Southwest Asia

Afghan women politicians spoke directly about their experiences, from the real personal risks they took running for office to the difficulties of making policy in a society traditionally ruled by men.

“We women are challenged daily in our lives inside and outside the parliament,” said Shinkai Karokhail, a two-term MP. She cited the difficulty of assuring education for girls (female literacy in Afghanistan is under 20%) and women’s own lack of confidence in themselves as leaders after years of disenfranchisement.

Karokhail also pointed out that the pres­ence of Afghan women in Parlia­ment, as­sured in part thanks to a constitution­ally-mandated quota, should not be mis­tak­en for po­lit­ical power. Accord­ing to sev­eral partic­ipants, the prospect of rec­on­cil­iation with the Tal­iban – with the po­lit­ical compro­mises that might entail – could un­der­mine the fu­ture of Afghan women in Parlia­ment and society.

One of the strongest recommendations to emerge from the conference was the idea of creating a standing regional group to connect Afghan women with women from other Muslim countries.

“We’re a little more familiar with the culture and context of what the Afghan women are facing and we have similar backgrounds, so we’d be able to help them enact the kind of changes that we’ve had in our countries towards women’s empowerment,” said Donya Aziz, an MP from Pakistan.

The conference also explored how people in the West—in particular, women parliamentarians--can support women in Afghanistan. Recommendations ranged from helping women build their own capacities as conflict mediators to rebuilding necessary infrastructure.

Margareta Cederfelt, an MP from Sweden, said that she and her counterparts can offer knowledge and help rebuilding civil society, but that perhaps the most immediate help they can offer is an e-mail address. She explained, “It’s hard to be a politician without a network.”

Nasim Zehra, a television journalist from Pakistan, said that there was a consensus for raising the accountability of the Afghan government toward women. She added: “ From our Afghan colleagues, there was the general feeling that it’s about time that there are less words and more action.”

Click here to read New Europe's interviews with conference participants.

“In recent years, conflict prevention has gotten bogged down in long, expensive peacekeeping and development missions,” says Matthew King, head of the EastWest Institute’s Preventive Diplomacy Initiatives. “We need actions that are effective, immediate and responsive, using the resources that we have at our disposal right now.”

The conference, which continues today, aims to produce concrete recommendations, many focused on the United Nations. Participants broadly agreed that the U.N. needs to work more collaboratively with regional organizations and NGOs, some pointing out that effective cooperation already exists on the ground.

Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, As­sistant Sec­retary-General for Po­lit­ical Affairs in the United Nations, said that pre­ventive diplomacy in the U.N. needs flexible funding to respond rapidly to conflicts. Of his de­part­ment, he said, “We rely enor­mously on extra bud­getary spending. What we do need is pre­dictable, secure sources of funding.”

More funding for preventive action was a theme that resonated throughout the conference, with many participants pointing out that while preventive action costs a fraction of peacekeeping operations, it often lacks financial support.

Nick Mabey, advi­sor to for­mer British Prime Min­is­ter Tony Blair, proposed that to identi­fy partic­ularly unsta­ble regions and help show the val­ue of pre­ventive action, a mech­a­nism for cred­ible, independent risk as­sess­ment and mon­itor­ing should be estab­lished. “If well man­aged, such a process would pro­vide a crit­ical way of stim­u­lating me­dia and po­lit­ical inter­est and emerg­ing crises,” Mabey explained.

Some of the most positive points emerged from a discussion on regional organizations like ASEAN and the African Union, which reported on mechanisms they use to prevent violent conflict -- in particular, the A.U.’s right to intervene.

“The more we learn about what the oth­er regional orga­ni­zations are do­ing and how they have been successful, the more confident we can be to fol­low some of these estab­lished steps,” said Ambassador Ong Keng Yong, for­mer Sec­retary General, ASEAN; Di­rector of Pol­icy Stud­ies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Pol­icy at the National Uni­versity of Singapore.

