On February 18, UN Secretary-General António Guterres will host a meeting of special envoys to Afghanistan in Doha, Qatar. The Taliban have confirmed they will send a delegation to the event, and other Afghan political actors and representatives of Afghan civil society are also expected to attend.
The gathering is being held to accept one of the recommendations made by Feridun Sinirlioglu, the United Nations Special Coordinator for Afghanistan, in his November report (PDF) on the situation in the country.
The report highlights the need to focus on confidence-building measures between the international community and Afghan actors, which means identifying potential areas for cooperation that are not politically sensitive. However, the meeting is bound to raise some difficult questions. Perhaps the most important of these is the issue of establishing a comprehensive government in Afghanistan. This demand has been reiterated by regional and international actors as one of the key preconditions for recognizing the Taliban government.
Seeking inclusive governance in the aftermath of conflict is a routine diplomatic intervention. The idea is that inclusion is essential to peacebuilding because it can resolve grievances caused by exclusion and prevent a recurrence of violence.
But the term evokes unpleasant memories for Afghans. Because it brings to mind the Bonn conference that followed the US invasion of Afghanistan, when the country's exiled and denounced warlords were given a clean slate and an opportunity to participate in subsequent power. Sharing Arrangements.
The participation of this warlord effectively meant impunity for crimes and played a significant role in the failure of subsequent attempts to build an Afghan state. The warlords were also the spoilers of the peace process with the Taliban, whose failure ultimately led to the fall of Kabul to Taliban forces in August 2021.
The Taliban has taken advantage of the negative feelings the term evokes among the population and has refused to bow to international pressure to incorporate other Afghan political forces into the government. He has made it clear that he believes such pressure is an attempt to repeat the Bonn experience. This is not an unpopular move, as Afghans fear the return of warlordism to Afghanistan.
Among the exiled warlords still eyeing power are Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is accused of sexually assaulting political opponents and committing war crimes during the U.S. invasion and 1993 These include Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, one of the warlords responsible for the Afshar massacre in 2017. Up to 1,000 people were massacred in the western districts of Kabul.
Ahmad Massoud, the son of the late Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was also involved in the Afshar massacre and the Afghan civil war, has also recently emerged as a politician. He is now trying to rally exiled warlords and allies of his father to fight the Taliban, while seeking funding from foreign governments.
Apart from the warlords, a number of former Afghan officials from the previous government have announced their intention to return to power. Many of them are participating in discussions about Afghanistan's future, even though they are accused of massive corruption and drug trafficking.
It is unclear whether warlords or other controversial political figures will attend the Doha meeting. The invitation process was not transparent, and the Taliban appeared to have tried to include controversial figures, as they had warned that they would not participate if the selection of Afghan participants did not have the consent of the leadership.
If the Doha meeting is meant to find ways to build bridges with the Taliban, it should not be a forum to force the participation of warlords and disreputable former Afghan officials. Such a move would be counterproductive as it would make the Taliban even more reluctant to engage. Once sufficient trust and momentum is built, the question of greater participation in the Taliban government could be raised.
It is clear who should not be part of the future government, but finding qualified and reliable people from non-Taliban political forces can be difficult. This is because repeated irregularities in the country's elections from 2001 to 2021 have made it unclear who represents the will of the Afghan people.
Ultimately, the Taliban should be allowed to choose who goes beyond their movement and incorporates them into the government. This is not an ideal result, but it would be an improvement from the current situation.
Demands to break the Taliban's current monopoly on power should be framed differently if it is to materialize. The term inclusivity is not only foreign to the Taliban, but also evokes bad memories among the Afghan civilian population.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.