USIP’s Scott Worden discusses the connection between local dispute resolution work, U.S. national security objectives and a lasting peace in Afghanistan.
.jpg)
August 23, 2011
USIP’s Scott Worden discusses the connection between local dispute resolution work, U.S. national security objectives and a lasting peace in Afghanistan. For more on USIP’s dispute resolution work, read the recently released Special Report, “The Politics of Dispute Resolution and Continued Instability in Afghanistan.”
- The Obama administration has defined its goals in Afghanistan as defeating international terrorism and combating the Taliban insurgency. How does 'dispute resolution' work relate to these goals and to achieving durable peace in Afghanistan more broadly?
- Based on USIP’s on-the-ground research, what are some trends of local conflicts – and their resolution -- in Afghanistan?
- How does USIP translate this research into on-the-ground action? That is, how is USIP strengthening linkages between informal and formal justice sectors in Afghanistan?
The Obama administration has defined its goals in Afghanistan as defeating international terrorism and combating the Taliban insurgency. How does 'dispute resolution' work relate to these goals and to achieving durable peace in Afghanistan more broadly?
While the Taliban insurgency presents a national and international security risk for Afghanistan, it is fueled by hundreds if not thousands of individual local grievances. Each of them can be exploited by the insurgency to turn people into opponents of the Afghan government if they are not resolved. For example, if a land dispute between neighbors is not resolved because of corruption in the courts, then it can lead to a blood feud between the families. The Taliban will then take sides in the dispute in return for support or safe passage, which strengthens the insurgency. Resolving low-level disputes early therefore removes leverage from the Taliban’s anti-government arguments.
Based on USIP’s on-the-ground research, what are some trends of local conflicts – and their resolution -- in Afghanistan?
Over the past three years, USIP has worked with local Afghan organizations to monitor informal dispute resolution in 13 districts of eight provinces. Based on our observations, the most common disputes are civil rather than criminal in nature, including land conflicts, family disputes over inheritance and divorce, and disputes over the selection of local leaders in the absence of local elections. Left unresolved, however, they can lead to more serious criminal disputes involving assault or murder. In many cases, the parties to a dispute prefer to resolve their grievances through community-based councils called shuras and jirgas rather than courts, which are seen as costly and/or corrupt. At the same time, shuras and jirgas often communicate with local government officials, police and the courts to share information about the disputes and government officials and courts frequently recognize informal dispute settlements.
How does USIP translate this research into on-the-ground action? That is, how is USIP strengthening linkages between informal and formal justice sectors in Afghanistan?
USIP has focused on improving understanding between community dispute resolution bodies and government officials so that they each understand the other’s strengths and roles and can cooperate to use scarce resources to handle important disputes. Since 2010, the Institute’s Dispute Resolution Councils in Nangarhar and Kunar provinces have resolved more than 100 provincial-level disputes that had the potential to escalate into violence if not addressed.
USIP has also worked directly with Afghan government officials and traditional dispute resolution practitioners to develop an Afghan policy that would enable courts to endorse traditional settlements that are within Afghan law, while overturning shura and jirga decisions that violate women’s rights and other laws of Afghanistan.