Why buffer zones could combat the ongoing war in Afghanistan

With the rapid advance of Taliban insurgents, all the provincial capitals in the provinces of Herat, Kandahar, Kunduz, and Mazar-e-Sharif are threatened and targeted. The Taliban seized three cities this week—the commercial hub of Kunduz, Sari-Pul, and Taliqan. U.S. President Joe Biden’s announcement that the last contingent of American troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by Aug. 31 has emboldened the Taliban and led to the loss of hard-won territory including various border towns bordering Pakistan and Iran in the past few weeks. This facilitates the infiltration of foreign fighters, and the movement of heavy weaponry onto Afghan soil. The international community had pinned its hopes on an intra-Afghan peaceful settlement that could lead to a power-sharing government. But Taliban representatives are demanding the resignation of President Ashraf Ghani, while Ghani’s government is demanding a comprehensive ceasefire. Neither side is willing to compromise on key demands, and the peace process is being used as a stalling tactic by the Taliban, while they advance across the country. The Ghani government is staging a showcase of proactive diplomacy, in a bid to secure future aid from the United States government. Afghanistan requires buffer zones that lead to political settlements, instead of war, so as to attain lasting peace and development. The nation progressed from a theocratic state governed by Taliban’s harsh interpretation of Islamic law to a democratic system, witnessed over the last 20 years by the successful transition of power, and the development of key public ministries and institutions, such as the Afghanistan National Defense and Security Forces. The Western-backed democratic journey in Afghanistan was fraught with deficiencies, including endemic corruption at all levels of government; favouritism and cronyism in institutional bureaucracies; as well as a culture of warlordism in security institutions of the state. But now the international community must establish buffer zones or Zones of Peace (ZoPs) around the provincial capitals, that become sanctuaries, held as inviolate and protected from harm. The idea that we can protect holy sites, and special cities as sanctuaries was a viable historic practice in centuries past. We can also grant political asylum, and protect interpreters who have helped, but this is not enough. We need the United Nations to establish buffer zones of peace, freedom, and neutrality. For example, a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality was declared in the Philippines in September 1988. Following the first wave of Filipino ZoPs, the concept of local sanctuary in the midst of violent conflict has taken root around the world. We can create safe havens, communities of peace, truce corridors, days of tranquility, as well as operational lifelines—often of limited temporal duration, but supported by outside agencies seen as neutral to the conflict, such as the UN or UNICEF. Any buffer zones or ZoPs in Afghanistan would be fragile because armed soldiers—whether pro- or anti-government—cannot be stopped by unarmed civilians. And buffer zones based on grassroots democratic principles could easily be usurped, especially if they are located upon valuable trading routes for opium trafficking. But buffer zones including ZoPs have been tried in conflict zones like El Salvador and Northern Ireland, and in post-conflict peacebuilding in places like Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe. For instance, Timor-Leste’s president proposed creating 46 “peace zones” in the war-ravaged country, and although his project did not come to fruition, various sanctuaries around the globe have instituted a culture of peace programs, literacy, and inter-community efforts to reduce criminal violence, as well as efforts to improve situations of severe economic deprivation. It appears that the triggering events that shock communities and bring them together to create buffer zones, as well as Zones of Peace can be acute fear of warfare. So far in Afghanistan this year, the fighting has forced 300,000 people to flee their homes. But UN-protected areas can also be successful because of a sense of agency that involves community builders in decision-making processes. Already warlords in Afghanistan are taking arms into their own hands, to defend small villages. If the Taliban advances further into the major provincial cities, such as Herat and Kandahar, then Afghanistan’s borders will collapse, and neighbouring countries like Pakistan will fear it becomes a pariah state. UN-protected buffer zones could help local communities to set up their own militias including more power-sharing decision-making processes. In the long run, decades hence, established Zones of Peace might include educational activities, job training, economic initiatives, public relations campaigns, and the creation of parallel governance structures, just to name a few. International institutions, like the UN and NATO could channel aid money toward establishing the emerging peaceful buffer zones, rather than supplying Afghan fighters with more sophisticated armaments. President Biden has said to Afghan interpreters and their families, “There is a home for you in the United States if you so choose, and we’ll stand with you just as you stood with us.” But there are thousands and thousands of people in the very early stage of the process, just waiting for the U.S. government to look at their applications. In the meantime, small buffer zones in Afghanistan that evolve into large tracts of land and resources might help stem the tide of refugees fleeing to Kabul’s international airport. Dr. Sakhi Naimpoor specializes in NATO-led capacity building initiatives and is an expert on security sector reform in Afghanistan. Dr. Erika Simpson is the president of the Canadian Peace Research Association and a professor of international politics at Western University. The Hill Times