Hameed Hakimi
Welcome to Chatham House. My name is Hameed Hakimi. I’m an Associate Fellow here. We’re delighted to have a wonderful panel. Joining are two of our panellists from Kabul today, to whom we are very grateful for your time, especially ‘cause it’s a slightly later hour in the evening. We’re gathered here to discuss Afghanistan. Afghanistan, as we all know, is in the midst of one of its historical crossroads, as the country has been over the decades and especially for the last century or so.
But the discussion today is really inspired by this consideration that we have in Chatham House about, you know, what are – what is the trajectory of events in the country, but also the direction of the country going forward? There seems to be an impasse between the international community and the Taliban and things seem to be shaping up as a status quo. On top of that, while that is happening, the situation for ordinary Afghans seems unchanged. It’s getting more difficult to access data and research for independent Researchers, so it’s very, very good and we’re very delighted to have people from Kabul joining us to enlighten us about the conditions on the ground.
But also, amidst all of this, there is a growing humanitarian need and a need for considering engagement with the Taliban. Now, the irony is that in both engagement and disengagement with the Taliban, there is an ethical dilemma and so, hopefully, at the end of this conversation, we will have unpacked some of those questions. I hope you walk away more informed.
I also would like to welcome and acknowledge all our participants online. This event is being livestreamed, so whatever we say today is on the record. A recording of this would be available after the event. We’ll start off with a panel – the conversation by having initial remarks by our panellists and then, I’ll have a conversation style initial invitation to the speakers to answer one question each, and then we’d open it to the audience, both in the room and online.
I’m not going to take much of the time of the event. All our panellists are very distinguished indeed and they have impressive CVs, but I’m going to only suffice, with their permission, to acknowledge their position and a, sort of, one-liner. So, I’m going to start off with Fatima Gailani. Thank you so much, first of all, I personally thank you for delaying your trip to be with us today. We’re very delighted and privileged to have you. Fatima is a Senior Afghan Negotiator and board member of the Afghan Red Crescent Society, but you’ve had a presence in Afghanistan’s politics for a long time. So, I’m going to invite you first to make your initial remarks and then, I’m going to go to Kabul.
Fatima Gailani
Shall I start?
Hameed Hakimi
Please.
Fatima Gailani
Okay, [mother tongue]. It is a state of confusion, I mean, no doubt. A state of confusion with those who wants to help and also with those who are recipient of help in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Afghanistan was drawn in a war which was not a creation of Afghans. We were drawn to it and, also, we were caught into several wars, which – proxy wars. Sort of, it was our destiny.
For me, engagement has always been the most important thing. I was not a communist, I was actually one of the Mujahideen spokespersons, that I was – after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, I prescribed and very much insisted upon a conversation within the regime, because I thought it was important that Afghans themselves determine their own destiny and they take a decision. And my fear, which I voiced it at that time, we didn’t have social media, so it would be known for everybody, but I was insisting and insisting that if we want to prevent a civil war, we have to talk with Kabul.
We – I initiated; it didn’t happen. In Bonn, I was insisting that, “How could we have a sustainable peace if we don’t have Taliban with us and if we don’t have them onboard?” I was the only voice talking about this, not because particularly for a woman to be sympathiser, but this is the reality of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is made of all kind of people, like any other country.
Today, I insist upon exactly the same thing. Without a conversation, without involvement, without engagement, we will be punishing people of Afghanistan and we will not come to an understanding with anybody. I believe that like Japan, like Turkey, we haven’t recognised the government today, but they have presence inside Afghanistan, they have embassies. So, it is easier for them to have contact, it is easier for them to talk.
The other question, which is often asked, “Have Taliban changed or not?” I don’t have – we don’t have time to see who has changed or not. One thing is very important, that Afghanistan has changed. Never in the history of Afghanistan we had so many young people educated, unaware of the situation in Afghanistan, so we have to have in consideration these changes in Afghanistan and we should not allow that Afghanistan should be isolated.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much, Fatima, for those initial remarks. I wanted to remind the audience, both online and in person, that this is livestreamed, this event, as I said at the beginning. We encourage you to tweet out your thoughts. You can use our #CHEvents. You can also use our handle, @ChathamHouse, on Twitter, to tag any of your thoughts, your reflections on this event, live, as you are listening to us.
Next, I’m going to go to Kabul, to Hsiao-Wei Lee, Representative and Country Director of the World Food Programme. Thank you so much for your time, the floor is yours, four minutes.
Hsiao-Wei Lee
Thank you, Hameed, and good evening, everyone. Good evening from Kabul and thank you for this opportunity to share with you what is happening in Afghanistan and how we, as the World Food Programme, is working. As WFP, we focus, of course, our work on the food security and nutrition of the people of Afghanistan. Everything we do is people centric, to see how we can best serve the most vulnerable in Afghanistan, especially particularly women, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. And in order to do that, we have to engage with everyone.
Just to give you a sense of the level of food insecurity in Afghanistan. In the winter of 2021, nearly 23 million people struggled to meet their bare minimum food requirements, with nearly nine million people one step away from famine-like conditions. And WFP launched a massively large-scaled emergency food assistance, while also looking at different ways to preserve and rejuvenate the local economy, supporting communities and households to develop their resilience and livelihoods. With that kind of scale-up, it was critical that we do engage with all, from the national level, down to the local level and of course, in the communities in we serve.
