Politics and Governance

Click here for full event report.

Click here to view online broadcasting of the conference sessions.

The ABA Rule of Law Initiative honors those who have led efforts to advance the rule of law, to increase access to justice, to establish independent legal and judicial systems, to protect human rights and to strengthen civil society.

"One did not expect much from Hamid Karzai’s visit to Pakistan to try and rebuild our frayed ties and revive the peace process with the Taliban," says Sehgal. "Karzai stayed true to character, all honey and sugar in Islamabad and then reverting to bad-mouthing Pakistan once he was back in Kabul," he continues.

Ultimately, Sehgal argues Karzai’s contradictory rhetoric is politically motivated, serving to project power and legitimacy domestically, even at the expense of alienating his Pakistani audience. 

To read full published article, click here.

To read the full article in Kommersant, click here. 

Photo: "Sunny city" (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by Alexander Kozlov

Izzo credits EWI's track record of fostering dialogue on intractable issues as an example of the benefits of encouraging direct conversation. “Democracy and society will be better when people have to talk to each other and reach conclusions, which is what 30 years of brokering conversations have taught us at EastWest,” he writes. “When people talk and listen, solutions emerge larger than anyone thought possible."

Click here to read the full blog post.

The Parliamentarians Network has developed into a unique actor of change in the international conflict prevention architecture. It has been policy relevant, as it engages decision makers, it has networked across institutions and continents, it has shared knowledge and experience, and it has led an action oriented dialogue on issues that have a bearing on stability and peace, locally, regionally, nationally and globally.

Conflict situations are usually characterized by stalemate at the strategic level, lack of political will for genuine dialogue at national and local levels, lack of societal desire for reconciliation, and all sides at all levels seek to attach political conditions to urgent humanitarian and development needs and activities. The onus is on the international community to take the initiative to make progress both on the ground and at the strategic level.

This shows: preventive diplomacy is a frustrating business to be in. But the Parliamentarians engaged in it are not wasting their time. Preventive diplomacy remains a moral imperative, an economic necessity, a humanitarian must, and a political obligation. The Parliamentarians Network drives this home to governments through its very existence on a daily basis.

In China, there is a story about a doctor, who always cured his patients shortly before they died. For this reason he was famous in the whole valley. There was another doctor, whose patients never fell ill in the first instance. This doctor was unknown. Which doctor do you think was the better one?

Conflicts are essential in order to foster societal change.The yardstick is whether societies manage their conflicts peacefully. Therefore, conflict prevention is not exclusively about preventing violence, it is also about channelling conflicts into peaceful procedures. So conflict prevention is a process rather than a policy.

There is no opposition to preventive diplomacy. In fact, there is a broad consensus about its importance. But experience has shown that rhetorical support for it does not always lead to appropriate action. And where the international community gets engaged, it focuses too much on crisis management and too little on preventive diplomacy; one of the reasons being that crisis management is visible, preventive diplomacy is not: it is quiet diplomacy, it cannot be conducted through the media.

There are two flaws in conflict prevention that the Parliamentarians Network has been trying to overcome: the lack of a prevention lobby in our societies and a lack of a top-down approach in governmental agencies. Remedying these deficits is part of the difficult domestic and international political will-building strategy the Network has been engaged in.

During the next years, tensions and conflicts over access to water and energy continue to endanger stability and security in many parts of the world. Also, the last undivided spaces of the earth: i.e. the cosmos, the oceans, and the cyber space, are likely to cause problems in the future. States with a global vision tend to spread out into these areas, as binding international agreements are lacking in order to regulate the competition here. Furthermore, religious rights of minorities are violated in many regions, especially in Northern Africa and the Middle East. This problem needs special attention, locally and internationally.

The Network should tackle all these challenges through institutionalised dialogue between all stakeholders and with a view to create win-win-situations for all.

Today, we find ourselves in a unique situation in that all decisive forces in world politics, including Russia, China, India and the Muslim world, share, objectively, common basic interests. This is a chance to work for the creation of a cooperative international order by reaching out to decision makers to sensitize them that conflict prevention needs to become part of their decision making. State borders and state power are no longer decisive reference points. Transnational problems require transnational solutions.

In the years to come, the Parliamentarians Network should lead the way in this direction, conscious of what Albert Einstein once said: “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”

Click here to read the editorial on the Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention website. 

In 2014, power will be transferred to a new president in Afghanistan. The army of the United States of America will complete its withdrawal and the Afghan National Security Forces will assume responsibility for the country’s security. All these transitions seem precarious.

