Conclusion of Another Meeting
Testing of Waters in Rome
by
Dr. G. Rauf Roashan

A consultative meeting of a 16-member group, which was invited by the former king of Afghanistan to meet in Rome, ended last Thursday. As expected the meeting has left behind a number of proposals for the study of the former king on the issue of convening of an emergency Loya Jirga, the Grand National Assembly. Preliminary reports talk about extensive deliberations by the meeting of the issues including the need for participation in the loya jirga of Afghan women as well. In an interview with Azadi Afghan Radio, Dr. Zalmai Rassoul a spokesman for the former king has stated that aside from certain specific issues that will be determined in the future, general consensus existed on the main issues among the participants, who, to a certain degree, represented differing Afghan trends of thought. He has further revealed to the Radio that a summary report will soon be released to the public. Another source has told the Radio that contrary to expectations, the advisory body was chaired by Dr. Qassem Fazeli. No reason has been given as to what were the expectations.

A lot of credit is due to the Azadi Afghan Radio for obtaining of necessary information for the public from the sources involved in the meeting. For example, the Radio was able earlier to conduct an interview with Dr. Zalmai Khalilzad, a former official of the United States, State and Defense Departments and a seasoned diplomat now working with the Rand Corporation. As announced earlier he was one of the participants who were invited by the king to attend the meeting. Khalilzad had said that one of the functions of the meeting was to find solutions and answers to several questions among them: how to find ways to attract and mobilize popular support inside and outside the country; how to deal with the warring factions and find ways to gain their support for this initiative; how to deal with the regional countries and other powers, especially the United States. (This column raised some of these very questions earlier and it was suggested that the meeting must address them adequately. Whether the meeting has been able to achieve any of the above is yet not fully known.) Denying his involvement in an official capacity with the meeting, Dr. Khalilzad justified his membership in it by stating that he had promised the king that he would cooperate regarding the king’s proposal upon which he had already submitted his opinions. He said he did not have a particular role on behalf of the US government or some other group, including the King’s own circle.

An NNI report published comments by Hidayat Amin Arsala, a former foreign minister in the Rabbani government who had also participated in the meeting on the invitation of the king. Arsala said: " I think the will of the Afghan people should be respected but unfortunately it has not so far been done. This is the cause of the continuation of the Afghan war." Arsala has further stated: " We discussed the rights of the people of Afghanistan including women. That is why they should be given role in a jirga as well if we discuss their future."

Another participant, who did not want to be identified, told Azadi Afghan Radio that this consultative step, which was added to the original process at a later point, may not have produced many major breakthroughs in the formulation of the peace plan. This participant also confirmed previously voiced allegations that the group’s composition could have been "even more balanced and representative than was the case."

The aforementioned coupled with one of our earlier commentaries about the 35-member conference and called "Movement in Rome" should clarify to any observer of the Afghan issue that perhaps because of the expectations from it, the meeting has hastened to produce a report for the study of the former king. As to the true nature of the deliberations of the meeting we do not have enough information. Yet perhaps from the background and affiliations, past or present, of some of the members one could conclude that the report was geared to please the host. This is also because advanced agreement with the king’s plan had drawn the group together. The question is why was this consultative meeting required to begin with? And what has it done that the office of the king itself could not do? What are some of the decisions by the meeting that require follow-up and who is going to follow up on them? Is there a timetable for the events that follow? Were all of he members really qualified to express unbiased views on the issues?

Only time will tell. 7/4/99