CONFERENCE REPORT ! The Prague Security Studies Institute, with the support of the NATO Public Diplomacy Division and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic and Skoda Auto, organized an international conference entitled, “Afghanistan After 2014 – The Afghan Perspective and NATO’s Legacy.” The conference was held on November 27-28, 2013 at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. The speakers and other participants included both prominent personalities of Afghan social and political life and high-level policymakers, practitioners and scholars from the international community, including: Siddiq Mansoor Ansari, Chairman of the Federation of Afghanistan’s Civil Society (FACS), Afghanistan; Ing. Wahidullah Sabawoon, Advisor for Tribal Affairs to President Karzai and Chairman of the United Islamic Party of Afghanistan, Afghanistan; Amrullah Saleh, Former Director of the Afghan intelligence service National Directorate of Security and Chairman of the National Movement, Afghanistan; Col. Jan Holek, Deputy Director for Foreign Operations, Joint Operations Centre, Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic, Czech Rep.; and Pauli Jarvenpaa, Former Finnish Ambassador to Afghanistan, Senior Research Fellow at International Centre for Defence Studies (ICDS), Estonia; Petr Pelz, Executive Director, Prague Security Studies Institute; Alexandr Sporys, Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Mahmoud Saikal, Former Ambassador of Afghanistan to Australia and New Zealand; Jan Urban, journalist and professor, University of New York in Prague; Franz- Michael Skjold Mellbin, EU Special Representative in Afghanistan, Denmark; Patrick Moody, Head of the Afghanistan/Pakistan Department in the FCO, United Kingdom; Eric Povel, Information Officer Afghanistan, NATO; Amir Ahmadzai, Program Manager, People in Need, Czech Republic/Afghanistan; Mohammad Amin Mudaqiq, Service Director, Radio Mashaal RFE/ !RL. The conference spanned two days and six panels, opening with a discussion of the main challenges to Afghanistan after 2014 delivered by Mr. Sabawoon, Mr. Saleh and Mr. Saikal. There was unanimity across the first panel concerning the importance of the upcoming elections in Afghanistan, the uncertainty surrounding Afghan security forces handling the transition of !security and responsibility, yet also the need for foreign aid to continue in some capacity. The second panel examined whether general security is the only challenge facing Afghanistan following the exit of foreign forces. Mr. Saleh noted in his remarks that Afghanistan’s economy and trade are hindered due to being landlocked and surrounded by hostile neighbours, in addition to no easily sellable resources native to Afghanistan, and a poor infrastructure system. There was widespread agreement by the audience that the challenges facing Afghanistan go beyond security !concerns. The building of lasting social patterns was examined by Mr. Sabawoon, Mr. Ansari, and Pauli Jarvenpaa, a Finnish diplomat, during the third panel. All three recounted the advancements society has made regarding women and children’s rights, yet all agreed that society has much room for improvement on this topic. Finally, Mr. Sabawoon acknowledged that there are more than 25 political parties in Afghanistan, highlighting that the political landscape is diverse, yet they !manage to live in harmony. The final panel of day one examined the need for investments and off-budget reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. The panellists, Mahmoud Saikal, Amir Ahmadzai, National Solidarity Program Manager at People in Need, and Mr. Ansari, all focused on the agriculture industry as a key sector positioned to attract outside investment. The panel was moderated by Mohammad !Amin Mudaqiq, Service Director at Radio Mashaal RFE/RL. Day two opened with panellists Mohammad Amin Mudaqiq, RFE/RL, Patrick Moody, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and Mr. Jarvenpaa exploring the future of Afghanistan in a regional and international context. Mr. Mudaqiq lamented that securing Afghanistan’s sovereignty was critical, and the international community should continue to lend support to achieve this. Though, the panellists disagreed as to what role the international community should play in this regard, and all !concluded that this topic is likewise controversial among the population in Afghanistan. The conference concluded with a lively discussion from Eric Povel, NATO Information Officer, Col. Jan Holek of the Czech Ministry of Defence, and Patrick Moody, Head of the Afghanistan/Pakistan Department in the FCO, United Kingdom. The three panellists investigated NATO’s future role in Afghanistan and what legacy NATO might leave behind. Mr. Povel emphasized the importance of a continued commitment from the United States despite its removal of military personnel, as the US will play a vital role in the strategic planning of Afghanistan’s future. Col. Holek pointed out the difference between traditional warfare training and counter insurgency training, stating that the Afghan and foreign security forces must continue to cooperate on this level. Finally, Mr. Povel concluded the conference with a reminder that managing the transition must include great effort, adaptability and patience from all parties involved. Josef Oplustil from the Defence Policy and !Strategy Division, Czech Ministry of Defense moderated the panel. The conference was considered a resounding success by its participants and attendees, it received positive media attention, and the conference findings added substantially to the ongoing debate !concerning Afghanistan’s future. !From the speeches we extract namely: • Wahidullah Sabawoon gave a straightforward review of an operational, social and political situation in today Afghanistan. National unity is essential and it does exist. He pointed out that it was the USSR that pushed the Afghans towards Pakistan 35 years ago. • Amrullah Saleh called for a strong alliance with the West as against a concept of neutrality: “Neutrality – a sheep against wolfs”. Afghanistan has been suffering from a chain of unequal treaties in modern history. Afghanistan should not be a buffer but an integrator, we do not need charity but investments. • Mahmoud Saikal stressed that Afghanistan is exposed to plethora of other challenges than security too. He advocated the “enduring neutrality” as the only possibility to ensure peace. • Franz-Michael Skjold Mellbin emphasised the significance of coming presidential and later parliament elections in following two years; the importance is even multiplied by the coincidental draw-out of the ISAF. He strongly called for financial sustainability of the ANSF. • Siddiq Mansoor Ansari described the basis of the Afghan civil society and explained its differences from that of the West. He went through the historical development of the Afghan society. • Mohammad Amin Mudaqiq noted a steep growth of violent groups in Afghanistan in the last decades stating: o The militancy has been a reaction to the most brutal force – the Soviet Army; o The foreign fighters were invited to Afghanistan by foreign elements; thus the fight against them now should not be fought by Afghans only. • Pauli Jarvenpaa accentuated that the task of donor nations ought to be to ensure an “organic ability” of Afghan society and political set-up. “Afghanistan has a potential”, he said and went on stressing that we should ensure the (especially technical) education and apprenticeship. • Eric Povel gave an honest and thorough enumeration of NATO possibilities and both strategic guidelines and goals in Afghanistan. • Jan Holek eloquently explained the Czech Army tasks and experience in Afghanistan. However, he drew the audience attention to the limitation the armed forces encounter in carrying out such tasks: “Soldiers are better in destroying than building.” • Patrick Moody admitted that transition and “handing over responsibility” may not be sufficiently quick but he observed that the process represents a deep rooted change. It is necessary to limit the “campaign mentality” because the military cannot stop the problem; it only provides the opportunity to politicians. He agreed that Afghanistan has a potential ! for a build-up: “We balance between opportunity and threat but we bet on success.” ! ! ! ! ! ! !