Partic­ipants explored how the United States and the Eu­ropean Union can better work togeth­er to pre­vent conflicts. Ambassador Guenter Overfeld, Vice Pres­ident of Regional Secu­rity and Conflict Pre­vention, EWI, says working togeth­er on pre­ventive action can be a val­uable way to reinvig­orate the trans-Atlantic relation­ship. “The U.S. and Eu­rope need more co­op­eration on the strate­gic lev­el on this agenda,” he added.

While the day saw a great deal of consensus, a discus­sion on the role of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – in conflict pre­vention generated more debate. Some partic­ipants doubted that BRIC can op­erate as a po­lit­ical unit, giv­en exis­t­ing differ­ences. Still oth­ers pointed out that BRIC countries already show support for pre­ventive action and perhaps their full role is just be­ginning.

Today’s conference could be the beginning of a permanent review process for conflict prevention.

Dr. Franziska Katharina Brantner, MEP, who co-hosted the conference, said, “A lot of speakers have been mentioning a platform that galvanizes more political action. It would be great to institutionalize an annual gathering and, of course, it would be great if it could happen at the European Parliament.”

The conference continues today with a special focus on women’s role in stabilizing Afghanistan and regional approaches to preventive action.

A full report of the conference and its recommendations will follow.

Click here to view New Europe's special supplement on the Global Conference.

Participants agreed that success in both areas is of critical importance to all three parties and the international community as a whole. But participants also pointed to lingering distrust among their countries and differences in perceptions and expectations. They stressed  the need for these three parties to seek greater clarity and transparency in order to build up the mutual strategic trust necessary for collaborative success.

These discussions were part of a two-day meeting on November 1-2, 2010, co-hosted by the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) and EWI.  Nearly 40 experts attended, including representatives from the Chinese and U.S. governments, the Policy Planning Unit in the NATO General Secretary’s office, think tanks, universities, and the private sector.

Specific recommendations in the areas of Afghanistan security and climate change talks are summarized below.

Coordinating approaches in Afghanistan and the regional impact of the security situation

Discussion on Afghanistan focused on the basis of mistrust among the three parties and the variations in perceived intentions and expectations for action. Participants generally agreed that collaboration in Afghanistan between the United States and Europe was extensive through NATO. But expectations differed as to the extent of cooperation and contributions by China in rebuilding Afghanistan, and China also expressed concern that the planned military withdrawal by NATO in the next few years would destabilize the country and region.

Policy recommendations:

• China, the United States, and Europe should look for more opportunities to collaborate in providing technical assistance for agriculture, irrigation, education, health, energy, and water resources. Specifically, China should increase its agricultural development assistance to Afghanistan. This would help  develop an labor-intensive agriculture system that would create much needed employment for Afghanistan’s rapidly increasing population. It would also  provide technical assistance to  Afghanistan’s nut crops and juice concentrates, bringing them up to world standards and to introducing them into world markets.
• More in-depth conversations among the United States, NATO, and China should be held in order to clarify misunderstandings, particularly regarding the withdrawal intentions of the U.S. and NATO, and the extent of China’s collaboration with U.S. and NATO efforts.  So as to avoid any misunderstanding or misperceptions,  the United States should actively consult with and brief the countries bordering Afghanistan (China, India, Iran, and Pakistan) before and after publicly releasing reviews on the situation in Afghanistan.
• China, the United States, and Europe should bring together senior level Track 1.5 figures to discuss detailed, action-oriented outcomes pertaining to one specific challenge in Afghanistan.
• The United States should work to improve its public image in China and Pakistan in order to minimize possible barriers to government collaboration and contributions.

Bridging the trust deficit in multilateral climate change talks

In advance of the early December 2010 United Nations climate change negotiations to take place in Cancún, Mexico,  Trialogue21 meeting participants discussed ways to build trust among countries at different stages of development and with different perceptions regarding responsibility in addressing climate change. Discussion focused on issues that caused substantive disagreement during climate talks in Copenhagen and Tianjin, in January and October 2010 respectively. These discussion areas included establishment of a system for the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of emissions commitments; the transfer of clean energy technology; intellectual property rights; and climate financing.