Afghanistan is certainly one of the most complex environments to operate in and perhaps one of the most emotional, as we see everyone affected, particularly women and girls. The restrictions imposed prevent girls from pursuing education beyond sixth grade, they hamper the UN and NGO women from their work, and they constrained women from movement. Such restrictions affect economic opportunities and therefore, women’s access to food.
The situation is sombering and while the de facto authorities have imposed many of these restrictions that make it challenging, they – there are also many who recognise the need for women’s participation, for girls’ education and for a thriving economy. And so, we work through different angles to find common ground in order to continue providing our assistance based on need. Thank you.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much, Hsiao-Wei. I’ll come back to you, as to the other panellists, in a bit. Next, I would like to invite Mark Bowden, who’s our Associate Fellow at the International Security Programme here at Chatham House, but he – but Mark has a distinguished career at the UN. Amongst others, he was Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan, where he was also the United Nations’ Resident Co-ordinator and Humanitarian Co-ordinator and UNDP Resident Representative. So, the list goes on, Mark, and the time is yours.
Mark Bowden
Thank you and thank you for inviting me for this. I think perhaps what I would try to do is just to try and unravel the nature of the ethical dilemmas that people are facing in Afghanistan. And to do that, I think we need to recognise that the core of the ethical dilemma is around the concerns of the international community about the nature and extent of their involvement with the Taliban and the role that international humanitarian assistance should play here and has come to play. And at the heart of the problem, I think what we see now is humanitarian assistance being used as a substitute for political action. So, that’s the core problem.
To take you back a bit further, Afghanistan, before 2021, was the most heavily aid dependent country and I think a number of donors were expecting, as a result of the Doha discussions, that there’ll be something like Taliban II, version II, which didn’t materialise. They’ve not been able to, and that’s led to the withdrawal of donor engagement, and as Madam Gailani has highlighted, that has eventually led to the lack of presence.
What’s happened, I think due to the divisions within the international community and how far they should engage, has made it far more difficult to establish effective humanitarian assistance and to meet the challenges that I think underly the humanitarian problem, which is, basically, the collapse of the economy. So, the issue of engagement is not just about helping Afghanistan. It’s how far you engage in terms of maintaining the – a stable currency, how far you should substitute for the responsibilities of the state in the assistance that you give, and what the role of the UN is.
And that, to me, is the biggest problem at the moment, is that the international community is very unclear about how far they are willing to allow the UN to engage. And as long as that situation takes place, you will have a battle over humanitarian assistance and a very difficult problem in the nature of the way that aid is provided, with frankly, a degree of ambiguity about people saying what they’re doing, how far they can go and how far they engage. I’ll leave it at that for the moment.
Hameed Hakimi
No, this is very helpful, Mark, thank you very much. Last, but not least, Giulia Canali in Kabul. You’re the Head of Programme for the Danish Refugee Council in Afghanistan. Thank you so much for joining us, again, our gratitude. The floor is yours.
Giulia Canali
Thank you. Thank you, Hameed, and thank you very much, Chatham House, for giving me the opportunity to represent tonight the perspective of international humanitarian workers operating and living in Afghanistan today.
After August, we’ve seen many of our foreign colleagues leave Afghanistan and aid actors and aid agency are among the few international actors currently working in Afghanistan. We stayed to meet the needs of the people, we stay to continuing delivering humanitarian assistance, and that has allowed us to bear witness. And what we feel today is a strong responsibility to amplifies the voices of the communities that we serve and with whom we engage every day and to tell the story of what it is to work in Afghanistan and to operate in Afghanistan today, in the hope that that will help shape the narrative about the country and the current context.
Every time we speak about Afghanistan, it’s worth reinstating that it is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. 28.8 million people, or three thirds of the population, rely on humanitarian assistance to survive. After August 2021, the cessation of conflict have given NGOs, such as DRC, unprecedented access to communities. Some of the communities have seen the war ended, but not much change in terms of their capacity to recover.
What we have witnessed by entering and accessing this community, sometimes for the first time in decades, is that needs are severe and widespread, but often not new. They’re certainly exacerbated by the economic crisis, exacerbated by the political context, but they’re not resulting from the [inaudible – 16:06] current situation most of the time. They’re often driven by the lack of investment, the lack of basic service provision, the lack of effective and efficient infrastructure, limited capacity to natural – to manage natural resources and climate change.
A lot of the communities that we’re currently accessing are very remote, very rural. They live outside of mainstream economy, they live out of agriculture, the land, and the little water that years of drought had left them. What has changed, though, is the operating environments. Afghanistan is, today, one of the most challenging environments for aid operation today. Humanitarian workers, such as ourselves, face severe operational problematic challenges resulting from bureaucratic restriction, national and international political pressure and other obstacle that are exacerbating needs and challenging principle action.
To help us at DRC, but also other agency navigate the current situation and help us overcome some of the dilemmas that we’re facing every day, DRC has also currently engaged, recently engaged, in an initiative that we believe is very near and dear our mandate, which was a study and lots and lots of consultation with frontline worker on what it means to deliver humanitarian action and programming in a principle manner.
