform Commission and was among those who drafted Tajikistan’s first democratic constitution in 1994.

ByGeorge!: Since the war in Iraq, Afghanistan has fallen off of the front page. Where is Afghanistan on the path to democracy?

Quadir Amiryar: Given the 25 years of civil war in Afghanistan, they haven’t progressed that much. The foundation for democracy is still in the process of debate and dialogue as a basis for nation building. What interferes with the promotion and initiation of democracy is another element which must precede the debate on security. In the absence of security you cannot assume that people can participate in the discussion. Our definition of democracy is participatory democracy, and people’s public participation is entirely dependent upon their ability to exercise their will. That is directly linked to the guarantee of security; personal, physical and economic security.

ByG!: Over the past 18 months or so, there have been attempts made on the lives of several key leaders in the interim government. How damaging has that been to the nation’s perception of security?

QA: That is the core of the subject. Not only attempts, but real assassinations have taken place. Eighteen months ago Vice President Abdul Quadir was assassinated, and there was a failed attempt on the life of President Hamid Karzai a few months later. And there have been many skirmishes among the coalition forces, the Taliban and elements of Al Qaeda. That brings into focus the quality of security, the international and domestic security.

ByG!: Where is the country in terms of the physical infrastructure needed to function on a day-to-day basis; the sorts of things needed to promote stability and work on nation building?

QA: The package approved in the Bonn agreement focuses on the development of democracy through the development of principles such as participation, personal accountability, the definition of rights, the establishment, implementation, and acceptance of a framework for the basic rights and responsibilities of the people. These elements could not be implemented, or the programs for these initiatives could not be started, in the absence of proper security. That takes us back to the external security that is more in jeopardy these days.

According to the Bonn agreement, certain donors divided the function of state building based on expertise, such as the United States has undertaken the overall security of Afghanistan, eradication of extremists, defeat of the Taliban ideologies and elimination of Al Qaeda. But then the other western donors have been active as well, such as the Germans who have undertaken the development and building of police and domestic security forces. The Japanese have undertaken the Demilitarization, Disarmament and Rehabilitation (DDR), which is equally important. In the absence of DDR we cannot promote security, because if everybody is armed, then the establishment of the coercive power of the state will be in jeopardy and they cannot enforce laws. The other element was the training and promotion of rule of law, and establishment of the justice system. Development of the justice system was undertaken by the Italian government. They are working with the judicial reform commission, with the constitution commission and with other commissions — under the supervision of the United Nations Special Envoy and with the approval of President Karzai — to establish training programs or sessions for the judges, prosecutors, lawyers and police force.

Right now, as a representative of the GW faculty, I am involved with the search for the establishment of academic coalitions and affiliations between GW’s schools, Kabul University and the various international universities. Now I am back in Washington to remind our colleagues that GW used to have an Afghan legal training program. That program benefited Afghanistan very much. Most of the distinguished scholars, active lawyers, members of the commissions, members of the cabinet and deans of the schools in Afghanistan are graduates of that legal training program that was designed, developed and administered by the GW Law School. Now we are negotiating to revive that program so that the Afghan legal professionals and members of their law school faculty should have the opportunity to come to the GW Law School and pursue additional training. Then after graduation go back and apply that, and demonstrate the same positive effect that the Afghans benefited from previously. Susan Karamanian, associate dean for international and comparative legal studies and professorial lecturer in law, and Michael Young, dean and Lobingier Professor of Comparative Law and Jurisprudence, are actively involved in these efforts. This was part of a resolution passed by the Afghan administration, suggesting that this program be revived.

ByG!: How crucial is the establishment of a rule of law as the first step for countries undergoing nation building?

QA: Certainly, the global community, by signing and advocating nearly a dozen conventions and treaties on human rights, placed the rule of law into the forefront of state building. These treaties and conventions are not limited to the legal rights, but include economic rights, social rights, social justice and fairness. In the meantime it promotes equal accountability and responsibility on the part of individuals so they can play their part and undertake their responsibility and make the government more responsible and responsive to their constituencies. In the past, prior to the universal declarations, governments were treating their citizens as their subjects. Now we have moved to a different era in the 21st century, in the era that governments are expected to be in the service of the citizens.

It takes a while to introduce reform and convince people that they were not on the right path. In order to establish such reform in Afghanistan we need to help them as well. There are two sides to the issue. One has been the deliberate promotion of extremist ideas. The other side of it is that after 25 years of absence of schools, education and destruction of the social fabric of Afghan society and institutions, there is a lack of understanding and illiteracy. The environment of illiteracy provides a fertile ground for promotion of extremism and for flirtation with these ideas.

I think that brings us back to the question of these academic affiliations that we are advocating with our sister universities. These individuals — after 25 years living under dire circumstances, lack of knowledge, lack of understanding — need to see the side of enlightenment of education, the alternatives to their current way of life. If they don’t see the alternatives they will be stuck with that which they know. If they don’t know, what can we expect from them? The best way, a more peaceful way, would be to give them the opportunity to learn alternatives, to think for themselves, and to be responsible for their deeds, be accountable for their deeds, for their words, and their acts. I think this can be promoted through education, understanding and exchange.

