In an Interview with www.bamdad.af, Mahmood Saiqal, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the head of the delegation representing government’s opposition at the Bonn 2011 Conference, talks about the importance, commitments and goals of the conference.
The Bonn 2 conference has been called very important for the future of Afghanistan. Was it as important as the Bonn 1 conference?
The Bonn 2 conference was important because the world pledged to reinforce its commitments and continue its engagement in Afghanistan after 2014.
Most importantly, the international community’s commitment to training, equipping and building capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), after completing the transition process to Afghan Forces, was very hopeful for us. Bonn 1 presented a political framework along with standards, timeline and implementing mechanisms of state building; based on that framework, the government tried to form government entities, laws and processes, but indeed, everything remained weak.
Bonn 2 presented Afghanistan’s long-term relations with the international community; and some other constructive decisions were taken to build good governance in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, no standard, timeline and implementing sanctions [for not meeting the goals] were announced relating to the implementation of those decisions. This is concerning.
The Bonn 2 agreement has no legal obligation; it just reflects the joint view of the international community for the future of Afghanistan. The delegation representing government’s opposition was not part of the official delegation of the Afghan government, but we met delegations from the international community, civil society and media outside of the conference.
What was the main agenda for the conference?
The international community’s commitments on long-term cooperation [2015 – 2024] in the fields of building good governance, security, building a peace mechanism, social and economic development, and regional cooperation for the future of Afghanistan were the main agenda. The conference saw coordination of 85 countries and 15 international organizations on the abovementioned subjects.
Why was the next decade called the “transparency decade”?
The Bonn agreement called the coming decade the ‘decade of change’ which includes transparency. This decade starts from 2015 [after the complete handover of security responsibilities to Afghan Forces] and ends in 2024. Based on the Bonn 2 agreement, it is expected Afghanistan will reach a sustainable peace, build good governance and institutionalize rule of law.
What specific commitment(s) did the Afghan government pledge to ensure the rule of law and successful state building?
The Bonn II Conference
Apparently, there are some commitments in the agreement that Afghanistan’s future political system will be in line with the law, there will be a plural society, and Afghan people will continue building a democratic society in accordance with the Constitution. But indeed, the Bonn 2 agreement did not hold the Afghan government to account for those commitments—it says ‘Afghanistan’ not ‘Afghan government’.
Article seven of the agreement stipulates that in addition to modern civil society organizations, traditional structures will be included in the democratic process. But nothing has been mentioned about the legal basis of those traditional structures. Surely traditional structures and strengthening tribal mindsets will open the door for flouting of the law in the future, and I am concerned about it.
What will be the aim of democratic reforms that the president pledged?
In such a big conference, the important thing was the agreement of the conference, not what the president pledged in the opening ceremony.
The issues of strengthening the law and electoral process were very weakly presented in the draft agreement prepared by the Afghan government. We had already shared our opinions though official authorities with the Afghan government, different countries and international organizations. We met more than ten delegations from different countries before the conference.
We further urged for rule of law, institution of strong, active and transparent governmental entities and regaining people’s trust in the election process.
Fortunately, some countries welcomed our suggestions a day before the conference and they supported discussion on rule of law and strengthening the election process while drafting the contents of the agreement. The Afghan government has no solution except to accept our suggestions.
We have suggested the international contribution should be based on the government’s respect for rule of law, elections, capacity building and national revenues. Our suggestion was considered to some extent in the conference.
The international community has already conditioned its support based on the Afghan government’s anti-corruption campaign. How serious was the commitment made by the Afghan government to tackle corruption and did it convince the donor countries?
Apparently yes. During our meetings with international delegations, they raised doubts in this regard but the agreement stated that tackling corruption is one of the main priorities for the Afghan government.
We wanted the Bonn 2 conference to form a specific mechanism to follow up the Afghan government’s commitments; unfortunately, nothing like this happened in the conference.
When we asked the international community about making such a mechanism, they said that it was difficult to get the agreement of 100 countries and international organizations in a short time on building such a mechanism.
