Nasir Ahmad Andisha: If there is a neutrality in Afghanistan which could complement a peace agreement with Taliban, of course, it has to be regionally negotiated and internationally sanctioned.
-- Jingle --
Katrine Lyngsø: Everyone and welcome back to The Next Page, the podcast designed to advance the conversation on multilateralism. My name is Katrine Lyngsø, and I work here at the United Nations Library and Archives Geneva. In today's episode, you're going to be hearing from Dr Nasir Andisha, who is currently the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Afghanistan to the UN, here in Geneva. Dr Andisha spoke to our director, Francesco Pisano about, his recently released book called Neutrality in Vulnerable States, and about some of the basic concepts which lie behind it. They also spoke about the future of Afghanistan in the light of the US’s decision to withdraw their troops from the country, and how this can affect regional and permanent neutrality. But without spoiling too much of the conversation, I'm just going to let you listen to it. So, without further ado. Here you have it.
-- Jingle --
Francesco Pisano: Hello everyone and welcome to this episode of The Next Page, our podcast here at the Library and Archives, designed to advance the conversation on multilateralism. Today, I am very happy because I have with us an ambassador and permanent representative and friend of the Library and archives Dr Nasir Andisha. He is the current Permanent Representative of Afghanistan to the UN in Geneva, he has been deputy Foreign Minister of Afghanistan in the late 2015 up to 2019. He has been also ambassador to Australia, New Zealand and Fiji, and is a former staff of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the field. He was field officer, but he'll tell us about himself a little bit and welcome to the podcast.
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: Thank you, thank you, Francisco. Thank you very much for having me and it is a great pleasure to be here in this historical building, you know, I consider it as a major and important source of multilateral knowledge, so pleasure.
Francesco Pisano: Great to have you here. I'm really, I'm really proud we managed to catch you in the second or third year of your assignment here as Ambassador. So for those in the over listening who don't know you, could you please just introduce yourself and tell us a little bit more about your career as a diplomat and also as Minister of Foreign Affairs?
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: Yes, my career diplomat with Afghanistan Foreign service and in fact I started my work as you mentioned with the International Committee of the Red Cross. I consider that also part of the humanitarian diplomacy I started with the age of almost 20 years old. I was in students of Medical College in Mazar Sharif when the university was attacked by Taliban and I had to leave university to save myself. So I came back to my native place north of Kabul in Kapisa province and there because of a little bit of knowledge of medicine and a little bit of English, so I was recruited by the International Committee of the Red Cross, but that's when I started working with international units, you know, with NGOs and the others and soon after 911 I joined Afghanistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs because they needed people with that knowledge and capacity and most of us from the organisation. So since 2001 honestly 82 I start working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And in between also, I did my education and service in the United States and Australia and here I am. You know fast tracked as an ambassador.
Francesco Pisano: And today you here also as an author and researcher. And we're going to talk about your latest book called Neutrality and Vulnerable States. It was published by Routledge Focus, couple of years ago, or last year, if I'm not mistaken. When I went through the book, I found it fascinating and so before we go deep into the book for our listeners, let's talk a little bit about neutrality and this is all the more interesting for us because in multilateral studies there is a lot of research on peace and conflict. But there is very little actually scientific and academic literature about neutrality, and you went in there and you and you studied the topic. So for our listeners who are not very familiar with the concept, can you just tell them you know a quick definition of neutrality and why it is beneficial for some states?
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: You know a very simple definition -- dictionary definition -- of neutrality is strict and transparent impartiality. We hear a lot these days about net neutrality and neutrality of this and that in cyberspace. But the neutrality that we are talking about and is you also alluded to in diplomacy and in diplomatic conflict, resolution and neutrality is a diplomatic tool which is used often. You’re right that, you know, we always talk about war and peace, but this end step toward either war or peace, and so it's a diplomatic tool used in many, many occasions to change a situation of military stalemate into a political one and in to move to stability. So, I think it's in one hand a diplomatic tool. But in terms of our own discussion today and relevant to the book that I published, neutrality is seen as a foreign and security policy choice of mostly small states in between states with which with that choice they decide not to take part in others conflict during major conflicts, regional conflicts, wars, but also during peace they try to keep away from military packs and military and security. So they keep himself away both in peace and in war. So that's called a policy, foreign and security policy of neutrality.