Policy recommendations:

• The Cancún climate talks regarding the establishment of an MRV system should separate measuring and reporting from verification, and work to establish a system for measuring and reporting first.
• The climate talks in Cancún should establish an MRV system that provides incentives, including financial assistance and capacity-building, for developing countries who agree to participate in an MRV system. Developed countries should emphasize that the purpose of the MRV system would be to identify gaps in order to better provide assistance, rather than to point out problems that developing countries would be expected to fix on their own.
• Language and definitions established in the Bali Action Plan regarding MRV should be clarified and agreed upon by technical experts, and should be presented to policymakers in clear, comprehensible language.
• The international community could establish a patent pool for new carbon capture and storage technology to encourage technology transfer, like the patent created in the early stages of civil aviation development.
• To offset the media’s negative representation of negotiations, which results in poor public opinion, developed and developing countries should present the positive steps being taken to combat climate change publicly and collaboratively. For example, the United States and Europe could send fact-finding missions to China to learn from its domestic MRV system. Additionally, countries could initiate joint research, television shows, radio programs, and editorials to demonstrate cooperation in addressing climate change.
• Countries should work together to create a compendium of clean energy technology hampered by  significant barriers to technology transfer, in order to understand why the barriers exist and develop solutions.

The Fifth Trialogue21 meeting built on past meetings on regional security and clean and renewable energy, as well as events convened by EWI and CIIS this year, such as the Fourth U.S.-China High Level Security Dialogue.

The consultation brought together leading experts and diplomats to discuss how best to implement Action Point Five of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference Final Document. Panelists and participants identified opportunities for cooperative action to promote “international stability, peace, and undiminished and increased security” and facilitate further progress towards disarmament. 

The consultation was the second in a series focused on implementing the action plan of the Final Document. On 9 September 2010, the EastWest Institute and Mission of Kazakhstan convened a high-level consultation to prioritize this ambitious action plan.  During that consultation, implementing Action Point Five emerged as the highest priority.

The October 22 session was chaired by Mr. Sergio Duarte, the United Nations High Representative for Disarmament. The panel of experts included:

• Her Excellency Byrganym Aitimova, Ambassador E. and P. and Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan to the United Nations
• His Excellency Jim McLay, Ambassador E. and P. and Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of New Zealand to the United Nations (speech)
• Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr., Former Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament; Executive Chairman, Board of Directors, Lightbridge Corporation (speech)
• Ambassador Christian Strohal, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations in Geneva (speech)

The panel addressed the following questions:

• What are the next steps to further reduce the global stockpile of nuclear weapons? How can ongoing disarmament efforts be designed to ensure, rather than undermine, strategic stability at lower nuclear numbers?
• How can nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states work together to decrease the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines while balancing national security interests?
• What role can non-nuclear weapon states play in building transparency and promoting confidence-building measures in ongoing disarmament discussions?

All panelists agreed that the successfully concluded 2010 NPT Review Conference, and the unanimous adoption of the Final Document, created unprecedented opportunities to accelerate progress on nuclear disarmament. The panelists also broadly concurred that future progress on disarmament depends upon operationalizing the outcomes of the Final Document in the near future. 

Recommendations from the session include:

• Decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapon systems is a necessary step to facilitate future disarmament efforts. It would not only reduce the likelihood of an unauthorized or accidental launch, but also build confidence between nuclear weapon states and facilitate a reduced reliance on nuclear weapons in state and international security doctrines.
• Greater transparency must be achieved in future disarmament efforts and will help operationalize action point five. Nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states can work together to standardize reporting structures, and thus build the much needed confidence for significant reductions in nuclear arsenals. 
• Reducing numbers in an agreed and verifiable way is possible, but to achieve future progress on disarmament the United States must make progress now.  The U.S. Senate must ratify New START, and the U.S. and Russia must successfully negotiate a follow-on agreement that addresses tactical and conventional weapons.  After this process, and when the U.S. and Russian arsenals are decreased to a threshold where multilateral discussions can begin, negotiations can start that involve all nuclear weapon states.
• Recent successes in the international agenda towards disarmament and nonproliferation have created the momentum necessary to delegitimize nuclear weapons and decrease their role in state and internationals security doctrines. Nuclear weapons have no inherent military role; rather, it is their political saliency that is important.  The political saliency of nuclear weapons must be reevaluated and both non-nuclear weapon states and civil society have an important role to play in delegitimizing nuclear weapons.
• All non-nuclear weapon states should sign the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including the additional protocols. This requires full transparency of all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. A multilateral framework to monitor the fuel cycle would help ensure the comprehensive implementation of Article IV of the NPT Treaty.
• Maintaining strategic stability in a post-nuclear weapons-free world must be addressed as disarmament progress is made. How will strategic stability be maintained as significant reductions are made, nuclear weapons are delegitimized, and new security threats emerge? Discussions on disarmament, nonproliferation, and maintaining strategic stability should be held in tandem.

In May 2010 the signatories of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty unanimously adopted the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. The document outlines a 64-point action plan on nuclear disarmament that includes concrete steps towards a nuclear weapons-free world.

The Turkish Weekly wrote an article on EWI's roundtable discussion: "Middle East Regional Security Challenges and Opportunities: Dangers and Vision for 2020." The roundtable was moderated by Mehmet Yegin (Center for American Studies-USAK) and Bahadir Dincer (Center for Middle Eastern Studies-USAK). The discussion included EWI President and CEO John Edwin Mroz, EWI Co-Chairmen Francis Finlay and Ross Perot Jr, former Chief of the U.S. Air Force General Michael Moseley, Ambassador Richard Viets of Kissinger Associates and EWI senior fellow Allen Collinsworth.

As readers of this newspaper will know, the OSCE spans three continents, brings together about 15 per cent of humanity, has 56 members, and has four out of five permanent seats in the UNSC. There is another regional organization that also spans three continents, represents the aspirations of a bigger slice of humanity (about 25 per cent), and has 57 countries as members, but none with a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

The group in question is the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), the world’s only “regional organization” based around a religious attribution. Apart from its 57 members (Muslim majority states), there are a number of states or entities as observers: Bosnia and Hercegovina, Thailand, Russia, the Central African Republic and the Turkish Cypriot government.

The OIC has its own Development Bank, its Islamic UNESCO (ISESCO), the Islamic International Court, the International Islamic News Agency, and a host of subsidiary and affiliated organizations. It does not of course represent in a direct political sense all Muslims, but it does purport to speak on behalf of the “umma” (the community of Muslim believers worldwide).

Osama bin Laden wrote often of the Umma, expressing on occasion the hope that it would rise again to a prominent place in world political affairs, and be recognized again for high achievement in the arts and sciences. I mention that not to credit the source in any way, but to demonstrate that the sentiment about an organized Islamic resurgence is seen as a good mobilizing tool. That aspiration is shared by many leaders in the Islamic world, and it is captured in the Charter of the OIC: “to work for revitalizing Islam’s pioneering role in the world”. This vision, one I share, is the departure point of this analysis.

There are other high ambitions expressed in the OIC charter, including the more familiar idea of a “common market”, albeit an “Islamic Common Market”. Turkey, also an aspirant for EU membership, is actively promoting both parts of this OIC agenda: scientific and technological advance and regional economic integration.

The OIC revised its original 1972 Charter only in 2008. At the time, Indonesia’s President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, declared that as a result of the new charter "the possibility of an Islamic Renaissance lies before us".

The OIC is a leading force in the fight globally against violent extremism.  In 2008, the conference declaration noted: “We continue to strongly condemn all forms of extremism and dogmatism which are incompatible with Islam”. The OIC is also leading a global campaign against rising Islamophobia around the world, a phenomenon documented by independent sources.