The new president will have to be a coalescing figure, a Pashtun with cross ethnic support, capable of providing leadership in exceedingly difficult domestic circumstances, and able to work smoothly with external partners—altogether a tall order.

The follow-up to the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement—the bilateral security agreement defining the status of residual U.S. forces in Afghanistan—is facing hurdles. If the U.S. fails to secure a suitable agreement as in Iraq, it is threatening a “zero option,” which actually demonstrates how thin its options are.

The ANSF may have the numbers and may be performing well but that does not guarantee that it can control the post-U.S. withdrawal situation as a cohesive unit, especially if the U.S. departs under the shadow of a political discord with the Afghan government. The ANSF lacks heavy weaponry, air power and sophisticated intelligence capability.

The economic prospects are uncertain despite external pledges of aid. A potential zero military option would not be compatible with generous long-term economic support. Big investment plans in Afghanistan by regional countries will not only depend on internal stability but also long lead times would preclude any significant immediate impact.

General instability around Afghanistan vitiates prospects too. Pakistan’s internal situation remains fraught despite recent elections. Iran has a new president but the nuclear dossier and attendant sanctions create instability. The Arab world is in turmoil, with the so-called Arab Spring having withered very rapidly. Religious extremism is spreading, and it bolsters the forces at play in Afghanistan.

India is acting responsibly in Afghanistan, supporting the emergence of a sovereign, stable, democratic and prosperous nation where extremist forces are contained and human rights, especially those of women, are respected. India is not interfering in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, arming any particular group, or providing safe havens for terrorists to carry out violent activities against the government.

We have legitimate interests in Afghanistan and every right to be present there. The international community must reject any curtailment of Afghan sovereignty by requiring the Afghan government to give precedence to the interests of any one country over another. It is for the Afghan government to take independent decisions in a responsible manner.

India has established a strategic relationship with Afghanistan that is anchored in a long-term bilateral and regional geo-political perspective. Afghanistan and Central Asia are landlocked, and this poses particularly difficult development challenges. The entire region needs the broadest possible choices for economic partnerships. As southern Asia‘s biggest economy, we can substantially contribute to regional development. Afghanistan has huge mineral resources that await exploitation. India is ready to make large investments in this sector, beginning with iron-ore extraction. This requires easier Indian access to Afghanistan, which Pakistan is as yet unwilling to provide.

India is investing in the Chabahar port in Iran for access to Afghanistan as well as in Central Asia. Sanctions by the U.S. and the European Union on Iran hinder such projects to give Afghanistan alternative options for trade routes and encourage foreign investment there. Indian investments in Iran, directed specifically at stimulating the Afghan economy, which are at present dependent on foreign assistance and income derived from foreign military presence on its soil, should not be opposed by the U.S. government. India took the initiative to organize a Delhi Investment Summit on Afghanistan in June 2012. India’s bilateral aid to Afghanistan has reached $2 billion. Some external critics see this as an effort to seek undue influence in Afghanistan. If we consider India’s overall foreign assistance program and the billions Indian companies are investing abroad, this is not too large a sum.

The U.S., Britain and other nations are reaching out to the Taliban in a troubling way. The red lines drawn up by the international community for a dialogue with the Taliban are being blurred by Nato’s anxiety to withdraw by 2014, whatever the ground situation. This strengthens the negotiating hands of the Taliban groups in Pakistan as they know time favors them.

The rhetoric remains that the reconciliation process should be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned, but direct U.S. overtures to the Taliban discount this. Latest statements from the close circle of President Hamid Karzai express deep concern about potential U.S. understandings with Pakistan on Afghanistan and the possibility of south and eastern Afghanistan being handed over to the Taliban, leading to the country’s division and an all-out conflict.

The end-game in Afghanistan is being played out in an atmosphere of suspicion and bickering amongst the principal players. The manner of the opening of the Taliban’s Doha office has worsened matters. In declaring themselves the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban made their own end-game clear. The argument that the Taliban’s various currents, including ‘moderate’ ones eligible for accommodation, needs to be questioned after what has transpired in Egypt where the same arguments of distinguishing among the various strands in the Muslim Brotherhood and welcoming its assumption of power (an interim government is running the country now) have been proved wrong.