Francesco Pisano: What made you research the topic and publish the book now?
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: So, there is a gap between research and the book, but I can now answer both in terms of the research, when I was ambassador to Australia, and we had a great university there and also a department which was had very good knowledge of the Asia Pacific and Afghanistan at the same time. So throughout my, you know, high school and later on I was always fascinated by the history of Afghanistan, history of empires, the history of conquerors, the history of invasions, and a place always, you know, at least for the 200 years in turmoil. And then I looked at the country like Australia, like Switzerland, where then suddenly I became Ambassador. And l was always thinking that you know what is the way out of these things, because the most of the region around us, which in the history we were either part of an empire or we were, you know, kind of an empire which was based in Afghanistan or in Iran and this slowly through past 100 years they stabilised, they settled down, you know, the countries or moving and improving and the only place, which is the core of all this region, we call at heart of Asia, is still in turmoil. So what are some of the ways that we can, you know, address this issue? So that's why I came across this question of neutrality a number of times. So that fascinates me, and I understood that is a difficult one as you've mentioned and that's why, you know, there's very little literature. But I still insisted, I start working on it, and I researched neutrality, looking into Austria and Switzerland as they’re both very successful neutrals, taking themselves out of the conflict. But also, I looked at Laos, which was a country which was not part of the main conflict that was in a subsidiary of Vietnam war, but they couldn't, you know succeed in a neutrality and Afghanistan. So that was my research interests, and later on I kept it I became deputy Foreign Minister and enough time but the, but then again in 2014 and later on, when I looked at the re-emergence of some sort of a new Cold War and the ideas you know what happened Georgia, but then again in 2014, and the Ukraine, and now in Yemen and other places. And I look at, you know, there's some elements of a new sort of, you know, regional and international conflict, I looked at neutrality as a valid concept, not only for Afghanistan, which certainly is and we're going to talk about it, but most of the areas, which is called the fault lines of geopolitics, so that was my interest and then I quickly focused on it in the past year and half. In Switzerland I had some time, you know, coming out of Karbul and I made it small because you know it has to be quickly published because of the importance of the subject itself. And here it is, a small book, readable, but talking about a major subject which is neutrality for vulnerable state. And we know here in Geneva that there are many vulnerable states around the world.
Francesco Pisano: Indeed, the book it is very readable and I'm very pleased that it's part of our collection here at the Library and I hope that many people will get to read it. But before we get into our deep dive into the book, just one more question for the benefit of our listeners. In the book you use terms such as “new neutrality” and “new Cold War”. Just, you know, what is new about the neutrals you talk about and what is the new Cold War?
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: Neutrality as a foreign and security policy was of course defined first, by the Congress of Vienna, 1815, with the neutrality of Switzerland but also other countries were recognised, but later on it was qualified 1907 there's the Hague Convention basically on neutrality. So, neutrality is defined in contrast to war, so when there is a war, there is neutrality. Otherwise, you know why should munition. So it moved toward the Cold War, there was not a real war basically there, but there was a kind of proxy wars around. So, in terms of the international relation’s literature, neutrality was still relevant during the Cold War because we had Austria as you know, as a result of a Cold War agreement, in the beginning of the Cold War and agreements of the powers during peace to have a neutral Austria, but later on Laos. So was still justification for neutrality during Cold War but when Cold War was over suddenly this whole idea of liberal internationalism became the main focus everywhere. We have in the books like “End of History”, things like this, but then people thought I mean why you should be neutral and that's why there were lots of questions even within the European neutrals. That the time is over, lets, you know, be all of us one block. Which Switzerland resisted that, but in Austria and the others like Sweden and Ireland. So when I was when I'm talking about new neutrality, because we all know that you know this fell over and this high hopes of liberal order only survived in the late 90s. So, when did, you know, the second term of Putin, with the rise of China and all this, we see some elements of the new Cold War. I mean, this is of course in a term which have to be used with a grain of salt, but if you look at the literature, people are talking about it and the flashpoints, or again, you know, Georgia and Ukraine and hotspots basically, but then Africa and there are many other places that we are talking about us as places of emergence of a new Cold War. What will be the nature of new Cold War? How cold it will be? Our hot will it be? That’s something that we have to wait and see. But with that I think, and of course not only me, there are few others, thinking that there is a need for re-emergence of new neutrality, and to be honest, I think it can give the credit to, of course, the guru of international and security policies, which is Dr Kissinger who mentioned this when it comes to the question of Ukraine and Georgia. They say like these areas need to be neutralised otherwise, you know, could be perpetual conflict and it can draw the region, especially Europe and Russia.
