Will Afghan President Ashraf Ghani take the advice he gave to Syrian President Bashar Assad nine years ago and apply it to himself to resign and prepare for a transitional period? Or will he attempt to emulate Assad and hold on to power without addressing what will come next for Afghanistan?
In October 2012, Ghani, then Chair of the Transition Commission in Afghanistan and Chairman of the Institute for State Effectiveness, and Clare Lockhart, co-founder and director of the Institute, released a report “Preparing for a Syrian Transition” that offered various scenarios for possible change in the country after nearly a year and half since the eruption of its anti-regime protests in 2011.
They offered broad recommendations to members of the international community and specified the issues related to the transition. Years earlier, Ghani and Lockhart had written a book entitled “Fixing Failed States: A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured World”.
Syria and Afghanistan share several factors. On the ground, they are suffering from networks of extremists and Islamists. Reports have said that several ISIS members had quit Syria to Afghanistan, which is viewed as the new hub for extremists and fighters from the Sham region. Moreover, several international and regional players, including the United States, Russia, Turkey and Iran, are embroiled in both Syria and Afghanistan.
On the diplomatic level, several western diplomatic have moved from tackling the Syrian file to tackling the Afghan one. Among them is British envoy Gareth Bayley and German envoy Andreas Kruger. Moreover, former Syrian prime minister Abdullah al-Dardari is the United Nations Development Program's Resident Representative in Kabul, Afghanistan. Lockhart is also close to American officials who have handled the Syrian file under the Donald Trump administration.
Ghani and Lockhart’s roadmap was released weeks after the announcement of the Geneva statement in late June 2012. The statement proposed the formation of a transitional ruling body with full executive power that would include representatives of the government and opposition.
The communique was issued after then US President Barack Obama and western officials had called on Assad to step down. Washington had even developed the “day after” agenda as part of its efforts to avoid the same mistakes it committed in Iraq.
Indeed, the roadmap belonged to the rhetoric that prevailed at the time in demanding that Assad’s regime be stripped of its legitimacy. It also spoke of how the regime had launched a violent offensive against the opposition that was determined to oust it. Experts and nations at the time were focused on drafting plans for the post-Assad period.
The transitional plans envisioned deriving lessons in peace building and the past. They also proposed the formation of a decentralized state and for the UN to act as an honest and credible mediator.
Years have gone by and Assad has remained power with the backing of his Russian and Iranian allies. Western countries have since changed their rhetoric. Syria itself has changed, becoming divided, weak and ill.
Years have gone by and Afghanistan has changed. Ghani himself became president, backed with the US-led coalition. The US is now withdrawing from Afghanistan, paving the way for Russia’s return after its Soviet defeat.
Ghani, however, has not changed his position on Syria. According to diplomats who have met him recently, he still remains committed to the ideas proposed in his report with Lockhart. He still supports political transition in Syria through a national framework and as part of a Syrian plan that does not greatly rely on foreign players. This national agenda ensures the interests of Assad loyalists after his departure.
People who have worked with Ghani over the Syrian file berate him for not taking the same advice he had offered Assad. They said that Ghani has not engaged in serious dialogue with the Taliban when the group was weak. Moreover, he opted to listen to the advice of foreign advisors, experts and forces when it came to politics, reconstruction and administration, in contrast to his suggestions on Syria.
Some analysts had urged Ghani to follow “Assad’s advice” to remain in power and suggested that he pursue foreign military, security, political steps and alliances.
One analyst said that he had following the developments in Syria since the beginning of its conflict, remarking that the government had developed an uncanny ability to survive, which is something that Ghani can learn from.
