The Trump administration initiated intra-Afghan negotiations after signing an agreement with the Taliban in February. Peace talks offer the country a rare opportunity to build a framework for lasting coexistence after nineteen years of bloodshed. Afghans are in dire need of a permanent ceasefire, especially now that the coronavirus is pushing millions into poverty and devastating the economy, with 90% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day.

While getting the Taliban and Afghan government to the table is an accomplishment in and of itself, negotiations will be long and difficult, and both parties will need to reconcile fundamental differences over the country’s system of government to reach a successful deal. This article outlines the developments that have led to peace talks, challenges facing intra-Afghan negotiations, and future policy considerations.

Intra-Afghan Peace Talks

After more than eighteen months of negotiations, the United States reached an agreement with the Taliban in February, signaling the possibility of ending the U.S.’ nearly two-decade-long involvement in the war. The agreement commits the United States to a gradual withdrawal of military forces in exchange for the Taliban’s commitment to preventing Afghan soil from being used as a safe harbor for terrorists ever again. The agreement also obligates the Taliban to commence peace negotiations with the Afghan government and was preceded by a ‘Reduction in Violence’ deal to test the Taliban’s commitment to achieving peace and controlling its forces.

On the same day the U.S.-Taliban agreement was finalized in Doha, the United States signed an agreement with the Afghan government in Kabul. A joint declaration between the U.S. and Afghan government outlined goals for achieving peace and regional stability in Afghanistan, including a permanent ceasefire, withdrawal of U.S. troops, and counterrorism operations.

Talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban were supposed to begin on March 10, 2020, as per the U.S.-Taliban agreement, following an initial prison exchange of Taliban prisoners and Afghan security forces prisoners. However, the Afghan government had not been consulted on the exchange, resulting in contention and a delay of peace talks. After more negotiating, the Afghan government eventually agreed to release 1,500 prisoners and created a negotiation team for the talks composed of “politicians, former officials, and representatives of civil society,” five of whom were women.

In June, the Taliban and Afghan government agreed to open intra-Afghan peace talks in Qatar to negotiate a ceasefire and long-awaited political settlement to nineteen years of conflict. However, tensions increased when the Taliban rejected said ceasefire, which the government called for during the holy month of Ramadan so authorities could focus on curbing the spread of coronavirus. The Afghan National Security Council reported that attacks by the Taliban over the previous three months rose by nearly 40 percent compared to the same time last year. The Taliban promised not to target American bases, but refused a ceasefire with Afghan forces, leaving that to direct negotiations between both sides. In response, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani warned that Taliban-sponsored violence could pose a serious threat to negotiations during the peace process in September.

Key Challenges

Intra-Afghan talks are a historic chance for peace but there is still a long road ahead, with many challenges threatening the viability of a sustainable peace agreement. First, the Taliban and Afghan government will have to reconcile fundamental differences in ideology and governance systems. The majority of citizens support the current “Islamic Republic” which follows a democratic constitution, separation of powers, and equal rights for men and women to participate in politics. The Taliban, however, seek to establish an “Islamic system” which has yet to be defined, but would likely be similar to the restrictive regime established in the late 1990s which included: banning entertainment, forcing men to grow beards, and shutting down girls’ schools. The Taliban have been steadfast in their opposition to democratic elections and the country’s constitution. For an agreement to be successful, the Taliban must be flexible and willing to make concessions with regard to issues such as the role of Islam and women’s rights in the legal system.

The second challenge facing intra-Afghan talks is internal division on both sides. After the disputed and controversial outcome of the September 2019 presidential election — which resulted in Ghani’s presidency by a razor-thin majority of 50.64 percent of votes — the Afghan government is extremely fragile. While a power-sharing agreement was reached by Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan, tensions between the two politicians remain high, and the Afghan government is plagued with other forms of high-level corruption that threaten its cohesion and credibility. Internal divisions within the Taliban will also make negotiating difficult, as factions hold different stances on the peace agreement. Some Taliban members refuse to acknowledge the agreement, while others are working to strengthen ties with the Haqqani Network and the Islamic State in Khorasan.