To many observers, the OIC is an imperfect organization, to be faulted for its internal divisions, for its hostile attitude to Israel, for what some see as its ingrained anti-semitism, and for its extreme political diversity (from monarchies, dictatorships, and radical regimes to democracies of varying stripe).

That view does not capture the essential dynamism and progressive character of the evolutionary path on which the OIC has been set for number of years. Nor does it speak to the sense of injustice over Palestine that for its part, it carries into many political forums.

A full assessment of the trajectory of this interesting organization would be very useful. One thing is clear. The OIC wants a new partnership with the West, and some countries are beginning to respond to that. The path to regional and wider international power and authority may be long and rocky, but the OIC and its member states have a vision for regional and global economic and scientific development that is definitely beginning to change the world for the better. Let’s work with them.

At last! A new, and unlikely contender steps onto the field of play to take on the reigning champions of Europe. In an unlikely move last month, British Prime Minister David Cameron scored a dazzling goal against the Sarkozy-Merkel camp on the issue of Turkey’s membership of the European Union.

Cameron said on 27 July: “I’m here [in Ankara] to make the case for Turkey’s membership in the EU. And to fight for it.” He was joined by Lech Walesa on 19 August. “There is no Europe without Turkey”, the feisty giant-killer of Gdansk told a journalist.

Nobel Peace Prize winner from 2008, Martti Ahtisaari, leads an international commission that has twice reviewed the relationship between Turkey and the EU. The first report in 2004 confirmed the EU’s legal obligation to proceed with Turkish accession. The second noted the “vicious cycle” of negative public debate and stalling and reaffirmed the importance of seeing a “transformed Turkey” as a member of the European Union.

Citing the Association Agreement between the EEC and Turkey in 1963, a Customs Union agreement in 1996, and an EU decision in December 2004 that Turkey could join subject to completion of accession instruments, the Ahtisaari Commission went on to note that Turkey is already “broadly integrated into almost all pan-European Institutions”: the Council of Europe, including the European Court of Human Rights, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

According to a 2005 report by the Foreign Policy Centre (London), titled “Turks in Europe: Why Are We Afraid”, the position of Germany’s Angela Merkel reflects the failure of German policies of integration of its Turkish immigrants. More recently, domestic politics in France have led President Sarkozy to make disquieting statements about immigrant communities in his country. His statements have been accompanied by clear indications of state-sanctioned hostility to, or discrimination against certain classes of immigrants (Muslim women wearing burqas) and would-be immigrants (Roma).

I wonder about David Cameron’s motives in joining the debate so vociferously and, as he said, “very passionately”. But this is a fight that I hope he and his new partner, Walesa, can win.

Chancellor Merkel has advocated that Turkey should scale back its expectations and settle for a “privileged partnership”. She is not supported on this by her coalition partner, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who in visiting Ankara on 28 July, left open the door for continuing negotiations. The Independent Commission labeled advocacy of “privileged partnership” as a “populist excuse”.  There are far higher political stakes in the question of Turkey’s relations with Germany and France, and how these two countries view Turkey’s inclusion in the EU. The prospect that the EU would abandon its legally binding commitment to Turkey because of domestic political positions inspired by xenophobic or anti-immigrant sentiment at home could be, in the words of a Turkish German politician, a “fatal political signal”.

As Turkey becomes more active on the global political stage, it is becoming a lightning rod for the worst nightmares of conservative American analysts, with one from the American Enterprise Institute recently charging at Congressional hearings that Turkey’s foreign policy in the Middle East “favors the most radical elements”. Thankfully, more considered views are in evidence from the German Marshall Fund’s Ian lesser at the same hearings: “if Turkey’s candidacy proves hollow, this could well interrupt or reverse Turkey’s longstanding convergence with the West, further complicating an already strained relationship with the United States.”  But please note, the fight for Turkey in Europe is a fight for dignity and equality as much as it is a fight for realpolitik. If immigrant bashers win, that could become a fatal political signal for the internal security of the “immigration continent”.

