Afghanistan’s Yunus Qanuni Says Is in Constant Contact with Ahmad Massoud

Yunus Qanuni speaks with Camelia Entekhabifard. (Independent Persian)
Yunus Qanuni speaks with Camelia Entekhabifard. (Independent Persian)
TT

Afghanistan’s Yunus Qanuni Says Is in Constant Contact with Ahmad Massoud

Yunus Qanuni speaks with Camelia Entekhabifard. (Independent Persian)
Yunus Qanuni speaks with Camelia Entekhabifard. (Independent Persian)

Yunus Qanuni, former speaker of Afghanistan’s parliament, is in constant contact with Ahmad Massoud, he told Independent Persian in an interview.

“Ahmad Massoud, son of Afghanistan’s national hero, is not after creating crisis, adventure, clash or war. From the outset, he has emphasized a political solution and an end to war and crisis in Afghanistan and his position remains the same,” Qanuni said.

But he warned that if “Taliban’s provocations bring a war” and if the group shows up to Panjshir or put people in Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan under pressure or threats, “the war or anti-Taliban resistance becomes inevitable.”

Qanuni, who was a comrade-in-arms of Ahmad Shah Massoud during the years of the occupation of Afghanistan and the war against Taliban, said: “If Taliban’s method and conduct promotes war and makes it inevitable, we have Ahmad Massoud who has inherited resistance and defense of his people and country from his martyred father. There will then be room for a nationwide national movement.”

He said Afghanistan was lucky that its people were not divided along ethnic lines. “Resistance is based on an idea and thinking that includes Pashtun, Tajik Hazara and Uzbek,” he said.

“If Taliban picked war from the two options presented to them, i.e. a method that doesn’t have popular support, resistance becomes inevitable. Ahmad Massoud has the possibility to build an axis of resistance among the Afghan youth.”

Qanuni, who is now in Pakistan to meet and discuss with officials there, told Independent Persian: “The invitation had been sent out about a month ago, but since Ghani’s exclusivist team opposed it, our trip finally happened on August 15.”

“When we were on the plane, Taliban was yet to militarily enter Kabul,” Qanuni said. “We had other topics to discuss, but after military developments in Kabul, our topics of negotiations also changed.”

He revealed the talks in Pakistan had two specific topics: First, what should be the priority from now that President Ashraf Ghani has fled and there is a vacuum of power to when a new government can be formed? Here they demanded that Pakistan wield its influence on Taliban to avoid bloodshed, violence and attacks on the areas not yet held by the group.

According to Qanuni, Pakistanis welcomed this proposal.

The second topic was the future of government formation in Afghanistan. According to Qanuni, Pakistanis were clear that they don't want only one ethnicity or one group to rule. Rather they prefer an inclusive government that opens a new chapter in Kabul-Islamabad relations. They said they see Afghanistan as part of regional stability.

“These were good discussions and a very good welcome was given to our group,” he remarked.

Will the next government include figures like Qanuni or Abdullah Abdullah? Qanuni said talks with Pakistan had not yet reached a result on this issue because Taliban itself is divided and has not been able to form a team, even an internal team, that can fill the power vacuum in Afghanistan. Taliban have many divisions and differences inside them.

Qanuni insisted that the intention of his delegation was not to negotiate with Pakistan over the next government; the discussions were on “principles which should undergird the future system.” For instance, Qanuni said forming an “Islamic Emirate” was unacceptable, adding: “We want an inclusive system based on just participation of ethnicities and religions in Afghanistan. We believe the basis of the future system should be the will of the people, both men and women.”

There should first be an agreement on principles and only then it will be clear whether forming a joint government is possible. The third step would be to mull over individuals who will form such a government.”

Qanuni said his aim was to help prevent violence and bloodshed before the next government is formed.

“Our people are very worried, in both center and provinces,” he said. “We hear that searching homes and targeted murders have started. There is already violence against opponents and dissidents. People are deeply worried and our first priority is to stop such events before the next government is formed.

Qanuni said he had asked “Pakistani friends” to use their influence with Taliban to convince it not to attack Pansjhir, where a majority of forces of the Afghan army are.