What this initiative has found that – is that principle aid and principle humanitarian assistance, is a share accountability that requires action at all level. From frontline implementer that every day engage with authority in what DRC calls “quiet humanitarian diplomacy” for gaining access and enablement to sustain an operational environment and operational access to a lot of these at-risk community to donor states. What our consultation and the research also found is echo a lot what Mark has previously said, that humanitarian action can alleviate some of the impacts of the current crisis, but it cannot substitute the lack of a political solution. And this is the – it results in a lot of the dilemma that we’re facing today and that requires, as I mention, accountability at all level, and I am very pleased to be here to discuss it today. Thank you.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much, indeed, to all our speakers for their initial remarks. We will open the questions just after a few minutes, when we have the opportunity to hear some more from the panellists. To our online participants, when you ask the question, please use the Q&A function and then, I’ll pick it up on the screen in front of me. We’ll have a mix of online and in person questions.
If I can come back to you, Fatima. You talked about this notion of a state of confusion in Afghanistan, and also, you referenced that there are countries that are currently in – present in Afghanistan, such as Turkey and others. The counter argument is, first of all, are Afghans responsible for this confusion, or internationals are responsible for this confusion, and are the Taliban responsible for the confusion? And also, the – sort of, if I can piggyback on a second point, can you have an engagement without recognition?
Fatima Gailani
I think yes, one could have engagement without recognition, because you have to get engaged in order to come to an understanding. If you want to come to an understanding and if you want to have a conversation to solve problems, you have to be engaged. I mean, you can’t just cut off. It is a normal way.
Whether it is the – whose fault it is that there is a state of confusion, for me, it doesn’t matter. What matters for me, now you heard it from people who are working exactly where – in Afghanistan and the 23 million people having – in need of those help, it’s not a joke. It is a reality and when this is a reality, we should not think that whose fault it is. But one thing I am for sure that whoever’s fault it is, it is not the fault of those people that – who are in need, and there are millions of them.
We must not forget that people who are outside, Afghans who are outside Afghanistan, including the few million in Iran and few million in Pakistan, still we are the minority. Majority are inside Afghanistan, women are inside Afghanistan, they need this engagement to happen.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much. In the same order, if I can come to you, Hsiao-Wei. A reference was made to this idea that aid cannot substitute a functional economy and we often say, no matter how frail that economy is, a functional economy is better than aid. Trying to sub – I mean, not that anybody’s trying to substitute the economy, but that is a dilemma in Afghanistan right now.
In your work, when you would engage with communities, when you work on the ground, what are the views that you hear from Afghans? How can this problem be rectified? Does the – does it – does this require recognition of the Taliban regime? Does it require easing the restrictions of the banking sector and the like? Just, sort of, if you can kindly reflect on that a little bit with us.
Hsiao-Wei Lee
Sure. I – absolutely, humanitarian aid itself cannot substitute a functional economy. But I do also want to note that we can leverage how aid is provided to support livelihoods and an economy. So, as an example, WFP, in September 2021 we did a very deliberate decision to continue purchasing a large amount of the food is – that we provide as assistance locally. And part of that was to make sure that we still allowed our Millers to stay functional and suppliers that we work with not to go bankrupt. And so, that’s just an example.
We also use our food assistance to support communities and households on their resilience and their livelihoods. So, there are, you know, different ways that, ultimately, assistance can be used to still support an economy, but that alone isn’t enough. We do need structural aspects for an economy to really function, such as a banking sector. And communities – people that I speak to on the ground, we – they’re – just as Fatima was saying, you know, they’re – while they appreciate the peace that they see, they really suffer from the economic effects, and that economic effects come from multiple reasons. One was COVID, second was three years of consecutive droughts and then, of course, this third is the economic fallout that we see. They don’t have the ability to work. They really want to work. And so, whatever opportunities that we can still give for work, that is what we, as a collective humanitarian community, are also trying to do.
They – I think they want to also distinguish between the politics and the need that they ultimately receive. When I ask women, for example, in our distributions line, you know, “What should we do?” the first – they might say a couple of words about the econ – about the de facto authorities, but it immediately goes to, “But please continue to provide assistance, ‘cause we desperately need it.”
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much for that. Mark, if I can come to you. You referenced the issue with the politics of the international design of these aid programmes and the rest, but I also want to acknowledge that, you know, we were both part of a study recently that looked at some of these aspects. So, if you’d kindly reflect a little bit on, you know, how is it possible to incorporate Afghan’s views in the delivery and design of these humanitarian programming aspects, some of which Hsiao-Wei just mentioned?
Mark Bowden
Well, I think that the – part of the challenge has been – at the moment, is that the debate has been more outside the country than within the country and within the Afghan population, and I think that’s what came out of our survey. And politically, clearly, there are very deep divisions about how to engage in Afghanistan, particularly around the issues of gender and elsewhere. So, I think that part of the way of addressing this is by undertaking more – and doing more survey work, as happened in both the DRC funded study, but also the study that we were engaged in.