Finally, it is unclear whether the Taliban are truly acting in good faith. The group has already objected to numerous compromises such as prisoner exchanges and a temporary ceasefire, making Afghan and U.S. officials cast doubts on whether they are serious about reaching a peace deal. The Taliban’s increased attacks on Afghan forces following the February agreement also raise concerns about the viability of a long-lasting ceasefire. Skeptics argue that the fundamentalist group is only negotiating to drive U.S. troops out of the region so Taliban forces can overthrow the Afghan government and establish an interim one.

Future Policy Considerations

The stakes in Afghanistan are as high as ever and the United States should view intra-Afghan peace negotiations a foreign policy priority. After nineteen years of involvement in the conflict, a final peace agreement would allow the United States to withdraw forces and reduce its security and development commitments, focusing instead on recovering from the pandemic and addressing tensions with China and Iran.

Despite bipartisan support for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, abandoning Afghanistan before a peace agreement is settled would be a foreign policy disaster. Not only is Afghanistan on the brink of a humanitarian crisis, but the country is also still at risk of becoming a hub for terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), especially if the Taliban were to overthrow the Afghan government. A withdrawal of troops would also send a bad signal to allies about U.S. credibility in the region. Thus, the United States should continue providing economic, military, and humanitarian assistance to the Afghan government and remain heavily involved in the peace process to prevent stalled negotiations and ensure a peace settlement is reached.

The harsh reality is that one or both sides may refuse to proceed with negotiations, resulting in a stalemate. Given the Taliban’s lack of commitment to democracy, it is extremely likely that the group will refuse to make concessions on civil liberties, the role of Islam in governance, or political power-sharing. The U.S. must be prepared to maintain the presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan if the Taliban chooses to renege on its commitment and develop credible threats to ensure that recent progress is not reversed.

While reaching a political settlement should remain a U.S. priority, it must be done without sacrificing the societal gains that have been achieved in the past two decades. The Afghan government should not make concessions on civil liberties, women’s rights, and democratic principles of governance when negotiating with the Taliban. Afghan women’s hard-won rights cannot be sacrificed for political gain. Instead, leaders should continue to involve Afghan women in the negotiation process to ensure their voices are heard and promoted in the formation of a peace agreement.

The post Key Challenges and Prospects of Intra-Afghan Peace Talks appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The placement of refugees, as well as protective measures against the pandemic, will be one of the most challenging public policy issues of the decade. Thus, it is critical that we take a closer look at past responses to the European refugee crisis and the discrepancies that lie in current immigration and asylum policies. 

The first European refugee crisis took place in the aftermath of the Second World War, when an overwhelming number of persecuted groups, such as Jews and Poles, sought asylum in Western Europe. In the early 1990s, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a second refugee crisis shocked Europe, as more than 2 million refugees fled the former republic.

In order to manage future refugee crises, the Dublin Convention, which was later dubbed the Dublin Regulation, was established by the European Communities in 1990 and came into full effect in 1997. The regime created under the Dublin Convention allows member states to determine whether people seeking asylum are qualified to enter the European Union. The Dublin Convention requires all member states to be responsible for processing the application of asylum seekers. The essential purpose of this regulation is to provide effective and fair protection to refugees by granting them asylum if they are able to satisfy certain criteria. 

As outlined by the regulation, asylum seekers only have one opportunity to apply for entrance: if they are rejected by one member state, they are automatically rejected by all. Additionally, during the process of examination, asylum seekers are required to stay in a detention area, often separated from their families while they await the outcome of their asylum hearings. Lastly, the criteria set by the Dublin Regulation must be strictly followed when determining whether to grant asylum.  

Though these policies were established thirty years ago, they are still in effect today and have a significant effect on outcomes for asylum-seekers. By the end of 2016, around 5.2 million asylum-seekers reached the shores of the European Union. Moreover, over 138,000 refugees successfully reached the EU by sea. Among them, nearly 2,000 drowned during their journey across the Mediterranean. The European Union’s persisting inefficiency in managing these refugee crises are a result of some of the critical flaws of the Dublin Regulation. 

