The National Resistance Front and Afghanistan Freedom Front have called for a common platform among political, civil and armed groups opposing the Taliban, as Cambridge talks seek to bridge key differences.
The fifth round of the “Cambridge Afghanistan Series” was held on Friday, 4 September, in Cambridge, Britain, bringing together dozens of political figures, academics, civil society activists and representatives of women’s movements from inside and outside Afghanistan.
The meeting focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement among different groups opposed to the Taliban and exploring grounds for cooperation over Afghanistan’s political future.
Zalmai Nishat, head of the Mosaic organisation and organiser of the meeting, told Afghanistan International that the previous four rounds of the Cambridge meetings had examined roadmaps and proposals put forward by various groups for Afghanistan’s future, with a total of 21 roadmaps discussed.
According to Nishat, the review showed that despite political and ideological differences, there was considerable overlap among the views of different groups, with only about 10 per cent of the issues remaining areas of serious disagreement.
He said the fifth Cambridge meeting focused mainly on those disagreements, with participants in five separate panels examining differing views on fundamental questions concerning Afghanistan’s future.
Five Main Areas of Disagreement
Nishat said one of the first issues discussed was structural problems and structural justice in Afghanistan, referring to the historical roots of inequality, the distribution of power and how a fairer political system could be created in the future.
The path towards political change was another area of disagreement. Some groups believe that, under current conditions, political change is impossible without armed resistance against the Taliban.
Others, however, continue to advocate dialogue, political pressure and non-violent approaches as the path towards change.
The role of the international community in Afghanistan’s future was another major topic of debate.
According to Nishat, some participants believe the international community should play a role similar to that of 2001 in shaping developments in Afghanistan.
Others argue that Afghanistan and the world have changed since then and that Afghans themselves should play the leading role in determining their destiny and shaping the country’s political future.
The structure of Afghanistan’s future political system was also an area of disagreement. Some participants supported a federal system, others called for a decentralised structure, while another group favoured retaining a centralised form of government.
Issues related to currency, identity and national symbols were also identified as areas of disagreement among political and civil groups.
Nishat stressed that the aim of the Cambridge meeting was not to reach an immediate agreement on all these issues, but to create a space where differences could be identified, discussed and narrowed, while finding areas in which different groups could cooperate.
NRF: Differences Do Not Mean a Lack of Unity
Ali Maisam Nazary, head of foreign relations for the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, told the meeting that an alliance of Taliban opponents should include a broad range of political and social forces.
He said such an alliance could include armed resistance groups such as the National Resistance Front and Afghanistan Freedom Front, women involved in civil resistance, political movements, civil society organisations and democratic forces.
Nazary stressed that the formation of a broad alliance should not depend on all groups reaching complete agreement over the details of a future constitution or system of government.
He said Taliban opponents had significant common ground on many fundamental issues and could cooperate on basic principles, a transitional mechanism and the creation of a democratic Afghanistan in which all citizens enjoy equal rights.
The NRF foreign relations chief said differences of opinion reflected Afghanistan’s ethnic, religious, political and social diversity and should not be seen as a sign of failure or disunity.
He added that in a democratic society, unity did not necessarily mean identical views but should instead be based on unity in diversity.
Freedom Front: The Final Decision Must Rest With the People
Daoud Naji, head of the political office of the Afghanistan Freedom Front, said armed resistance against the Taliban had expanded since the previous Cambridge meeting in September, with anti-Taliban groups, including the Afghanistan Freedom Front, increasing their operations in different parts of Afghanistan.
He said the Afghanistan Freedom Front was ready to cooperate with political parties, civil society organisations and groups that believed in the principles of human rights, freedom and democracy.
Naji stressed that political groups had the right to propose different models and views on Afghanistan’s future system of government but must ultimately accept the decision and will of the Afghan people.
He said the Cambridge meeting could provide a foundation for the creation of a broader and more effective alliance among Taliban opponents, adding that the Freedom Front was ready to cooperate in strengthening what he called a civil consensus framework.
The Afghanistan Freedom Front political chief also said international discussions on a political settlement to the Afghanistan crisis and the Doha process had largely fallen off the international community’s list of priorities.
He stressed that the Taliban should not be recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and called on the international community to reconsider its approach towards the group.
Fawzia Koofi: Women Must Have a Role in Future Political Leadership
Fawzia Koofi, a prominent women’s rights activist and former member of Afghanistan’s parliament, said unity among Taliban opponents did not necessarily mean merging all groups into a single political structure or platform.
She said cooperation among different forces could be built around shared priorities and objectives without requiring them to abandon their individual identities or political views.
Koofi said the “Women for Afghanistan” initiative had created a platform for cooperation among more than 35 organisations and prominent figures to discuss priorities for Afghanistan’s future and place women’s role in the country’s political leadership at the centre of those efforts.
She rejected the view that the Taliban was the only available option for Afghanistan, saying the real alternative to the Taliban was the Afghan people, who should be represented through a constitution, the rule of law and democratic mechanisms.
Koofi stressed that democracy should not be reduced merely to holding elections, saying people should have a genuine role at every stage of determining their future and shaping the country’s political system.
She said democracy had not failed in Afghanistan, but rather that Afghanistan’s political community and the international community failed to support democracy.
Koofi also stressed the need for political and civil forces outside Afghanistan to work alongside those inside the country who can participate safely.
She said planning for Afghanistan’s transition and political change should involve a broad range of social and political forces.
The fifth Cambridge Afghanistan Series meeting took place as efforts to build greater coordination among diverse groups opposed to the Taliban continue to face disagreements over the method of political change, the structure of a future political system and the role of domestic and international actors.
However, organisers and several participants said openly identifying disagreements while focusing on shared priorities could help pave the way for broader cooperation and consensus over Afghanistan’s future.