In Panjshir, no one, including Ahmad Massoud, wants “any violence or skirmishes,” said Qanuni, “so long as issues are solved by understanding.”

But if Taliban attacks Panjshir, “war would be inevitable,” warned Qanuni, adding that: “Defense is both a human duty and a religious duty.”

Asked how much Taliban can be trusted, Qanuni said in such conditions, nobody has the necessary confidence to work with Taliban. “At this stage, we need more confidence-building measures,” he added. “What Taliban claimed to have changed in its ideology and behavior it should show in practice.”

Qanuni warned that “Islamic Emirate” model of Taliban with its system centered around an individual was unworkable.

“We need to first negotiate on key points and reach an agreement. Otherwise, I don’t believe well-known and influential politicians of Afghanistan would work with Taliban under the umbrella of an Emirate,” he said.

When asked about the fate of 20-year-old Afghan democracy if Taliban continues and is recognized by other countries, Qanuni replied: “If Taliban take this path, we will once more see the events of 1996 in Afghanistan, i.e. a system with one group and one ethnicity, without national or international legitimacy and doomed to failure and internal divisions. This is what we saw in the six years of Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001.”

“I believe Taliban have learnt their lessons from history and we should look at things especially with the violence we’ve seen in the past few days and Afghanistan’s fundamental change. We are in 2021, not 1996,” Qanuni noted.

“This generation includes seventy percent of the country. None of them were born during Taliban rule or they were very small kids. This generation is key for Afghanistan and its political and social institutions,” he said.

“Half of Afghanistan’s population are women,” Qanuni added. “They’ve learnt their rights and demand them.”

“Given these changes, naturally Taliban’s 1996 formula won’t work for Afghanistan and is doomed to fail.”

Commenting on Afghanistan’s future, Qanuni said: “Given that Taliban are unpredictable, it is impossible to make exact predictions. But based on our experiences in the past, developments in Afghanistan of the last 20 years and the expectation of our people, we can say that military transformation has taken place in Afghanistan. Yes, Taliban were able to capture most of the country’s territory but conquering geography is not the same as conquering the Afghan people,” Qauni said.

“The people of Afghanistan are not conquerable,” stressed Qanuni. “They need a regime that will represent people’s demands.”

Qanuni said they accepted that Taliban seized power in Afghanistan but It’s impossible to force people and especially the young generation that has experienced transformations and calm to go back to the past.

“I believe Taliban are currently entrenching their own movement,” Qanuni said. “They speak of change and a different attitude toward women and people. If these statements become true, this is positive. But if it remains a tactic before they can fully entrench themselves, so that they could then go back to revenge, Afghan people won’t have a good future.”

In the end, Qanuni said: “Our generation has seen at least five or six rounds of power shifts. I want to say that the simplest part of an armed struggle is overthrowing a regime. The most difficult part is the nation-building that comes after. Taliban have experience in overthrowing but I don’t believe they have what it takes for longevity in politics.”

“If the international community and regional countries aren’t hasty in recognizing Taliban and supporting them,” Qanuni concluded. “If they don’t act in a rushed manner and decide carefully, we will have the chance to see change. With the help of people and world community we can form a better future for our people.”



Goldrich to Asharq Al-Awsat: No US Withdrawal from Syria

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
TT

Goldrich to Asharq Al-Awsat: No US Withdrawal from Syria

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich has told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US does not plan to withdraw its forces from Syria.

The US is committed to “the partnership that we have with the local forces that we work with,” he said.

Here is the full text of the interview.

Question: Mr. Goldrich, thank you so much for taking the time to sit with us today. I know you are leaving your post soon. How do you assess the accomplishments and challenges remaining?

