Much of the debate about a peace settlement with insurgents in Afghanistan focuses only on political or territorial power sharing. But a successful peace process will require a broader array of measures that allow conflicting parties to share influence and balance that influence with more roles for noncombatants, civilian political actors, and vulnerable groups.

peaceworks

Summary

  • While the need for a peace process to end the conflict in Afghanistan becomes clearer with each passing month, there are deep doubts about the chances of achieving a settlement. While the challenges are formidable, they are also potentially surmountable with the right kind of process and settlement.
  • All the phases of a peace process are linked. Beginning a process requires more than a conducive military situation; it also calls for potential negotiation scenarios that can generate the confidence to take the initial steps. The kind of negotiation that takes place will influence the comprehensiveness, quality, and therefore sustainability of the outcome.

About the Report

This report, funded by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is the product of a joint research project of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), and the Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) to identify issues and options to support durable peace in Afghanistan. Previous publications stemming from the project include several USIP Peace Briefs and two research papers: Hamish Nixon, “Achieving Durable Peace: Afghan Perspectives on a Peace Process” (Oslo: PRIO, May 2011) and Deedee Derksen, “Peace from the Bottom-Up? The Afghanistan Peace and Reintegration Program” (Oslo: PRIO, September 2011).

About the Authors

Hamish Nixon is project coordinator of the joint research project on durable peace in Afghanistan. He spent five years in Afghanistan working on governance with the World Bank and the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, and has researched peace processes and post-conflict governance in Cambodia, El Salvador, and Afghanistan.

Caroline Hartzell was a 2010–11 Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and is professor of political science at Gettysburg College. She is researching the effects that civil war settlements have on post-conflict economic development, and is coauthor of Crafting Peace: Power-Sharing Institutions and the Negotiated Settlement of Civil Wars (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007). The authors would like to thank all those who spoke with them in Afghanistan and colleagues who provided comments on the paper.

 

Related Publications

Afghanistan Withdrawal Should Be Based on Conditions, Not Timelines

Afghanistan Withdrawal Should Be Based on Conditions, Not Timelines

Thursday, November 19, 2020

By: Scott Worden

The Taliban’s tactic of running out the clock on the U.S. troop presence may bear fruit after the announcement on Tuesday that U.S. forces will reduce to 2,500 by January 15. The Trump administration successfully created leverage by engaging directly with the Taliban to meet their paramount goal of a U.S. withdrawal in exchange for genuine peace talks and counterterrorism guarantees. This strategy brought about unprecedented negotiations between Afghan government representatives and the Taliban in Doha. A walk down a conditions-based path to peace, long and winding as it may be, had begun.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

Constitutional Issues in the Afghan Peace Negotiations: Process and Substance

Constitutional Issues in the Afghan Peace Negotiations: Process and Substance

Friday, November 13, 2020

By: Barnett R. Rubin

The peace negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Taliban that began in September in Doha, Qatar, will almost certainly include revisiting the country’s constitution. Both sides claim to abide by Islamic law, but they interpret it in very different ways. This report examines some of the constitutional issues that divide the two sides, placing them within the context of decades of turmoil in Afghanistan and suggesting ideas for how the peace process might begin to resolve them.

Type: Special Report

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Pathways for Post-Peace Development in Afghanistan

Pathways for Post-Peace Development in Afghanistan

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

By: Khyber Farahi; Scott Guggenheim

Even if the warring parties in Afghanistan manage to secure a still-elusive agreement on resolving the current conflict, significant economic challenges remain for the country, which will require continued assistance and support for core government functions. This report, based on an examination of Afghanistan’s recent development performance, provides a framework for how the Afghan government and its donor partners can more effectively deliver equitable development going forward.

Type: Special Report

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Afghan Peace Process Tests Women Activists

Afghan Peace Process Tests Women Activists

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

By: Belquis Ahmadi; Matthew Parkes

More than a month after Afghan peace talks formally began, the effort to end the war in Afghanistan is stalled, and no one faces higher stakes than Afghan women. The attempt at negotiations has snagged on preliminary issues, the Taliban have escalated their attacks, and all sides are watching the evolution of the U.S. military role in the country. Afghan women’s rights advocates say the moment, and the need for international support, is critical. U.S. officials have noted how U.S assistance can be vital in supporting women’s rights, a principle that can be advanced at a global donors’ conference next month.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Gender; Peace Processes

View All Publications