Francesco Pisano: So, let's go into your book, which is a result of years of research, and it will be important that we give a sense to our listeners of what's in the book - the results of your research and what is that you are driving towards in your conclusion. So let's go into that. And having read the book, I got the sense that more or less 200 years of history of Afghanistan, could be seen as semi evidence that periods of neutrality have coincided with periods of stability and peace. And there is no doubt that Afghanistan is located in those fault lines of important geopolitical tensions. This is very clear also from your research, but does this position necessarily mean that the country is a good candidate for permanent neutrality?
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: 200 years of history, yeah. If you look at that history of Afghanistan and the geography that you mentioned. So, the two factors, which are very important for the students of international relations, which is history and geography, if you look at history and you look like geography of Afghanistan, geopolitics of Afghanistan, the answer is a definite yes. But then that makes it desirable, but is it feasible? In terms of feasibility, you have then other factors which I have elaborated in the book, looking into the case studies which I mentioned, Switzerland, Austria, Laos and few others, which of course had not been deeply studied, but mentioned: Belgium, Ireland, United States at one point. So, two other factors, economic factors and cultural and ideational factors. So, I think these two factors are still lacking for Afghanistan to be, you know, a successful neutral country. So, if I concluded that there are existing elements in Afghanistan which tells us that historic history and geography dictators to move toward neutrality. But then there are other factors that we have to work as Afghans, but also as region, to make sure that Afghanistan neutrality could be first of all could be upheld, respected and it could be, you know, a successful one because it's easy for a policy of neutrality to fail and we saw it in number of places.
Francesco Pisano: From your research, what kind of conclusions do you draw? Does Afghanistan have the criteria for permanent neutrality or not? Now you seem to indicate that there are important parts there are still the need development if Afghanistan wants to move towards neutrality, what is your assessment of the country right now?
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: So again, looking into the literature, into the history of neutrality you have for the simplification of discussion, you have domestic factors, and you have regional/international factors in neutrality to be successful. In terms of, you know, as I said, geopolitical factors, Afghanistan is a country that fits the geopolitical characteristics of a neutral country, which I defined it as strategically significant but not vital for any of the powers. Because if a power thanks that the place is a strategically vital for it and that's in the vicinity of that power, they will do everything to control it. And we have, you know, I don't need to mention the examples so, but then the country is strategically important but not vital. Still the countries around will be happy with that country not becoming at least a source of problem, a source of tension. I think this is a factor. Then difficult geographical terrain is another one. Same like, you know, here in Switzerland, Afghanistan is a mountainous country, is very, very difficult for any country to control it. It could cost a lot controlling Afghanistan, so that's another thing. And in terms of, you know, being a buffer state in the past and historically it's, you know, it's a multi-ethnic country, a diverse country which has ethnicities which crosses the current borders of Afghanistan. I think this already the profiles, the characteristic which makes Afghanistan fit for it. And then the consensus of regional powers, I think this can also drive a consensus because, at least in the past 20 years, there was a consensus on Afghanistan at the UN level, you know at the Nation Security Council letting Afghanistan is perhaps one of those very few places where P5 agrees continuously on UN mission, and you know on the security assistant missions in Afghanistan. So, there is, maybe there are some small kinds of disagreements among the P5, but not a major one. At the region, yes, it is, but you know it’s solvable. So, these two characteristics and tell us that yes. But yeah, the other simple characteristics of a neutral country is that the country, a neutral country should be able minimum to finance, to support its own military force by its own domestic revenue. Because the minute you ask support from somewhere else, of course it will be dictated, or it could be seen basically, even if it's not, you know, if even that the supporters benevolent, but then the other side, because there's always a neutral country, they're different powers, different interests externally. The other external site will see that look, you know, if your military is dependent on that. And that's what our fate in 1960s and 70s where we will more or less dependent on Soviet Union in terms of our military hardware, while we try to be neutral and man aligned but without knowing we actually went into the embrace of the Soviet Union and that was when our army was