I think – I also think it’s important, I mean, going back to my other thing, that the UN continues to support what little civic space there is left and continues to maintain that, because that’s a critical element. I think what we often don’t hear enough of is the Afghan voices themselves from within Afghanistan, and I’m guilty of it myself. You know, I mean, here’s me talking about it, but – so, that’s my sense of how we bet – move forward on these issues.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much. I might tease that out a bit more as the event progresses. Giulia, in your remarks, you referenced the issue of brain drain, I think, and the issue that, you know, there are – there is these dynamics, you know, areas that you can access now, which, for example, wasn’t accessible, for various reasons, mainly the conflict with the Taliban, the military operations in – and conflict in rural areas of Afghanistan. So, maybe I can ask you a double question. One, you know, to what extent in the urban context, you know, as you run programmes and you run new projects, do you see the Afghans’ ‘brain drain’ an issue? Is it possible to recruit for your programmes, for your projects, on the ground, qualified Afghans who, we believe, over the last 20 years, there were many of?
And, also, there is a question around the urban-rural area disparity, both in terms of perceptions of people about, you know, their country, but also the levels of poverty. To what extent that urban-rural dynamic is flattening, because there is evidence that poverty is now very much across the country?
Giulia Canali
Thank you for the questions. I will respond to the first one. It’s definitely a challenge that we’re facing the brain-gain – drain. We also, for sure, encourage our colleagues to pursue the type of future that they see most fitting for their family, for themself and for their family and we support those ambition as much as possible. But we’re seeing lots of our colleagues that were leaving – either leaving the country or planning to do so. But there are also lots of Afghans that remain in the country and are deeply qualified to be able to continue supporting humanitarian operations and committed to stay and to continue delivering on assistance for their communities, and that is what is enabling us to continuing operation.
We’re also – as I think we have a responsibility as a humanitarian sector, to invest in capacities, of local capacities, to build the local capacity of Afghans, both Afghan staff for international organisation, but also invest and support national civil soci – Afghan civil society in continuing to contribute and build the response.
So, to answer your question, definitely, there is – we’re seeing a brain-drain and – but that has not significantly impacted the delivery of our operation. And I think it speaks to a renewed commitment from DRC, but also from other organisation, to invest in national capacity and the urgency to do so.
Looking at the urban-rural disparities, I think it’s important, also, to take into account – I think that the needs are – the gap is still extremely visible. Even looking at the humanitarian needs overview, the biggest population group that is in need is rural population of Afghanistan, that accounts to more than 22 million of the 28.8 million that are targeted by the Humanitarian Response Plan. I think that the lack of access for humanitarian aid, but also development aid, in the previous decades, has hampered the responses and there is a lot to be – still to be done to invest in the rural communities.
What we’re also seeing those – though, is that maybe it’s contributing to the flattening, is a very heightened rural to urban migration, a lot of – and displacement. A lot of which is driven by climate change and the droughts, and a lot of the natural disasters that are increasing in frequency. We’re seeing – and a lot of it is poverty and the perception that there is going to be enhanced opportunity for economic and livelihoods and urban areas.
So, I think that, to answer your question, the gap is still there. It’s possibly flattening, but possibly more because of this urban-rural migration than to significant investment and in progress that has been done in the past two years. Thank you.
Hameed Hakimi
Oh, thank you very much, that’s very helpful. I have time to maybe ask one or two more questions before I – opening up, but I can see the questions are building online. So, perhaps I can ask a general question to the panel, and feel free if you want to jump in, but maybe I can ask you first, Fatima. There is this perception, and I can see that in the questions that are coming through, that aid is delivered to Afghanistan, but that this aid itself is indirectly legitimising the Taliban. Is there a truth to that sort of perception?
Fatima Gailani
Well, it is a very delicate situation. It is something that you have to weigh it. You have to weigh and see the importance of looking after people in Afghanistan and it was emphasised from Kabul from us, that there is a huge need, that we have to wait and see that – how important it is to go to them.
One thing that I want to – which came, when I went to Kabul several times, I saw that true, the poor is not poor. The poor of Afghanistan that I was a President of the Afghan Red Crescent Society for more than 12 years and I saw how poor the poor was. It was not so evident to most people, because of they couldn’t reach in some areas, but the Red Crescent, because of neutrality, we had almost 90% coverage we could go. The poor are still poor, but what really hit me in Kabul especially, was that the middleclass has become extremely poor. You could see a dignified person couldn’t even feed and this is because they have lost their jobs. I mean, there isn’t – yes, people are coming from rural areas in the hope of finding jobs, but I could see very well that there isn’t job.
Well, to whether the humanitarian efforts will give some legitimacy or wei – to lift some weight from the shoulder of Taliban, this is, yes, a reality. But we have to weigh it that what will happen to the people of Afghanistan if this is the case? And that’s why it is not an easy decision to make, really.
Hameed Hakimi
Mark, you wanted to say something?
Mark Bowden
Yeah, I think that’s the heart of the problem. I mean, I think we have to create a better narrative about what’s happening in Afghanistan and the Afghan – and the issue is not merely a humanitarian crisis, but a crisis of massive impoverishment across the board. And the solutions to that are more sophisticated in terms of restoration of banking and/or leading to re-engage with elements of the economy.
