Situating Workable Response continues....

Transition from conflict to peace is unlikely to be a smooth process as old

conflicts like center-province tensions continues and new ones like land

conflict related to returnees are emerging. A complex, shifting geography

of violence and relative peace, characterizes the present day Afghan polity.

Jonathan Goodhand points out that it is an oversimplification to associate

disorder with violence and return of order with peace. He cites that

violent resistance may ultimately have positive social outcomes,the

growing assertiveness, for example, of the historically excluded groups

such as the Hazaras. These, as he rightly points out, are some of the basic

realities that must be factored into conflict resolution, peace building and

reconstruction, otherwise peace-building efforts are unlikely to succeed.

Hence, one can argue that “ending the war” does not necessarily mean peace, at least not in the case of Afghanistan. It must involve the transformation of the institutions, networks and incentive systems,—

nationally, regionally, and locally that caused and perpetuate the conflict

system in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, so far a fragile peace has been maintained, yet the writ

of the Karzai government does not extend far beyond Kabul as factional

politics remain complicated and security keeps deteriorating. The

continuing struggles for power of the various groups who may also be a

party to the Bonn, have created pockets of infighting in several parts of

the country, and their rivalries have as so often in the past, been aided and

abetted by various regional powers. Meanwhile those opposed to the

government have gained ground, organising opposition from bases in

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It is not surprising, therefore, that the primary

concern of most Afghans is security.

To be continued...