Peace vs. Human Rights? Implications for a Peace Settlement with the Taliban

Over the past few months, as highlighted by a conference on Afghanistan held in London on January 28, 2010, signs have emerged of a concerted and comprehensive effort to engage elements of the insurgency in negotiations, reconciliation and reintegration. In May, the Afghan government will host a Peace Jirga to build support for their plans to negotiate with insurgent leaders.

Since the fall of the Taliban, many principles of justice and equality have been enshrined into Afghanistan’s basic legal framework, even if they have often not been implemented. What are the implications of a peace deal with a movement previously known for oppressing women, ethnic and religious minorities? Will protection of rights be weakened on paper or in practice? Will a proposed blanket amnesty attempt to exclude prosecution of war crimes? How will these issues play out in a national (and international) discussion about the parameters of a peace deal and will all perspectives be sufficiently represented in the process?

On April 1, 2010, USIP hosted a lively discussion of these and other questions.

Speakers

Nader Nadery
Commissioner, Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission
Farishta Sakhi
Board Member, Women's Activities and Social Services Association
Michael Semple
Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights, Harvard University
Author of "Reconciliation in Afghanistan" (USIP, 2009)
Noah Coburn
Traditional Justice Specialist, U.S. Institute of Peace
Anthony Richter, Welcome
Associate Director, Open Society Institute
J Alexander Thier, Moderator
Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. Institute of Peace
Author of "Afghanistan's Rocky Path to Peace" (Current History, 2010)