What was the difference in the international community’s commitment in Bonn 2 from its commitments in other international conferences?
The Bonn 2 agreement clearly mentions the international community’s long-term support to Afghanistan, but commitments are in a very general manner with few details. There is no standard, timeline, or particular mechanism nor any legal obligation for the implementation of the provisions of the agreement. Unfortunately, it was very difficult to find someone in the conference to think about these issues.
The major part of the international community members absolved themselves saying that they respect the Afghan government’s views and don’t want to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs.
The major part of the international community members absolved themselves saying that they respect the Afghan government’s views and don’t want to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs.
The conference has reached an agreement with a relatively clear message but impaired obligation and implementing approach; however we do not know what will happen if any side [Afghan government or international community] comes up short in being loyal to the agreement. Given the past experience and current situation, I can definitely say that the present government and some international countries will easily ignore implementing some parts of the agreement.
Civil Society and Women Rights activists are concerned about losing ten years of achievements if the Taliban are brought to power. What was civil society’s role in the Bonn 2 conference? Was any guarantee given to women not to lose their freedom?
In addition to the strengthening of Afghan National Security Forces, the conference members insisted on negotiation and reconciliation for bringing peace. The Afghan government based the peace process on ensuring all legal interests of the people of Afghanistan, rule of law, stability, national unity, fighting against violence, cutting ties with international terrorists; and respecting the Constitution, human rights and women rights, as well as regional support for the process.
All those issues are very important for civil society and the opposition, but the most important issue is considering the legal interests of all people of the country in the peace process. Unfortunately the government has ignored this vital issue. The government has many times presented its impaired policy as national policy for the peace process.
The Afghan government and the opposition both had preferred to talk directly with Pakistan about the peace process, but no indication was made in the agreement about this issue.
What was the composition of the Afghan government’s delegation for the Bonn 2 conference?
The Afghan government’s delegation mostly represented the executive branch rather than other branches of the government. The presence of two members from civil society and a few MPs, who were chosen based on lottery, shows that the executive had the key role in the conference; others had unremarkable presence.
How was the role of the opposition in the conference?
You know that Afghanistan’s National Alliance has emerged as a main opposition of the government following the 2009 presidential elections. We along with other newly established political parties have already pointed out that we are ready to be flexible for our national interests and the reputation of the Afghan people. We wanted to be a part of the Afghan government’s delegation in the conference [as the political opposition]. We requested to play a role in preparing the draft agreement for the conference. Our presence should not be symbolic.
The Afghan government’s delegation mostly represented the executive branch rather than other branches of the government. The presence of two members from civil society and a few MPs, who were chosen based on lottery, shows that the executive had the key role in the conference; others had unremarkable presence.
Unfortunately, the government paid no attention to our request. They prepared the draft agreement without consultation with the Afghan Parliament, the opposition, civil society and academics and sent it very late to the international community.
The leadership of the opposition decided to send a delegation independently to attend the Bonn 2 conference and reflect the views of the majority of the people of Afghanistan to the international community. I was invited to lead the delegation and Dr. Najeeb Yousofi and Dr. Sultana Parunta were members of the group.
Before departure, though the time was very short, we talked with the Parliamentary Rule of Law Coalition and some other parties to concentrate on a joint position in the conference.
During the two days before the conference started we met with more than ten international delegations including delegations from the USA, UN, European Union, Germany, China Republic, United Kingdom, UAE, France, Hungary, and New Zealand and shared our views with them.
What was the level of the international delegations attending the conference?
Delegations of ministers, deputy ministers, and other high-ranking officials of governments attended the conference.
Pakistan did not attend the conference. Was its absence felt?
Yes, but not that much. This conference was about the world’s long-term support to Afghanistan. Pakistan’s position and presence in ensuring security in Afghanistan has a great importance and its place in the conference was empty. In particular, when the conference agreement pointed out terrorist’s whereabouts and asked for the regional cooperation to prevent terrorism, the absence of Pakistan was felt.
The international community showed its readiness in fighting against terrorism and its support to build the capacity of Afghan Forces in the long-term without the cooperation of Pakistan.