The Dublin Regulation possessed many weaknesses that prevented the system from reaching its ultimate goal, which was to effectively manage refugee flows and ensure the integrity of refugee rights in the process. One of the criteria established by the regulation is that responsibility should be divided equally between member states. However, it is a lengthy process for each asylum seeker’s application to be processed. Additionally, refugees are often registered to their arrival country under the Dublin Regulation, but they often attempt to seek asylum elsewhere due to personal preferences. The regulation also allows countries to transfer migrants to the first EU country of entry. This provision creates problems of inefficiency, overwhelms countries near the outskirts of Europe, and limits the choices of migrants and asylum-seekers.

Thus, in order to manage the large influx of refugees more effectively within the EU, the European Commission proposed various reforms to the original convention, upgrading it to the Dublin II Regulation in 2003, and later the Dublin III Regulation in 2013. The newest reform proposal, Dublin IV, does not overthrow the existing criteria for determining acceptance but implements several additional policies that ensure equal responsibility between EU member states. This action serves to ensure that no single country is obligated to take on an overwhelming number of refugees, which could lead to instability and mismanagement — as seen in Greece, Italy and Spain. However, the proposal is still under consideration and has not fully been implemented into the EU’s immigration system. 

One of the key elements that is missing in the updated Dublin Regulation is the establishment of humanitarian refugee shelters for asylum seekers and their families. Refugee shelters are necessary in order to provide humanitarian relief while asylum-seekers await their hearings. These spaces are usually constructed in response to major threats, such as natural hazards or war-related violence, as well as in response to political coups in less developed countries. 

Therefore, the purpose of these shelters would be to provide a safe area within which refugees can wait for their applications to be processed. Without proper shelter, asylum-seekers often find themselves in a position where they lack fundamental necessities and access to food resources. Furthermore, existing refugee camps are often overcrowded, with limited social distancing in light of COVID-19. Experts believe that such densely populated camps will significantly increase the possibility of virus transmission.  In order to prevent this, the system should be reformed to facilitate the construction of more shelters and incorporate social distancing procedures.

As a part of this proposed policy, each country would be responsible for the creation of these shelters. Additionally, these temporary shelters would be constructed not only with funding from the home country’s national government but also with EU’s financial support. These spaces should also be specifically designed to fulfill the basic needs of asylum seekers by providing resources such as clean water, food and medical services while they await the final migration outcome and approval. The new refugee shelter system should also include measures that prevent family separation and facilitate family reunification.

With overwhelming refugee inflows, one of the major concerns is the safe and timely placement and management of refugees. Currently, many refugees migrating into EU countries are stuck in limbo, with no clear understanding of whether their application is still pending. If the situation is not properly managed, refugees are left stranded as they were in their home countries. EU member states should cooperate to ensure the efficient and timely processing of asylum applications while also allocating humanitarian assistance to those refugees awaiting their asylum outcomes. More specifically, it is important to protect refugees’ human rights by maintaining their safety and dignity throughout the migration processes, values which are enshrined and reaffirmed by the United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees (UNHCR). 

Another significant rationale for the construction of new refugee shelters is to ensure more effective protection of female refugees. Women account for 50% of the total refugee population and are more prone to suffer from rape and sexual harassment. There are often cases when female refugees are held in detention with male refugees, which could significantly increase the risk of abuse. 

There have also been increasing concerns regarding sexual assault committed by security guards and officials at refugee reception centers. Many women face discrimination in their everyday life, and often face dangerous conditions in the countries from which they flee. Therefore, it is critical that shelters provide a safe environment for refugee women. When considering the creation of humanitarian shelters, women’s rights need to be prioritized, especially as vulnerable groups are at higher risks for victimization. The EU must recognize the associated risks affecting women refugees and other vulnerable populations, and reform their asylum system accordingly.

An effective refugee shelter system would operate under the supervision of highly-trained government-selected personnel, humanitarian relief workers, and medical staff. Given the rise of COVID-19, hygienic standards and adequate healthcare should be made a priority within these humanitarian shelters. 

Equipped with necessary resources and prepared to deal with humanitarian relief, refugee shelters in the EU are key to providing refugees with safe and practical transition environments — especially as violence, conflict and the pandemic continue to ravage countries throughout the world. Thus, reexamining and reforming the Dublin Convention is imperative to ensure that the European Union is adequately prepared to manage a refugee crisis in the COVID-19 era.

The post The EU Migrant Crisis and COVID-19: Reexamining the Dublin Regulation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.