strained there, when all of our military equipment were Russians so of course our army became Kremlins and then they had a coup so I think that's a very important element. So, to be able and we're not able to do that right now, I think that's one thing that I'm thinking that how we should be able to support our army, should be small, not a big one to be able to defend the country in case of there are any invasion which I know that you know nobody is going to invade overly Afghanistan anymore hopefully. But you know, you should not be dependent on anyone on this and the other thing is our culture/ideational one because throughout the history we have been part of empires and also have been source of empires in that region and we have cross-ethnic communities and there is always this ideas ingrained in the Afghans physique that there’s a great nation - this is the source of civilizations from the Hindus to Oxox - things like this, which needs to sort of calm down. And this was the question I ask because I quoted, I will quote him, like I don't want his name, one of the Austrian ambassadors, you know how you agree, you know, these Australians, you're the base of one of the biggest empires, Austro/Hungarian empire, and then suddenly you were deduced in a small country and still you accept it neutrality. So how is the feeling of at least the royal family and the others? And the debate you had because at that time you had two major political parties. So you went to Moscow, you sign the state treaty, and you became neutral. He give me a very good answer and I tried to, you know, keep mentioning that answer in more simple way through my friends and to my colleagues and to my counterparts and countrymen in Afghanistan, that look, the Austrian Ambassador told me that what remained after the war was Austria. What's gone were perhaps not Austria. So we have to live with what's remain and we have to keep what's remained as Austria. So I think that is the case in today's world. In the 21st century many countries are not happy with what they are because they lost their limbs, they lost their parts. But we have to come to the reality that what remains is Afghanistan, and the definition of Afghanistan is the geography of today's Afghanistan, and this country can turn inward to become a neutral place and stay in peace within the different ethnicities. And I saw this in the history of neutrality of Austria, I mean Switzerland sometime, what will be this sort of emotional connection of German Swiss towards? Will that be used by Germany during the Second World War, the First World War? The same for the French and the others. But somehow, you know, the national identity becomes so strong bond bases of neutrality because the central government, the federal government could not be seen to inclined toward one of your region which has co-ethnics. I think that's another most important element for us but the good thing is that I see now the debate of neutrality is taking root in Afghanistan, and it's coming from within Afghanistan. In the past, if you see my book, mostly the proposals of neutrality were coming from outside, but now there is a certain discussion and my little book is starting this discussion, also in Kabul.
Francesco Pisano: And to your point there, at one point you mentioned in your book that the idea of a permanent neutrality for Afghanistan, had been flagged already in 2009 and then it was sort of replaced or side-lined by the Istanbul process. And can you tell us a little bit more about this process?
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: Yes, yes, certainly. I can tell you about that. And that was when I was researching this book. But before that, just you know one minute I can take you back in history a little bit. That the idea of neutrality or Afghanistan become a permanent neutral also has another very interesting, fascinating history which I’m sure your audience will like it, is that the in 1980, like immediately after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the idea of Afghanistan becoming a permanent neutral was an initiative by Lord Carrington, who was the foreign Secretary of Britain. So, he proposed it. They went all the way around it, then it went up to the United Nations, but there it stopped. Was that we will declare Afghanistan a neutral country in condition that it will provide a face-saving umbrella for the Soviet to withdraw its troops. So, Afghanistan could be a neutral country, but the Soviet Union could withdraw its force, it was, you know, at the very beginning of this and they proposed at that time a sort of, you know, Soviet-friendly neutrality, which is called Finland's approach, or Finlandization, I know, our Finnish colleagues don’t like this term, but it is there in the history. So, sort of like a Finland style arrangement but neither Soviet Union at the time and now our company spotted then accepted, they thought that this sort of, you know, very Western plot that they wanted to neutralise Afghanistan first and then they come in themselves. So that was the first official one before this 2011. In 2009, when President Obama came in, policies was that of course that you have to get out of Iraq "bad war”, but also to manage the good war which was Afghanistan. But there also the Obama administration with Vice President Biden who is now President Biden, the number of diplomats like late Richard Holbrooke, so they