Abbas Abdi
The purpose of dialogue in any context is to reach conclusions relevant to that context. Whilst scientific dialogue is focused on reaching the truth, cultural dialogues are aimed at reaching a common understanding. In addition, where economic dialogue aims to improve the equilibrium of the market, political dialogue also focuses on reducing violence and the suffering of people, reducing tensions and finding ways for less costly engagements. Of course, all types of dialogues, as the case may be, have some preconditions that are not the subject of this article. The most serious type of dialogue is direct and face-to-face confrontation, such as with Iran and the United States who are sending messages on a daily basis, but it can also be conducted in the form of correspondence.
Political dialogue is perhaps the most important type of dialogue because, in many cases, whilst people will be sat facing each other they may be in a hostile environment. The Paris Peace Talks surrounding the Vietnam War is a good example of such negotiations as they were held at the tense time of the escalation of the war and military attacks took place between the parties.
Political dialogue also does not mean endorsement of the other side’s views but rather an attempt to reduce suffering and achieve peace or less violence. It does not involve boasting about each other’s past but about how to prevent past events from happening again in the future. Identifying the de facto position of the other party is a necessary part of political dialogue but it does not mean confirming the thoughts and ideas of the other party. The aim is more about clarifying the existing facts to prevent further complications in the future. If the talks are successful, this identification can become official and permanent.
The significance of Nelson Mandela’s attempts in entering into dialogue and peace talks was with the racist apartheid regime, which had committed the worst kind of crimes. In fact, Mandela’s approach to dialogue complemented his battle approach which, if it had not, his battle would have ended up like that of Mugabe’s battle in Zimbabwe.
In this regard, one of the most outstanding negotiations undertaken during the last decade was with the FARC rebels in Colombia. Originally formed with the goals of the revolutionaries from the 1960s, the FARC rebels eventually got involved in organized crime and drug trafficking. Over the past fifty years, more than 200,000 citizens were killed in the Colombian civil war. However, about five years ago, the FARC rebels finally merged into the Colombian political structure as a result of successful negotiations.
In this specific case, for example, it would have been easy to state that, since the FARC rebels were criminals, they should have not been allowed to negotiate but, on the other hand, the FARC rebels could have found the Colombian government guilty of criminal offences. Therefore, both sides had ample evidence to substantiate their claims. They were fighting for fifty years which caused enormous economic damage, poverty and misery. Will they really have to fight for another 50 years? That was a very good question to be answered.
Political dialogue has been an underestimated concept in the Iranian political environment and the term is stuck in the fabric of past radicalism and is still viewed from the same angle in society generally. We are now facing a phenomenon in Afghanistan, being the Taliban, for which its petrification and anti-human actions are, undoubtedly, condemned. However, in recalling a fact is that twenty years ago, when the United States and its entire allied army invaded Afghanistan, everyone assumed the Taliban would be eradicated. The irony occurred last year in Qatar when the US Secretary, Mike Pompeo, and the Taliban negotiated from equal positions. As such, what was destroyed in Afghanistan was Al-Qaeda, not the Taliban. The Taliban survived because whilst a country can be occupied, its culture and social structure cannot easily be changed, although the reactionary Taliban is influential because it has a social background.
War and underdevelopment strengthen reactionary forces but their approaches will also change as a consequence of the social and economic development of their country of origin.
In these circumstances, two political approaches are available: to continue the status quo or to start a dialogue for an inclusive presence. The US will, sooner or later, reduce its presence in Afghanistan and the Afghan government will, it seems clear, not be able to survive without the US’s cooperation. On the other hand, other countries will also not allow the Taliban to take full control in Afghanistan but such a dilemma will increase the possibility of starting a new war in the region. As UN reports indicate, the killing of civilians, Shiites and other ethnic and religious groups has increased on a much larger scale in recent years. These are all devastating and paint a bleak future for Afghanistan.
Furthermore, without a peaceful and developing Afghanistan, Iran will also face serious problems. Therefore, as was seen in 2001, neither the continuation of the status quo nor the war is the solution to Afghanistan’s dilemma. In such circumstances, the principle of political dialogue must be confirmed, provided that it is aimed at reducing the violence against, and the suffering of, the Afghan people and moving towards peace and tranquillity.
None of these means, however, acknowledge the ugly thoughts and actions of the Taliban. If that were the case, there would be no dialogue and they would continue their endless war. Of course, a part of the criticism of negotiating with the Taliban in Iranian society addresses the necessity of developing the possibility of dialogue and negotiation inside the Iranian political sphere, starting to negotiate with other controversial countries. While such a criticism is valid, the solution is in approving the possibility of commencing negotiations with any controversial side. The principle of dialogue with any other country and power or with any domestic political group should not be rejected.
What is said here is to neither confirm nor reject the approach of negotiating with the Taliban because for a valid analysis the details of the talks must also be clarified. However, it is worth remembering that the aim of politics is not to issue verdicts against individuals and punish those who have committed crimes in the past but rather defend any kind of dialogue, unconditionally at any level, provided that it reduces violence and suffering and moves towards understanding, peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately, some officials are alien to this concept, as are their critics.
The Taliban survived because whilst a country can be occupied, its culture and social structure cannot easily be changed, although the reactionary Taliban is influential because it has a social background