Also, the other area that I think needs to be explored a bit further is that the current sense of the international community is there should be no technical engagement. And without technical engagement, it’s going to be very difficult to sustain the Ministry of Health and other services. So, you know, I think we need to be far more specific about the nature of engagement by better understanding what is happening across Afghanistan, as the core problem, which to me, is the potential economic collapse in a year or so. Humanitarian assistance, well, the appeal, I understand, is really not very well met, but the economy is now increasingly dependent on levels of humanitarian assistance. If that goes, you could see an awful economic collapse and I, you know, I think we need to recognise that that’s the big challenge for the future.
Hameed Hakimi
Hsiao-Wei, would you like jump in on the question, as well?
Hsiao-Wei Lee
Yes, so, I very much agree, I think, with the previous speakers, and maybe one other way to look at it is the flipside. So, while we were able, as WFP, to scale up our assistance last year to serve 23 million people, with a massive funding shortfall, WFP has to cut assistance to eight million people. So, we’re currently only serving five million with the emergency food assistance out of the 15, it’s about a one third.
And one way to look at it is people don’t see that reduction in assistance as anything attributable to the de facto authorities. They still very much see that a) as connected to the UN, to the Western world, so that reduction in aid and that withdrawal of aid is seen, for them, as a withdrawal of the UN and the West. So, they’re making the distinction and very much connecting the assistance with the West.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you. Giulia, do you have – did you have any thoughts on the question of aid legitimising potentially going – that’s the perception, as I said, that’s the perception I’m getting in the questions flowing our way. Any thoughts?
Giulia Canali
Yeah, maybe just the angle that I wanted to add here is that the implementation of aid by NGOs, such as ourself, is guided by international framework and ultimately, by the humanitarian principles that – of independence, impartiality and neutrality. I think that reinstated a commitment to such principles and the creation of an enabling environment for actors, such as DRC, to be able to align and operate in alignment with this principle also provides a guardrail to perception of legitimisation, because this principle and adherence to such principle, are there to guide humanitarian action in a way that addresses humanitarian needs whenever they are found, without that being linked to political agenda. And I think that enabling – putting resources towards this is – should be a priority, also to mitigate international concerns in this matter, hmmm hmm.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much. Maybe it’s time to open the floor. I have audience online and have audience, obviously, we have in the room. For those in the room, please raise your hand. Once I call on you, identify yourself and wait for the microphone. Wait for the microphone and then identify yourself, obviously, the other way round. And then, I’ll also pick a couple of questions from the online. Please be considerate to time, because the more we can have a conversation, the better I think it is for everyone. And, also, if you have a specific question to the audience – to the panel, please identify that panellist. First, I’ll go to there, to the woman there.
Dr Nadaud
Thank you very much for coming. I’m Dr Nadaud, member of Chatham House, former volunteer with the American Red Cross. And I’m speaking to the elephant in the room here, which is the United States. This is your time to tell us, what can the United States do to promote what I think is also the vital conversation in engagement? How can they re-engage and provide leadership on this issue?
Hameed Hakimi
Is this to Fatima?
Dr Nadaud
The entire panel.
Hameed Hakimi
Alright. Okay, good. Maybe we can get one more question in person. The gentleman there.
Abbas Faiz
[Pause] Thank you very much. I’m Abbas Faiz and it is wonderful to see you, Fatima, again, after such a long time. I’ve got, actually, two questions. The first question is, when we talk about engagement, it will be good for us to know what have you already – what, you know, the people who are engag – involved in engagement, how – what have you already actually achieved in order to, for example, be able to convince us that more engagement is going to achieve more? So, that is one question.
The second question is that when we talk about engaged – when we talk about the international community, the international community is divided into three distinct camps at the moment. So, one is the camps – camp of, for example, the Western countries and so on, the other one is the China and its allies camp, and the third one is the countries that are Muslim majority countries or the – what kind of engagement is the UN having with all these camps? For example, China never actually…
Hameed Hakimi
Yes, excuse…
Abbas Faiz
Yes.
Hameed Hakimi
I’m going to cut you off.
Abbas Faiz
Okay.
Hameed Hakimi
Apologies.
Abbas Faiz
That’s fine, yeah.
Hameed Hakimi
I got your question. And maybe I’ll take one online. Maybe I can bundle them, for you, together, on this question on the US, the so-called “elephant in the room.” What is required currently – what would be the ask of the United States, from the United States right now, if I’m paraphrasing correctly, vis-à-vis Afghanistan?
And that actually chimes very well with the question here by Sardet Iman, who asks, “What would be an acceptable framework for political engagement with the Taliban?” So, when we obviously talk about the role United States is contributing to the humanitarian appeals in Afghanistan, so they would argue that they are engaged already, but I’m assuming that you mean on the political front. So, maybe, Fatima, you can answer that question.
Fatima Gailani
If I’m asked that how to start engagement, whether it is the United States of America, which is the biggest player and with – which is the biggest donor today – even today, for the humanitarian aid, I would say exactly what, Mark, you have suggested. That during Doha talk, there was a total – I mean, no-one was united. People inside Afghanistan were not united, and Politician I’m talking about, and the international community was not united. Everyone wanted something else, an outcome, and those were some of the things which made the talks not good in the right direction.