Answer: Thank you very much for the chance to talk with you today. I've been in this position for three years, and so at the end of three years, I can see that there's a lot that we accomplished and a lot that we have left to do. But at the beginning of a time I was here, we had just completed a review of our Syria policy, and we saw that we needed to focus on reducing suffering for the people in Syria. We needed to reduce violence. We needed to hold the regime accountable for things that are done and most importantly, from the US perspective, we needed to keep ISIS from reemerging as a threat to our country and to other countries. At the same time, we also realized that there wouldn't be a solution to the crisis until there was a political process under resolution 2254, so in each of these areas, we've seen both progress and challenges, but of course, on ISIS, we have prevented the reemergence of the threat from northeast Syria, and we've helped deal with people that needed to be repatriated out of the prisons, and we dealt with displaced people in al-Hol to reduce the numbers there. We helped provide for stabilization in those parts of Syria.

Question: I want to talk a little bit about the ISIS situation now that the US troops are still there, do you envision a timeline where they will be withdrawn? Because there were some reports in the press that there is a plan from the Biden administration to withdraw.

Answer: Yeah. So right now, our focus is on the mission that we have there to keep ISIS from reemerging. So I know there have been reports, but I want to make clear that we remain committed to the role that we play in that part of Syria, to the partnership that we have with the local forces that we work with, and to the need to prevent that threat from reemerging.

Question: So you can assure people who are saying that you might withdraw, that you are remaining for the time being?

Answer: Yes, and that we remain committed to this mission which needs to continue to be pursued.

Question: You also mentioned the importance of humanitarian aid. The US has been leading on this. Are you satisfied with where you are today on the humanitarian front in Syria?

Answer: We remain committed to the role that we play to provide for humanitarian assistance in Syria. Of the money that was pledged in Brussels, we pledged $593 million just this past spring, and we overall, since the beginning of the conflict, have provided $18 billion both to help the Syrians who are inside of Syria and to help the refugees who are in surrounding countries. And so we remain committed to providing that assistance, and we remain keenly aware that 90% of Syrians are living in poverty right now, and that there's been suffering there. We're doing everything we can to reduce the suffering, but I think where we would really like to be is where there's a larger solution to the whole crisis, so Syrian people someday will be able to provide again for themselves and not need this assistance.

Question: And that's a perfect key to my next question. Solution in Syria. you are aware that the countries in the region are opening up to Assad again, and you also have the EU signaling overture to the Syrian regime and Assad. How do you deal with that?

Answer: For the United States, our policy continues to be that we will not normalize with the regime in Syria until there's been authentic and enduring progress on the goals of resolution 2254, until the human rights of the Syrian people are respected and until they have the civil and human rights that they deserve. We know other countries have engaged with the regime. When those engagements happen, we don't support them, but we remind the countries that are engaged that they should be using their engagements to push forward on the shared international goals under 2254, and that whatever it is that they're doing should be for the sake of improving the situation of the Syrian people.

Question: Let's say that all of the countries decided to talk to Assad, aren’t you worried that the US will be alienated in the process?

Answer: The US will remain true to our own principles and our own policies and our own laws, and the path for the regime in Syria to change its relationship with us is very clear, if they change the behaviors that led to the laws that we have and to the policies that we have, if those behaviors change and the circumstances inside of Syria change, then it's possible to have a different kind of relationship, but that's where it has to start.

Question: My last question to you before you leave, if you have to pick one thing that you need to do in Syria today, what is it that you would like to see happening today?

Answer: So there are a number of things, I think that will always be left and that there are things that we will try to do, to try to make them happen. We want to hold people accountable in Syria for things that have happened. So even today, we observed something called the International Day for victims of enforced disappearances, there are people that are missing, and we're trying to draw attention to the need to account for the missing people. So our step today was to sanction a number of officials who were responsible for enforced disappearances, but we also created something called the independent institution for missing persons, and that helps the families, in the non-political way, get information on what's happened. So I'd like to see some peace for the families of the missing people. I'd like to see the beginning of a political process, there hasn't been a meeting of the constitutional committee in two years, and I think that's because the regime has not been cooperating in political process steps. So we need to change that situation. And I would, of course, like it's important to see the continuation of the things that we were talking about, so keeping ISIS from reemerging and maintaining assistance as necessary in the humanitarian sphere. So all these things, some of them are ongoing, and some of them remain to be achieved. But the Syrian people deserve all aspects of our policy to be fulfilled and for them to be able to return to a normal life.