The appeal calls for Afghan Government support of women representatives, peace building and conflict resolution.

Click here to read the Open Letter to the participants of the Kabul Conference.

PN: You’re one of only 9 female parliamentarians in the Federal National Council of the UAE, in the country where women have only recently gained access to political life. How difficult was it to establish yourself as a parliamentarian?

NA: I would not say difficult, I would say challenging, and I have always enjoyed challenges.  It might be hard at the beginning, but I’ve grown immensely with each challenge. My time in the Parliament has been an invaluable learning experience; it has given me great insight into the core strategic issues facing our society, as well as a deep understanding of the institutional challenges that we need to work on.

PN: You are the youngest MP, how does this influence your work in the Parliament and the way you are regarded by your older colleagues?

NA: Of course people first assume that I have less experience and ability to work in the Parliament because of my age. But I would like to add, with certain humility, that at this stage I’ve gained the respect of my older colleagues based on the quality of my work in Parliament. I believe in continuous learning and hard work, and these are the principles I have applied during my term in the Parliament. I don’t think much about my young age, I think about how I can be useful for my society.

PN: You’ve stated once, in an interview, that you can serve your country better working as a parliamentarian rather than in the media industry. Now, after three years in the Parliament, do you still hold this opinion?

NA: I sincerely believe that the role of the media and the Parliament are complimentary and fully interconnected. Both should be focused on public service. Mass media can inform and enlighten citizens so that theyeffectively take part in the political life. As a MP I’ve been working on reviewing and improving draft legislation and engaging the government in the dialogue about the core issues facing society and the solutions and policies that need to be addressed and put forward. The areas I am most passionate about, and have been focused on throughout my term, are education, youth and media.

PN: You have an extensive experience in the media industry. How does it help you in your political career?

NA: My experience in the media has given me a lot of insight into how the mass media can influence people’s mindset and their actions. To build a civil society and increase political participation of all our citizens we need to enlighten and inform people by giving them access to unbiased modern mass media. I’ve tried to focus on it during my term in the Parliament, making sure that the MPs contribute to creation of a progressive mass media market in the UAE.  Working in the media has certainly enabled me to understand how it all works, so I am able to put things into perspective.

PN: Female MPs from Afghanistan and Pakistan find it very difficult to make their positions heard and respected. Do you experience the same problem in the UAE? Do female MPs have the same leverage as their male colleagues?

NA: I do believe that women in the UAE have more political leverage than women in Pakistan and Afghanistan, at this stage. Women in the UAE have been privileged to have clear support of the government in their bid to make their voices heard. However, I don’t mean that women in the UAE are on equal footing with men; we still live in a patriarchal society, where men are regarded as inherent and natural leaders, and the role of women is interpreted through that lens. Things are moving on, however, but we have a long way to go before we’ll be able to say that women have reached the stage where they have equal opportunities with men.

PN: You are strongly committed to promoting human rights and especially women’s rights in the Arab countries. Do you maintain any ties with the MPs from other Muslim countries?

NA: Undoubtedly, there must be solidarity between Arab women, whether they are MPs or civil society activists or just women who want to help and make a difference. The cooperation between Arab female MPs should be given a boost. Meetings are constantly held between Arab female parliamentarians to exchange knowledge and law-making experience. But we certainly need to institutionalize these encounters so as to be able to work as a solid movement and try to abolish the inequalities that women face in the whole Arab world.

PN: More and more female MPs want to increase their impact in peace and security issues, as well. How high is conflict prevention on the political agenda in the UAE?

NA: The issue of conflict prevention is extremely high on the political agenda in the UAE. The UAE has always believed in playing a pro-active role in addressing conflicts regionally and globally through diplomacy, dialogue, and support for progressive development agendas of the neighboring countries that need assistance. The UAE is situated in a highly volatile Middle East region, facing many complex challenges, and we live in an interconnected world, so conflict prevention is the key to the strategic interests of our country.  The UAE’s strategy is to be an active player in the global community, using pro-active diplomacy and dialogue.