can be this idea of, you know, how to look into the exit strategy from Afghanistan. The exit strategy was that we make a search and increase the areas of control, deliver a blow to the Taliban and some, you know, state they called the state in the box, you know, you control the state services, but then we will withdraw. You know, an increase, a search, and a withdrawal. But this the exit was also complemented by a regional policy. It has to be regional settlement with the region and a peace effort even at that time with Taliban also with the region. So, the idea of neutrality was one of the two variants that maybe plan A or Plan B, I don't know which one of creating regional consensus, a base for regional consensus was that we will get out of Afghanistan. We, US and NATO, and the region has to agree: Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, all of this, on a neutral Afghanistan. So it shouldn't be a source of tension, and in fact this was raised a number of articles against Henry Kissinger, James Dobbins who was a special envoy. But more prominently, Secretary Clinton herself in 2011, I can if I can remember in June 2011, and I mentioned that episode in my book, in a closed interaction with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she mentioned that if we can get into a settlement similar again, she mentions the Vienna Convention of 1815. A settlement where the Benelux countries became a free zone, so if we can reach an agreement with the regional powers around Afghanistan in a similar arrangement, it will be a success story.. But then of course since you know it was, it was very difficult to develop this at that time and on the other plan, which was no, we need a regional diplomatic platform, which Turkey, as an ally can chair but United States and the NATO countries could be. Membership will be regional, they have 12 regional countries around Afghanistan, but also supported with the second circle, which is the United States, Europe, EU and the others. So the idea of the Istanbul process was a regional political confidence building project which actually was good because it was ending towards, you know, coming to an agreement where the region will slowly take over and the United States will leave. But then we know that what happened after 2012 and 13 in the Middle East, the Syria crisis, Turkey itself was basically, you know, got busy and that's why the idea of the Istanbul process moved but couldn't really succeed. And that's why after 10 years we are coming back to discussion of neutrality.
Francesco Pisano: And here we are indeed 10 years later on the verge of many options for the future of Afghanistan and if you allow me, I would like to shift the conversation now to the future. Let's talk about the future. This is a very important moment for your country. We are in 2021, the US has publicly said and repeated they’re going to withdraw their troops. There is a lot of talking about this. The effects that this may have on the future of your country. The press is, you know, full of articles and analysis. In your book though, you also say something that really stuck with me, and you say, and I'm quoting “exploring internationally backed regional neutrality in non-aggression arrangements is a more realistic policy than the permanent neutrality of a single state”. So based on that on that statement of yours and now that the US has decided to withdraw troops. Is that a policy in a better position to succeed, is it feasible?
Nasir Ahmad Andisha: You see, it's a difficult question to answer. Especially you know when it comes to future, we have to be very careful because, you know ,if you if you focus something pessimistic for future and so nobody will come to take you but if you have, you know, a very open one and positive onr then of course and if not happen you will be blamed for it. But anyway, it's my country and I have to be very optimistic about it. So, where we are right now it looks like neutrality of Afghanistan, a permanent neutrality of Afghanistan, which has to be, as I mentioned in the book, there it was year and half - two years back, we don't know much that we know right now about the withdrawal and things like this. If it is supported seriously by P5 and our region, it offers a win-win situation for all of us and even for the pessimists. It prevents loss-loss a situation because it will be if Afghanistan enters into another era of civil war and chaos, it will be a loss of course, for us, certainly. We are right now in a intense very intente period of conflict losing lots of you know our compatriots, schools, universities, doctors, hospitals - nowhere is safe from this, you know, these attacks, but that can multiply. You know that can even be going into worse situation - God forbid - you know what happened in situation of civil wars in places like Africa or in the Balkans, those kind of you know mass atrocities. So that would be a loss for us, but also for the region because the fallout will be seen much stronger in our region, but also in Europe in terms of the refugees in terms of all this, you know, terrorist groups which are now hanging around Afghanistan, there could be freedom. So, I'm saying that this a very realistic. Some people think that neutrality is an idealistic liberal kind of thing, but I say no. Neutrality is a very realistic concept for Afghanistan. It will safe. It will protect our sovereign.
0 Comments.