Today, we cannot afford that, and the voice of the international community has to be united. Whether it is, as you said, in the region, whether it is wider international community, it has to be – if they ask me, “What – how should we start?” I would start by asking that “What about those promises which were made in Doha? And it was repeated very eloquently in the Rome Conference of – and Special Representatives, and it was again, the same list of promises were repeated in Geneva, and most importantly, after the fall of the republic, it was also repeated by the spokesperson. And each one of them say, “This is not my word. This is the word which comes from the leadership.””
If we talk about this, if we, all of us, concentrate upon that, that takes the issue of women, it takes the issue of Afghans inside the country and Afghans outside the country, and it will start a foundation for a more deeper and more important talks to built upon.
Hameed Hakimi
Sure, and what about the Doha Agreement, do you think that’s dead as far as the American engagement’s concerned on Afghanistan?
Fatima Gailani
If everything is dead if we don’t revive it, really. I mean, Afghanistan was totally isolated after the withdrawal of Soviet troops and everything was dead at that time, until a disaster happened in the world, and everyone looked back in Afghanistan. We must not wait for that. We must find a way, as difficult as is, I never said it was easy. It is difficult, but it is not impossible. People of Afghanistan deserve it that they have to understand that what is their destiny. Everything is in a limbo, everything.
Hameed Hakimi
Sure. Maybe I can address the next question to Mark and to Hsiao-Wei, as well. The question was about the extent of the successful achievement of the engagement, so far, in Afghanistan, with the – as far as the delivery of aid, the presence of the United Nations is concerned, do you think engagement has been successful?
Mark Bowden
I’d like to change…
Hameed Hakimi
With the change of time?
Mark Bowden
I’d like to rephrase that in a sense, because I think we need to separate the – and this is an underlying problem in the whole issue, is that we are substituting humanitarian action for political action. And so, I’ll prefer to talk what I know about the political action, from the political side of the UN, which I think your question was partly about, and to say that the UN is in a very strange position at the moment. Its mandate, which was for state building, is no longer valid, so it has a presence, but a very unclear role as to what it should do. It started to look at engagement and then, was pushed back from engaging.
So, there needs to be clearer guidance from the international community around the – what the UN can do. I think the UN presence, as a political presence, is important, as a bridge between the international community and the Taliban. I also think it’s important that that presence is there, as I – people are saying, to maintain what civic space is there and to provide something and to take the pressure off the – I mean, humanitarian assistance is being used, really, and pressure is being put on humanitarian assistance by the Taliban and others as a way of trying to address the political issues.
So, I think, you know, the first thing is really to get some better clarity as to what engagement is. Engagement is not about recognition. You know, engagement is about what representation can take place, how to start any form of discussion at all. When you create a pariah state, you create a whole lot of other problems that are related to that.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you. Hsiao-Wei, maybe I can – because Mark rephrased that question, perhaps we can move onto the other angle. I know that the United Nations, especially yourselves, the World Food Programme, has engagement at the regional level, as well, for the delivery of your programmes. So, to what extent that engagement with the – Afghanistan’s neighbours, you know, it’s successful, it’s helpful? The answer might be obvious, but maybe you can take us a bit further into the details of how it looks like right now, as far as your operations are concerned and the regional countries.
Hsiao-Wei Lee
Sure, and let me start, first, by building and really emphasising what Mark just said. Political engagement is very different from the engagement that we, as WFP, and humanitarian agents, alluded to. Engagement for us is not political engagement, it is to secure, as Giulia also mentioned, our ability to continue providing assistance within line with the humanitarian principles. So, the very fact that we are still doing so requires conversations with the de facto authorities for them to understand how we work, where we work and for us to, essentially, have that space.
There is a shift, as we educate each other and have those conversations of what we need to do. And so, similarly, WFP’s engagement with regional actors is also very much about the humanitarian assistance that we provide. So, for example, a lot of food comes through Pakistan, and we also buy and purchase food in Pakistan, in Kazakhstan, in neighbouring countries. We have corridors that come from the North, from the West, from the South. That all requires conversations with the neighbours of Afghanistan, and it also then requires us for – us to talk about, you know, what is – how do we bridge the economy? How do we make sure those corridors remain open?
So, those remain at the heart of it, and I think, going back to what I was saying at the very beginning, for us, our engagement will always be people centric, and it’s how do we provide the assistance to the people?
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much. Giulia, I have a question online which relates to what we are building on here, and it’s in relation to aid having a positive impact, or aid improving the quality of the lives of Afghans. From your work on the ground, is there – is it possible to see where aid is – I mean, and we can know geographically where it’s going, but qualitatively, is it possible to assess that aid is helping Afghans and that it’s actually impacting lives in a positive way? It’s a question online from me, but I, kind of, paraphrased a little bit for you.
Giulia Canali
Hmmm hmm. Thank you, Hameed. It certainly is possible. I think we’re reverting back to the unprecedented access that we have, that I commented earlier. That also doesn’t only allow us to deliver humanitarian assistance to a community that had been acc – inaccessible before, but it also allows us to monitor, oversee where aid goes and also document the impact of that – of humanitarian assistance.
