Istanbul – Tarz Press: Recently, a conference titled “National Dialogue Process” was held in Istanbul, Turkey, gathering political figures and senior officials of the former Afghan Republic. The meeting took place behind closed doors and without any official statement, drawing diverse reactions from Afghan civil society, human rights activists, and various political groups.
The primary objective of the conference seems to be restarting negotiations with the Taliban. However, the participant makeup and the manner of the meeting’s organization have led many observers to perceive it not as an effort for peace but as a maneuver for former Afghan officials to preserve their personal and political interests post-Republic.
Attendees and Former Officials’ Role
Approximately 70 Afghan politicians and former diplomats attended the conference, including key figures from the Republic era, such as Hekmat Khalil Karzai, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and relative of former President Hamid Karzai; Idrees Zaman, another deputy from the Foreign Ministry; and Mustafa Mastoor, former Minister of Economy and nephew of Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. These individuals, as the founding and leading figures of the Istanbul conference, claim to be initiating a “national dialogue” for Afghanistan’s future. However, their political and economic backgrounds have drawn severe criticism. Many critics believe that rather than representing the Afghan people, these individuals are attempting to reach an agreement with the Taliban to safeguard their economic interests and political positions.
Lack of Transparency
A key criticism of the Istanbul conference is the lack of transparency and limited information shared about it. Held without any official announcements and behind closed doors, the meeting received little media coverage. Critics argue this secrecy points to a potential deal made out of the public eye and away from international scrutiny. They see the meeting as a bid by former Afghan officials to secure their positions with the Taliban, especially given that evidence suggests the conference received financial and political support from the UK government, further fueling concerns over its real motives.
Reaction from Civil Society and Human Rights Activists
Afghan civil society and human rights advocates responded critically to the conference, viewing it as a form of “deal-making” and “lobbying” with the Taliban. These activists believe that former Afghan officials are seeking agreements that benefit themselves, often at the expense of public concerns and rights. They have labeled the meeting as a betrayal of the victims of Taliban violence and crimes, warning that such efforts will only push Afghanistan further into authoritarianism and widespread human rights violations.
Connection to Former Republic Leaders
Some critics have noted the close connections between the Istanbul conference organizers and the former Afghan government. Figures like former President Hamid Karzai and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the former head of the High Council for National Reconciliation, are believed by many to be the primary designers of this conference. Reports indicate that Karzai and Abdullah played a role through their close associates, such as Hekmat Khalil Karzai, Idrees Zaman, and Mustafa Mastoor. These associations have raised serious doubts about the real motivations behind the Istanbul conference, particularly as these individuals are known to have significant financial interests in Afghanistan. It is suspected they may be pursuing agreements with the Taliban to safeguard their wealth and assets.
Exclusion of Diverse Afghan Voices
Another significant criticism of the conference is the lack of representation for various Afghan communities, particularly women and ethnic and religious minorities. Critics argue that the participant composition reveals an indifference to the voices of the Afghan public and victims of the Taliban. They assert that the conference neither represents the different social groups within Afghanistan nor is it a genuine attempt to include women, ethnicities, or minorities, but rather an effort to sideline them in negotiations with the Taliban.
Mixed Reactions from Former Politicians
Despite the criticism, some former Afghan politicians, such as former Foreign Minister Mohammad Haneef Atmar and ex-Head of National Security Masoom Stanekzai, welcomed the conference. Atmar called it a hopeful initiative and expressed support for Afghan reconciliation efforts aimed at peace. In contrast, Abdul Karim Khurram, a close associate of Karzai, stated on X: “With full respect to the organizers and participants of this gathering and wishing them success, I must clarify that former President Hamid Karzai, while advocating dialogue and political engagement among compatriots, neither played a role in organizing this conference nor had any representative in attendance.”
Additionally, Abdul Ali Mohammadi, another of Karzai’s close associates, said that the term “National Dialogue” has been used by former President Karzai over the past three years to refer to a roadmap for addressing Afghanistan’s ongoing crisis. However, he added that Karzai does not endorse any specific group under the “National Dialogue” label and would only consider such an initiative effective if it involved full participation from the Afghan people on a national level.
Conclusion: A Meeting Driven by Self-Interest?
Ultimately, due to its lack of transparency, the involvement of former officials with personal interests, and the absence of genuine representation from Afghan society, the Istanbul conference appears to serve the interests of a select few. Rather than working toward resolving the current crisis, the meeting, focused on self-interest and political deal-making, has further undermined public trust in any real peace process and likely poses detrimental consequences for Afghanistan’s future.
Such closed-door meetings with participants closely tied to the former government cannot serve the public good. Instead, gatherings of this nature may bolster the Taliban’s standing on the international stage, potentially legitimizing them as the sole ruling force. This, in turn, represents a significant threat to human rights, individual freedoms, and social justice in Afghanistan.
