Retired Lt Gen H.R. McMaster (left) and Nader Nadery
Nader Nadery Speaks on Afghanistan One Year after US Withdrawal
By Elaine Pasquini
Palo Alto, CA: On his August 10 Battlegrounds program, Lt Gen H.R. McMaster (ret), former US national security advisor, author of Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World and currently a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, interviewed human rights advocate Nader Nadery, an honorary senior fellow at the Asser Institute for International and European Law.
Nadery previously served on the peace negotiation team for the Afghanistan Doha Peace Process signed in Qatar on February 29, 2020. Additionally, he was chair of the Independent Civil Service Commission of Afghanistan and a senior advisor to the Afghan president on public and strategic affairs and human rights issues. Prior to serving in the Afghan government, Nadery was commissioner of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission for seven years.
Noting that he and Nadery previously worked together on counter corruption and organized crime and particularly the problems associated with criminalized patronage networks that were hollowing out institutions that were critical to the state’s survival, McMaster asked why the two of them were unable to “build a kind of resiliency in the Afghan state over two decades.”
Although Afghan leaders and international partners failed in the end, “It was a collective effort of making Afghanistan a better place for its people, but we just didn’t get there, unfortunately,” Nadery responded. “Putting pieces together, we made significant progress in the past 20 years, thanks to all the blood and treasure of our international partners and our own Afghans…who gave the ultimate sacrifice.”
Afghan leaders failed on the fundamentals of building a state, including accountability, he said. “That’s what people were expecting. The United States and the coalition were there to help us build a clean, transparent state with accountability to people, but within a few years people saw that that was not happening.”
“Some characters [warlords] who knew nothing of public service, but seeing the government as part of their share of what they did the decade before, were given the task of building this new state,” he continued. “And that’s when they thought every part of the public institution was theirs and they were entitled to do with it as they wished.”
The public wanted the country to be different, Nadery noted. Civil society started growing and, “unfortunately, some of the Afghans who came from the diaspora were not as committed as those that were warlords.”
There was a gap of at least 20 years in the memories and experience of most of the Afghans who returned from the diaspora to Afghanistan and were, therefore, disconnected with the society. “They came with some good ideas but were unable to understand how the institutional culture works in that postwar society,” he said.
Ordinary Afghans wanted to be treated equally by law like any other citizen, Nadery stated. “They wanted accountability for anyone who did wrong. They wanted justice for those wrongdoings.”
Afghans also hoped for their dignity and human rights to be respected and for a government that could serve the people and be responsive to the people’s requests. “That is why they voted overwhelmingly for democratic institutions to be ingrained in our constitution,” he explained. “But then there were failures of leadership, and the short-sighted political elite thought it was the international community’s responsibility to do everything for them.”
While the US and others were generous with aid, it was not used properly, Nadery contended. Major infrastructure projects were not focused on. Being an agricultural country, Afghanistan needed many major hydroelectric dams that would irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres of land and create jobs for thousands of people.
Nadery and McMaster both criticized international partners for their planning of a one-year war, which actually was fought 20 times over. “This was the short-term approach to what was a long-term challenge that actually lengthened the war and made it more costly,” McMaster opined. “That short-term approach prioritized withdrawal – getting out overachieving a sustainable political outcome…to help Afghanistan become Afghanistan again.”
Nadery pointed out that “Afghanistan could do with lesser amounts of economic development in the short to mid-term but can’t survive with continued political instability and repressive non-democratic rule.”
In 2009, when a timeline for withdrawal was released, “it was déjà vu,” he recalled. “I knew that the Taliban would outwait us and that was exactly what happened. Collectively, Taliban leaders are setting the policies that violate every single right of Afghans, creating a total state of suppression. They have indicated no element or sign of being a changed people.”
Today, Afghanistan is a transformed country, Nadery stated. Afghans are connected with each other, especially through their shared values. In talking to both villagers and urban center dwellers, the longtime human rights advocate noted how passionate the men and women were about the value of human rights, respect for women and the democratic participatory processes.
“My source of hope is this movement of women activists on the streets of Kabul and other cities who, in the face of grave danger, march through the streets to demand rights – for work, education and their equal say in society, politics and government,” Nadery said. “That’s a source of strength and inspiration.” In addition, religious elders in different communities have stood up for women’s rights and education, he added.
“We are thinking and working actively on building an alliance for democracy where those of us outside, in exile, can work and give our resources and voices,” Nadery explained. “But the Afghans on the ground are trying to connect and build together to push for change. They want to see if they can change the situation non-violently. It will take time…but I think Afghans will choose a different path and press against this repressive regime that is in power.”
(Elaine Pasquini is a freelance journalist. Her reports appear in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and Nuze.Ink.)
