Over the past few months, as highlighted by a conference on Afghanistan held in London on January 28, 2010, signs have emerged of a concerted and comprehensive effort to engage elements of the insurgency in negotiations, reconciliation and reintegration. In May, the Afghan government will host a Peace Jirga to build support for their plans to negotiate with insurgent leaders.

Since the fall of the Taliban, many principles of justice and equality have been enshrined into Afghanistan’s basic legal framework, even if they have often not been implemented. What are the implications of a peace deal with a movement previously known for oppressing women, ethnic and religious minorities? Will protection of rights be weakened on paper or in practice? Will a proposed blanket amnesty attempt to exclude prosecution of war crimes? How will these issues play out in a national (and international) discussion about the parameters of a peace deal and will all perspectives be sufficiently represented in the process?

On April 1, 2010, USIP hosted a lively discussion of these and other questions.

Speakers

• Nader Nadery
  Commissioner, Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission
• Farishta Sakhi
  Board Member, Women's Activities and Social Services Association
• Michael Semple
  Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights, Harvard University
  Author of "Reconciliation in Afghanistan" (USIP, 2009)
• Noah Coburn
  Traditional Justice Specialist, U.S. Institute of Peace
• Anthony Richter, Welcome
  Associate Director, Open Society Institute
• J Alexander Thier, Moderator
  Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. Institute of Peace
  Author of "Afghanistan's Rocky Path to Peace" (Current History, 2010)