India does not want conditions of ethnic conflict to be created again in Afghanistan. The root of the problem is external support for Afghan extremists for attaining Pakistan’s military ambitions. So long as safe havens for extremists exist outside Afghanistan, the country will remain under the shadow of violence. It is a hugely perverse notion that the real problem in Afghanistan is the rivalry between India and Pakistan. Those failing in Afghanistan should not point the finger at India. India is not responsible for the rise of religious extremism in the region or the civil war in Afghanistan after the Soviet departure. It did not put the Taliban in power in Kabul or have a hand in sheltering Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. It bears no responsibility for the U.S./Nato military intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban/Haqqani groups are not killing Nato soldiers at India’s behest. India is not the cause of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan.

We are not seeking an exclusive relationship with Afghanistan and accept that it should have friendly relations with all its neighbors. India and China are now conversing on Afghanistan. India can discuss Afghanistan with Pakistan constructively, including the question of transit facilities. The new government in Pakistan should think along such lines, rather than allowing the nation’s policies to be guided by the ambitions of its armed forces. We have been constructive in our dealings with the U.S. on Afghanistan and mindful of its interests there, despite serious provocations from Pakistan, including the terrorist attack against our embassy in Kabul. The U.S. should not penalize India’s interests while according Pakistan an enhanced role in Afghanistan.

Apropos the dialogue with the Taliban, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan, James Dobbins, said that while the U.S. did not know how this dialogue would develop and whether it would lead to peace, it was worth trying. India would hardly find re-assuring such an uncertain strategy of talking to a retrograde force supported by a State whose truck with terrorism is well known and whose military is bent on advancing its disruptive strategic ambitions in the region. The attack on the consulate in Jalalabad validates our concerns.

Click here to read the article in The Telegraph. 

Rauscher, along with McAfee’s Chief Technology Officer and Global Public Sector Vice President Phyllis Schneck and the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Director and Senior Fellow James Lewis, gave official statements and fielded questions from the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. They discussed a broad array of cybersecurity challenges, U.S.-Chinese bilateral relations in cyberspace and the prospects for regional and global cooperation.

“Malicious actors are taking advantage of a lack of cooperation in cyberspace,” Rauscher warned. “We just don’t have the tight coordination that we need.” He pointed out that EWI has already started promoting both better coordination and cooperation. Holding up the EWI reports on Fighting Spam to Build Trust and Priority International Communications, Rauscher focused on the need to take proactive measures, including implementing a new means of effective international communication in times of crisis.

In his full testimony, Rauscher drove home this point by using a metaphor to explain the state of cyberspace when an emergency situation arises. “We have too many people practiced in bailing water out of the boat and not enough capable of plugging holes,” he said. “But when there is water in the boat, and you are getting wet, it is hard to focus on long-term solutions. We need leadership to shift the focus.”

Rauscher also pointed out that, to a large extent, the major players in Asia complement each other’s strengths. “The United States is the leading innovator in cyberspace while China is the largest manufacturer of hardware systems, and India is a leading supplier of both software and networked services,” he noted. “Our mutual interdependence in cyberspace is profound.”

Rauscher stressed optimism in improving bilateral relations with China, “The benchmark [for success], really, is zero percent. These are really hard issues. If you look at what we’ve taken on, people aren’t trying to address them because they think they’re impossible.” With other countries, too, he argued, much more can be done to move beyond purely reactive measures.

Committee Chair Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) reiterated this point. “The U.S. must engage its allies around the world to promote the preservation of global network functionality, in addition to establishing confidence building measures that foster trust and reliability with nations,” he said. “Establishing some sort of norms, or principals, to guide actions in cyberspace that the Chinese can agree to will be incredibly difficult.” Chabot and the rest of the committee focused much of their attention on U.S.-China cyber relations.

Some Congressmen raised the issue of China’s domestic cyber policy, and its effect on U.S. cybersecurity. “We’re in the phase now where we need to persuade the Chinese to change their behavior,” Lewis responded. “We cannot coerce them, they’re too big a country, the only way you could coerce them is if you go to war, and that is in no one’s interest.”

The hearing covered more than just U.S.-China relations. It included the need for international cooperation in both the private and public sectors and the prospects for new multinational treaties, U.N. regimes and high-level international dialogue on sensitive issues.

In the discussion, Schneck said, “We [at McAfee] believe in global conversation. We need more conversation, and commend some of the recent efforts, like those in the UN. These forums, like [EWI’s annual cybersecurity summit] mentioned by Mr. Rauscher and others, are good starts to that global forum.”

Rauscher stressed that governments alone cannot deal with these problems. “Given its more intimate knowledge of technology design and development, this leadership will likely need to come from the private sector,” he concluded.

Click here to view video coverage of the testimony, on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs' website. 

To read Karl Rauscher's statement in full, please click here.