ByG!: Does the Karzai government have the time and resources to allocate for the training and acquisition of the necessary skills for the Afghan population?

QA: That is a difficult question. The Bonn agreement was signed under very unique circumstances. Immediately after 25 years of civil war everybody was very eager, rushed, hasty and optimistic. We wanted to see that the promotion of peace took place as soon as possible. The conclusion of the Bonn agreement was done in a very optimistic and hasty way, with certain artificial deadlines that we did not have experience with in the past. Afghanistan was not the first failed state, but it was the first failed state that the international community decided to do something about. They realized that this was a legitimate case for concern and that was why there was unanimous international agreement. There was no dissent at all in the Security Council, in the international community, the European Union, NATO, you name it everybody was on the side of doing something for Afghanistan. In light of all of that good will and optimism, they produced a very optimistic time frame, which now you may have noticed is subject to revision. For instance the draft of the constitution was postponed for several months and several other aspects of the Bonn agreement have been subject to revision as well.

Democracy is a very slow process and a very expensive process, but undeniably the best process producing the best results. That’s why we are emphasizing the change or reform of the academic institutions. So that these institutions will produce individuals with the desired skills and knowledge that will be imperative for the promotion of a viable sustainable system based on rule of law, participatory democracy and human rights. It is a long process, it takes time.

ByG!: Is the international community providing the level of financial and humanitarian aid necessary for the Karzai government to buy the time necessary for reform?

QA: We are hoping so. The goodwill is there, the intention is there, but the speed and the quanity does not match the intention and goodwill that prevailed in Bonn. That is understandable because the global economy hasn’t been in good shape over the past two years. Nonetheless, donors are committed in Afghanistan to the promotion of the rule of law and democracy, and among them the United States is one that is relatively well to do, although we have had our economic difficulties. But when compared to Iraq and the president’s request for an additional $87 billion, only a fraction of that — $1 billion or $1.2 billion — is for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I think that while Afghanistan is fortunate, it is one of the successes of not only the global community but also the United States. It was the right cause, it was in the right place, and we were asked by the Afghan people to come and help them, and not only by the Afghans but also by the international community and the United Nations Security Council. This was one of the legitimate cases [for use of force] and it was very successful. It was relatively easy to promote — Taliban is defeated, Al Qaeda is on the run. So the expenses compared to the other scenarios [war in Iraq, the search for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden] is not that high, and it’s worth while. This is an investment, not an expense. It’s an investment in Afghanistan’s security and it’s an investment in US security because the globe is becoming so small.

ByG!: Do you think the Bush administration missed the boat by redirecting its attention toward Iraq rather than focusing on rebuilding Afghanistan, and by doing so is sending the wrong message to the Islamic world?

QA: Definitely yes. First of all the two cases are incomparable. One is highly legitimate and supported by the international community, the UN Security Council, the European Union and where we were invited to help. In Iraq we invited ourselves, without sufficient preparation. The case in Iraq is occupation of a state and unfortunately as a result we are paying for it. The case in Afghanistan is an investment, because whatever we accomplish in Afghanistan will enhance the goodwill and peace in the international community. That the president of Afghanistan is asking for an extension of these international forces beyond Kabul speaks loudly for the mutual interest in their efforts. So yes, I was surprised to see that out of the $87 billion President Bush asked for, only 2 percent that was allocated to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The international community has underestimated the needs for aid to Afghanistan. In Tokyo [the international community] agreed to provide $4.5 billion, but out of that only $2 billion was paid and the rest has not been supplied. They committed themselves, but they have not come up with the funds. The level of assistance that is needed for Afghanistan is closer to $15 to $20 billion. Based on this, only 10 percent has been granted. I think that this is a case that definitely deserves to be reconsidered.

ByG!: Given the inconsistent level of support, what is the short term future for Afghanistan?

QA: Well under the existing state of affairs with these short-change policies, I think that will hurt not only Afghanistan, but also our concern for security as well. It will encourage the opposition and the extremists in Afghanistan and they may further their activities inside the country. Afghanistan is surrounded by vulnerable states — Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and even Pakistan — that are not in control of their borders. They are facing similar difficulties, so our presence, as well as the coalition’s presence and the United Nations’ support, is imperative. We, as a leading member of the Security Council, committed ourselves to the security of Afghanistan. It’s not a voluntary assignment, on the contrary the mission is part of the package of the Bonn agreement and the security council’s resolution. We don’t have a choice. If we don’t fulfill that obligation that means we are in violation of a commitment or a political treaty. The sustainability of the Afghan central government is basically dependent upon the international community’s support and the fulfillment of their commitments. In the absence of that, nobody could expect that the government could last very long.

Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu