The embassy of the Islamic Republic of afghanistan in washington. My colleague and director will be moderating the conversation but its my great pleasure and honor to ask the ambassador to provide welcoming remarks. Your excellency. Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon or good evening depending on where you are right now in joining us for the session. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the second event of the embassy of afghanistan. We are glad to be hosting the event on lebanons agreement and partnership with the Atlantic Council a wonderful partner of the embassy in washington. I want to offer a warm thank you to the Atlantic Council further help in organizing this important discussion and all the great work they are continuously doing. Furthermore i would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to share their knowledge and insight with us today. Ambassador i thank you and not just for joining us today that for all the great work that youve done in afghanistan over the years. It is an honor to have you with us today. And thank you for moderating and guiding us to this conversation. For those of you who were not able to join us for our lesson in peace event with the United States last month, we focused and i want to take a moment to reflect on some of the most critical lessons we have learned so far as we continue our journey to learn more about the Peace Process all around the world. The first main lesson has been how critical the consensusbuilding is for securing lasting peace. We know peace cannot just be between those who hold guns. Its all of Society Coming together and working in harmony. This means involving air men not just as an issue on the table but to the legal negotiation. This means involving the use and future of the nation who must have the peace we are forging into thiand this means includine from all backgrounds with every social economic level from every ethnic group and all corners of the country. Inclusivity is critical. This is not just in line with our democratic values. It is a National Security practice and the only path to lasting security. The second main lesson is these processes are because they are just that, a process. Securing a feasible settlement is just the beginning. We need to ensure the environment where peace can be assured and implemented. Negotiations may have begun ten weeks ago but we have been working to build peace on multiple fronts for the past 20 years from building up our Democratic Institutions to promoting Economic Development to increasing access to health and education although there is an urgent need for a National Ceasefire we know the rest of the process cannot be rushed. We know the hard work it requires. We have been seeking peace for a long time and we have planned for it and fought for it with the type of commitment that comes from knowing what is it like to live without it. It always had this sense. Each flower signaled change, the start of the school year, Summer Vacation and so on. It is my hope one day the sense of fear will not overpower Everything Else and we will once again have the freedom to as the americans say stop and smell the roses. Under the healing lights of compassion and perseverance im sure nothing could ever smell more sweet. It is my absolute pleasure to pass this off to todays wonderful panel so that they can begin to learn about the lessons and how we can apply them to make sure its no longer just a dream. Lessons like today will bring us one step closer to making that a reality. Thank you all. Thank you so much, ambassador and for the warm introduction. It is an honor to collaborate with you and host with you as well athe embassy in afghanistan in washington, d. C. During such a crucial moment. I am the assistant director of the United Council of the south asia center and id like to welcome the viewers in the United States and around the world the conversation about lessons that can be learned from the agreement which ended 15 years of civil war in lebanon and could be applied to the ongoing Peace Process between the Afghan Government and the tampa band. Joining us today is that esteemed panel of experts. Among his manhats, the former envoy for lebanon and former Un Special Envoy for afghanistan. The regional director of the middle east and north Africa Division of the intnational republic we tnk you all for lending your time and expertise today. Its how they can and cannot be applied to the ongoing Peace Process please submit your questions in the q and a box and we will get to as many as we can. Supported by the mandate that would be passed down the road to amend and eventually remove the religious powe powersharing ine government entirely and as it is well documented this never ended up happening into the agreement makes no explicit mention of when or by what point they should occur. Im keeping my fingers crossed like everybody else to see that the negotiations that got started a few weeks ago would succeed where others have not. Im a little bit surprised. I think that there is very little to learn from it because it is very specific. For any process the best conditions for the Peace Process to get somewhere is for the people doing the fighting and theithe respective sponsors to e that they havent won and they cannot when. That is what happened in leban lebanon. And also the service sponsors. That is i was lucky enough. Because not much better influence. We made it to hear and the commitment to the agreement. It is the independence we never got that and ever since theyve been extremely critical now they havent been able to work out something different. I know you have some thoughts on this questioif you dare to jump in. Taking into account they talked about the principal of the approachhat is big on sharing. My reaction is while it is ideal to have a political system that is inclusive and sensitive to the diversity of the country ke afghanistan approaching its efforts in my view iust learned a few things about that. Om the procedural perspective in particular i think enshrining the visions and powersharing structure is somewhat counterproductive to the state building efforts. Ain, trying to learn from the experience of lebanon. And also counterproductive to the state survival in some ways once you said to the structu in motion, i think it becomes the norm even if it is temporary it would perpetuate itself so for me rather than a temporary solution, we should be Building Elements that are part of the ultimate concept were the solution. Conceptually speaking rather than procedurally, i think that entering these arrangements tend to satisfy the interest and the mindset. It was inclusive and in reality it catered to the moment you have an arrangement that breaks down the nation to the identifiable group. Disempower those and i say this because in particular it represented the progressive middle class and cosmopolitan class. Mai jump in with a comment of what we are suggesting here. One of the things we have known in the case of lebanon. This is more a comment about the lebanese system but the idea that they have to think about themselves as christians and sunnis have to think about themselves as sunnis and so forth. In some sense it was almost obligatory but the challenge as the institution was suggesting is that it keeps people in that mode or makes it more difficult. If you think about we sometimes call them ethnic entrepreneurs you can call them what you like but on the basis they want to perpetuate the rules that keep them in power so the degree that you wish to make this an open system that can adapt to the changing reality and demographic is to think about building and those sort of rules the groups that happen to be relevant at the time youre coming up with the agreement. They are working to obtain justice in lebanon f the crimes committed durin the war could you speak to the devepment of the civilociety sector and how it has or has not been able to fill the gap and the transitial justice and accountability that was open after 1989 and what lessons can the civilociety more generally ta away from the case to be more effective in supporting the Transitional Justice and a postconflict setting . I would first start by saying more than 20 years after militias laid down their arms today they live in a sort of memory of war that discourages them from looking back. The only official initiative that was conducted to establish what happened after 1975 was the report released in 1992 that estimated the number of victims without a more comprehensive truth seeking process there was no updated history curriculum from engaging in Critical Thinking about the multiple narratives in circulation today as well as the potential for the radicalization that remains in an environment so that is my first point. Second, as a result theres been very little public debate. Many remain in power. My second point is one of the most devastating consequences has been a perpetuation of the cultural impunity and in the absence of accountability for the selective approach to criminal justice much of which is the result of the political powersharing agreements so this has really robbed the victims of this. The failure to hold perpetrators accountable eradicates the trust in the state institutions and i say this because i will explain as the result of the militia that have renamed themselves as Political Parties and that abuses the resource available it isnt a tragedy in the concept of the lebanese. And then there is the context which is after the banking crisis and economic collapse and mismanaged impunity of the Political Class the context is actually deadlocked and dominated by one Political Force which is the one powerbroker so this creates the potential action in any regard so in both cases because of the limits of the states, and i think this has to control with the role they have or exert the accountability is limited to what is permissible and you have examples in afghanistan as well. Besides the efforts of the status quo as well as those that are documenting, the Civil Society hasnt been capable of holding those responsible for the civi civil wars abuse accoue because they are part of the postwar arrangement. Its been carried out by a number of groups including victims groups, researchers and academics. To indicate a pattern of violence and doing the analysis in the framework of International Human rights. There needs to be a recognition of the limitations in place and of the tools that are used to perpetuate the existence of civic trust and i would like to make a final point to compare or departing from social religious norms. So i think that the former is more prevalent. In the case of afghanistan what needs to happen even among the solidarity based groups where some of this work can be leveraged and in some ways its very instructive. Theres also the issue of coordination not working together because of the religious or political belief and the point is we need to enhance it and this should be the foundation. Thank you for that. Given this context where theres this Civil Society and the role they are supposed to be holding people, institutions and groups accountable but then paradoxically they are also a part of the system which may involve some of these groups. I think that it would be interesting to hear a little bit about your research on the political participation and what lessons more generally we can take away from your research on the collaboration and peace by the sectarian conflict. There a lot of experiments one of t takeaways ive gotten out of ts theres a lot of underlying and a lot of it is overshadowed by the discourse. In the context at the same time people are very content with the basic democratic princips so there isnt going to appear to be any sort of contradiction in the minds of most peopl that you can have religion play a role in the democratic practices for the practices or un undesirablerom the group politic aect of it rather than the somsome differences over the doctrine with the basic religious norms so a lot of the same principles people apply but they take a backseat to the political competitn between the groups and part of the challenge ere is that a lot of that is guided by the patronage practices that keep policians in power who are able to win over supporters in the w that would be different from the policies we like to see instead. So the development of the electoral system and the representative system in lebanon teed to be overshadowed by these practices some of which liticians can access and a lot of bankrolling comes from abroad so there is iran or saudi arabia and aows them to maintai power without necessarily representing the ideals of the people they claim to rresent so there is a bit of a discnect between what the citizens would like toee and the sort of politicians they end up with instead. And its not to say there are very few saints and sinners most of them are just doing what politicians do but ty are responding to the system that allows them to hold power so its a broad overview and it is a big feature of lebanon but a lot of those can b thought of in the context of how you get people into office and it gets you the types many of the voters themselves it brings the different parties into power you eluded to this a little bit to say by 1989 when the agreement was signed there is the sense of that the parties were ready to negotiate and ready for peace. Are there any notable factors that supported and catalyzed the parties and what might they tell us about understanding the environment when its ready for the negotiated peace . I wouldnt speak of the religious affiliations. Its taken as a part of the identity and influence of the religious elements the christian identity is grouped in 17 different groups without holding anybody responsible. That wasnt really part of the conversation. For political reasons hes been released and is now back so that hasnt been a part of the conversation and in a very highly sophisticated not sectarian at all but the influence in the politic and its extremely interesting to see the movement going on for one year now for the identity potic but they have not been able to do so. It is the traditional groups and factions that is the youngest and the newest of them all biggest, strongest in the political life of lebanon. Im sure in spite of the huge differences of the situations between the two people went in as the idea was you would allow the lebanese people to come together. They were unable to move away from t system that had been together. It was about the main positions. The prime minister, president now it goes down. One of the people is totally ignored. How have the people of lebanon been to impose their will fighting one another, hating one another but when things come to a crunch they are all together they are altogether protecting the system and with help i dont know if it is going to be available or not. The identity politics make it difficult to move forward. People in the streets dont care whos muslim or christian. They dont care about that. But asking them to ask questions or they speak all the time huge corruption but if things continue as they were. From this point of view they could have studied what had happened in lebanon to see how they could avoid. Thank you. That is an excellent segway to shift gears a little bit and talk about afgnistan before we move into taking questions from the audience. For those joining on the call, please submitour questions through the little q and a box at the bottom of your screen and will be gettingo them shortly. Like i said, shifting years a little bit, we spoke about the society earer and i think an interesting question that is relevanto the different contexts i which we are operating now use social media and digital campaigns. Can yo speak a little bit to how social media and digital campaigns might factor into the society in a way that the traditional print media wouldnt have been able to in the conte context. The one thing we need to give them credit for is the extent to which theyve been able to express itself through social media in particular. There doesnt seem to be much in this regard with the repercussions for the opinions that are counter. These should be supported and leveraged and emphasized as ways to express their concerns and make their voices heard. In afghanistan they wanted the decision of not going after everybody. They tried again but then of course they voted the past experiences through the past misbehavior. The rule of law requires the police force and most importantly a good judicial system. In lebanon you have the constitution and i think again if they want to help the country it is whether not all the directions that create one division the rule of law system is paramount i hope they first think of the new position to work this out. Thank you. On the subject of the foreign intervention how it affected the attitude of the voters in the 2009 parliamentary elections can you give a quick rundown and shed some light on how we might interpret the support of the United States, nato and allies both for the democratic process and the democratic system and the peace negotiation. A lot of the work that i had been doing work beyond that. The views we tend to have here we object to the partisan intervention on behalf of the democratic process so heres the short version of whats coming out of the research which is people dont object to the nonpartisan intervention. They dont have any major problems with the nonpartisanship. But there is a very simple story here. They dont like partisan intervention on behalf of their opponents and they are happy to rationalize on behalf of their own so in effect what that means is in one form or another it polarizes the Public Opinion so intervention by one actor on behalf of someone tends to make that groups supporters happy and opponents unhappy and vice versa so you can think about it is the Glass Half Full and half empty. Why bother supporting the democratic process for the good citizens by supporting the democratic process. The Glass Half Full version is that is great in some instances of people are behaving the way you would expect them to they are not going to give people lavish praise on behalf of the democratic process or on behalf of the country as a whole because that is what you would hope the International Community is doing. Instead what it means is there isnt going to be an impediment on the basis of the opinion towards those interventions, so to the degree that you can get a nonpartisan or a neutral position you are not going to find problems on the basis of the Public Opinion barriers to that oral objections from the part of the public which means its possible for the community to focus on the technical aspects that might make elections free and fair to focus on the aspect the political leaders might care about in terms of the implementation so there wont be a barrier to the challenge of course is that its hard to put forth a nonpartisan intervention because even the things we tend to think of as nonpartisan for the democratic process isnt a particular democratic parties there are ways this can occur that will still be problematic and so the degree to which it matters is simply to find a way to mitigate the concerns of various actors would have in the degree there intervention offsets the balance and it doesnt really matter if it is nato doing it or the United States other than they have been to be the ones doing it in this particular case. It really is and to the degree they can discover they focus much more heavily on the intervention itself so the Research Conducted people behave or react the same way as they would if it were turkey or russia so we focus on the antiamericanism they care about the intervention part this is something that is possible given the sort of geopolitical set up of our world so thank you. With that i would like to turn to some of the questions that have come in from the audience. It looks like we have one for any of the panelists. Could they become the hezbollah of afghanistan which i think is to say could they become a state for any of the panel, feel free to jump in. What i wanted to say i might be a little bit provocative in my response but in someense it seems the discussion we h before led to the entrenchment because they were one of the entities tt were not disarmed for a number of reasons so the only one, actually. But in afghanistan this is the taliban the nobody is to ask where are they . So lets see who can dish out to the taliban now with russia and the United States. That was a huge mistake. The people who ruled afghanistan 95 percent and th the second thing and the only fraction so that also counts. If we come to the agreement can the taliban count on such strong qualifiedupport . If they do not have that support that is the question we need to ask and then you will talk to the brothers it is easy to get those outside powers even a strong as the United States it is complicated to get out in the right manner they would have to think very very seriously for themselves but also give the little bit of thought. So we jump and very quickly one of the core dtinctions will simy be the extent of foreign support so that retionship between hezbollah and syria for purposes select support from iran to substantial with financial reurces and aertising as well. There are a lot of things one of which ishe militia with a Political Party to the dege they can draw funding from abroad to the degree that the support they get from abroad starts to vanish that will turn into a Political Party ke any other they wont have nearly the same degree as they currently do a then to fund those services they are providing because ty will get resources from elsewhere but they will not be doing at the sames hezbollah does the elepnt that was not in the room a practically everybody else was interested and everybody called syria and damascus but of course we had to to do with the syrians want and even though the president was assassinated two weeks later who me a new agreement that was at the base and this is also a lesson how do you have that agreeme and to have a lot of influence of what is happening in which you think of pakistan and russia and also others like india so we have to make sure those forces a supporting you and not making it more difficult for you. Thank you very much for that i think we are running low on time so to all panelist thank you foyour time and your expertise and your time and we will pass it over to you to close this out. Thank you also to her excellency for this opportunity on this very important conversation so this happening in the immediate backdrop of the conference where innoce lives are once again with the ongoing conflict so to understand is maybe the most iortant question for the World Community and over the last ur months we have issued a major rept and part of that anticorruption agenda with a high levelonversation and just last month a wonderful conversati with First Lady Laura Bush focusing on women and womens rights of afghanistan. We forward to engagi all of you at the atlanta council