I think that even speaking from my very personal opinion, I – many personal experience, even as a international woman, I’ve been able to travel to locations extremely remote across Afghanistan and to see myself how the aid that we deliver has made an impact. I think the – this – there is the reduction in the scale of aid and the resources that aid is – that are given to the humanitarian operation in Afghanistan that Hsiao-Wei mentioned earlier, is a hindrance to the opportunity that we – that are – that we have at the moment, to deliver very critical assistance to the communities.
And the other, I think, hindrance that we are facing now is the fact that following the – August 2021, a lot of the assistance shifted to humanitarian assistance only. But the needs that we’re seeing are driven by deeper drivers of the crisis, that go beyond a bondage – a Band-Aid that humanitarian aids can provide. And the fact that we have restriction in the types of assistance that we can provide, also limits the positive impact that we can deliver – that we can really trigger in the communities, that we are now able to assess.
So, definitely, I think there is a strong impact. We could do more if the scale of the resources was larger and if the type of resources that are given to us were different, including more recovery, resilience, type of aid, as well.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you. Fatima, you wanted to say something, as well.
Fatima Gailani
I just want to add in this, involving people of the community is a must in this. If we want the quality of aid to go up and reach where we want, it’s impossible without involving the community. And if we want the aid to go inside homes, not just physically, I mean, physic – aid, but also dissemination of preparation for the disasters, natural disasters today, without women it is impossible. Women are the only Afghans in Afghanistan that they could enter homes. So, the presence of women in the humanitarian aid is extremely important when it comes especially to the community.
Hameed Hakimi
Very well noted, thank you very much. I’m going to take a second round of questions. I’ll go to the – to you there, and the microphone’s behind you. Please state your name and affiliation and ask your…
Jonah Kaplan
Jonah Kaplan, South Asia Analyst at Dragonfly Intelligence. Firstly, I would just like to say it’s an absolute privilege to be with such distinguished guests doing absolutely heroic work. My question, directed at Fatima, aside from aid, which we’ve talked at, at length, and there is over $7 billion of money that is frozen by the US and EU that it belongs to Afghanistan. This would be critical to helping Afghani people and helping the humanitarian situation. What does the US and the EU fear about giving money to the Taliban? What do they think the money – they will do with this money, or is it just they don’t want to give them any legitimacy? Thank you.
Hameed Hakimi
Okay, thank you. I’ll take more questions. I’ll take the question from there and then, I’ll come to you. Yes, please?
Karim Merchant
Thank you. Karim Merchant, Independent Researcher. Just to pick up on the issue of functional economy, what does the panel think needs to happen for a transition from humanitarian to development work to take place?
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much. Very important question, and yourself?
Habib Khalid
Hi, my name is Habib Khalid and I’m a Physician Associate and I’m a Chair of Afghan International Movement. I have two question, one for Miss Gailani and one for Mr Mark. Question for you, Miss Gailani, is that in the light of US sanction and freezing of assets, how do you see these actions impacting the ordinary Afghans in Afghanistan? And according to the ex-UNDP, Mr – Deputy UNDPT Special Representative for Afghanistan, and I quote Mr Alakbarov and I quote…
Hameed Hakimi
I’m so sorry, I’m going to cut you off.
Habib Khalid
Right.
Hameed Hakimi
Please ask the question. Otherwise, I need to go to the next person.
Habib Khalid
Okay, basically the quote he says is, “Without investment and creating opportunities for investments, the situation that we are in now, it’s not going to get worse.” And a question for Mr Mark. The sanctions and the freezing of assets, do you think should we lift it as – and, also, is it affecting the people of Afghanistan?
Hameed Hakimi
Okay, thank you. Maybe I’ll come to you in a bit, but I also have some questions online. Perhaps we can start off with this question of frozen assets, we can bundle them together. You and Mark, maybe you can kick us off, Fatima, you know.
Fatima Gailani
This is a very important misunderstanding, also, in the world. This money is not for aid. This money doesn’t belong to the government. This money belongs to the people of Afghanistan. We have to remember that today, although it is frozen, because of the existence of that money, one of the reasons that Afghani had – didn’t collapse. This is to support the Afghan currency; it was before and it will be in the future. Afghani is in the pocket of those people who are in need of these humanitarian aids. It is not in my pocket and it is not in the pocket of those people that they can afford an regular life.
So, that is important, that this money should not be used for – as much as sympathy we have for the victims of 11th of September, this is not for them, this is not for aid, this is not for anything. This is a currency support, and it has to remain like that.
Hameed Hakimi
Mark, you wanted to comment, as well?
Mark Bowden
Yes, I think that what’s happened with the currency is that it has become a more com – I mean, I totally agree with Fatima on this. The problem now is that the money has been put in a special Swiss trust fund. I heard today that there are delays in dispersing it. So, it’s no longer available to stabilise the currency, which is why I highlight the real challenge that I think there will be in a year’s time. The stability of the currency at the moment is dependent on the volume of humanitarian assistant that goes through and the currency that is delivered on a regular basis into Afghanistan. So, I think there are really serious questions about what happened with the reserve funds.
Moving onto the question about development and development. I think that the real issue is that you need to start to bring the World Bank back in, into Afghanistan. I would suggest that the areas that are less controversial are very localised community development activities. I’d also ease the restrictions on technical inputs into critical line ministries, such as health, which don’t actually legitimise the Taliban in one way or another.
So, I mean, I think that there – what I hope happens is that there is a – a Special Co-ordinator has been established under the Security Coun – the latest Security Council resolution, and I hope that that discussion will bring forward a more unified position as to what level of engagement there can be that would allow a more effective approach towards addressing the economic issues.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much. I have a question online, which I’d like to – as we’re coming clo – to the close of this event. I apologise if I run a few minutes over. I hope everyone’s okay with that, especially my colleagues in the background who are helping us with all this fantastic setup. Hsiao-Wei, maybe I can come to you now with a question from Callum online, who also highlighted the – that engagement – because he works for The HALO Trust, the work that they do, engagement from their perspective has delivered their ability to do landmine clearing and all the related – and employing of almost 2½,000 people, he says. But his question is, “On technical support and capacity building, what areas of technical support – what would be the areas that are appropriate and at the moment, palatable to insert the technical support within to ensure that the economic collapse does not happen?” So, from your work in WFP, what do you see as, sort of, the need as being, kind of, profound on the technical side?
Hsiao-Wei Lee
Sure. I think there are definitely areas where we can work, and Mark already mentioned health, education. With such a large population that is in need, being at the rural locations, as Giulia also mentioned, certainly, agriculture, livelihoods, and very much wrapped into that would be around climate change. Afghanistan is one of the most hard affected countries in the world by climate change, and that’s something that affects not only Afghanistan very deeply, but certainly, if action isn’t taken in Afghanistan, it can also affect other countries.
So, there are many things that we can do at the localised community level. WFP provides and works with communities, and just to really underscore Fatima’s point, also, about engagement with the communities, that is where most of us are really working and then engaging. We even engage through the communities with the de facto authorities, as an example. But back to climate change, so we work a lot on water resource management, on natural resource management, with the local communities, that helps improve their productivity, but also helps with that resilience and to absorb or mitigate the impacts of shocks. So, on flood protection, well, the WFP has been working with communities to build, has helped so many villages last year when there was flash floods. That’s just one example and we have so many more.
Hameed Hakimi
Sure, and last question, if I may, to Giulia, because you are representing the Danish Refugee Council and we haven’t spoken about the displacements and the refugee problem in Afghanistan as much as perhaps it requires. Perhaps that’s an event on its own. But to what extent do you see internal displacements and refugee outward migration as to the region – to the neighbouring countries, as well, as an ongoing challenge that would haunt the economic recovery of Afghanistan in the long-term?
Giulia Canali
Hmmm, and yes, it is definitely – I mention a little bit earlier about the internal migration from rural to urban population, driven by climate change, the limited resources in rural areas. And I think we are – and I think I’m also touching upon how these challenges are also driving outward migration to neighbouring countries, especially Pakistan and Iran.
DRC works at the border crossing, at the – all of the main border crossing, where we provide explosive ordnance risk education, for example, but also basic protection assistance to communities and returnees returning from these locations. What we are seeing through our work within the communities is that, a lot of the time, is survival and a push to survive that drives people to often engage in dangerous migration path out of the countries, to be able to find means to survive and support their families back home. I think that that impacts the economic recovery of the country, certainly, and also calls for economic solution and resilient solution to be put in place to mitigate the drivers of these dangerous journeys and outward migrations.
What we’re seeing is that with as little as $50,000 of investment, DRC has revealed check dams that has provided to entire communities water to be able to recover and engage in livelihoods, activities. And anecdotal evidence that we collect every day through our focus group discussion and engagement, is that it also mitigate the drivers of migrating to rural areas or to neighbouring countries and it has enabled people to return and to practice sustainable life efforts.
As also, I haven’t touched, but just very briefly, upon the power of the private sector, as well, to enable livelihoods opportunity, especially – and also poor women in Afghanistan. One of the recent study that we’ve conducted is that with as little, again, as 250,000 of financial investment in small and medium enterprises, we were able to create more than 600 jobs for men and women in Afghanistan just by supporting 25 small and medium enterprises. So, there is a big pri – there is a – lots of potential to be able to engage and provide assistance in the country to also mitigate some of the drivers of displacement, internal displacement, emigration, when this is driven by socioeconomic vulnerabilities.
Hameed Hakimi
Thank you very much. My thanks to the audience here in the room, audience online. I apologise that we’ve run over a few minutes, but this is such an important discussion and Afghanistan conversations are getting more and more complex, as we’ve just seen. Very, very grateful to the panellists, a fantastic panel, I believe. I also would like to acknowledge my colleagues, Tom Chapell and Emily Harding in the background, helping us run the – all the – this event smoothly, and our colleagues there for helping on the microphones and the rest of the event.
Afghanistan will, no doubt, remain a focus area for Chatham House and for all of us in this room. It’s important, as we have just discussed, to have the conversation centred on the Afghans in Afghanistan, among other elements, and to also see within the narratives what makes sense in terms of being factual narratives and those that might have been a little bit more polarised.
So, with that very final thoughts and I can’t conclude everything we’ve discussed today, thank you so much, again. Thanks to Kabul, to Hsiao-Wei, to Giulia, thank you to Fatima, to Mark here. Please give them all a round of applause. Thank you so much [applause].
