Some experts believe that the current war is not about Afghanistan, it is rather a proxy war. The peace that is currently being discussed in Doha has nothing to do with the citizens of Afghanistan.

In an interview with the CSHRN, Mr. Mousavi said that the peace negotiations in Doha has nothing to do with Afghanistan. “Afghanistan’s war and peace is a proxy war issue, meaning that Afghanistan has not invaded any country, rather other countries are fighting their battles here. Those who wanted conflict in the region achieved it without being directly involved. The difference between the proxy war of the last fifteen to twenty years and the proxy war of the 1980s and 1990s is that in the recent war all involved parties are assisted and strengthened by the United States. This is not a war of the Afghan people, and the only connection it has with the citizens is the killing, the destruction, the economic, social and psychological problems. This war is in the best interests of the United States and its allies, and unfortunately Afghanistan is in not in a good strategic position.

CSHRN: What do you mean by the best interests you mentioned?

Mousavi: Two things are needed for the arsenals and the economy of the West as a whole. One is that there must always be war zones around the world for these weapons factories to operate and sell. The largest and most profitable industry in the world is the war industry. The weapons used in Afghanistan are all made abroad, and the mines used here are made in European countries. So one of the main goals of Western economy is that there has to be war and conflict zone. Around 1980, there were about 64 war-torn areas. Now the number has risen to more than 100, and the war has intensified beyond the borders of the Western world. For those in control waging war is a blessing. Another thing that Westerners need is to always have a monster of their own making and control outside their borders to control people. For a while, they created the monster of communism, and now they have created the monster of Islamophobia, which in the West is the need of multinational corporations and billionaires and the necessity of the capitalist economy. Even if we hope for peace for thousands of years, war will continue as it does in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen.

CSHRN: If peace is a proxy and has nothing to do with the people of Afghanistan, what is the mission of women representatives in peace talks and what will be the fate of women’s rights after the peace talks?

Mousavi: Is there such thing as women’s representatives in Afghanistan? We have no representative for anything. It is just a matter of taking the credit that a woman should say she is the in-charge person for women’s rights and concerns in general.  Nearly 99 percent of Afghan women do not have the social awareness to form a women’s organization or have a common agenda. Moreover, the West pays for women’s NGOs. The West and the United States pay the expenses of those in Doha, not the government of Afghanistan. The negotiating team did not travel to Doha at the will of Afghan government or people. Therefore, it is by the will of the West with a command of the US, not the government of Afghanistan, to involve and undergo the peace process. Regarding the fate of women, I think we should discuss the fate of the people, because it includes both men and women. Their rights are equally vulnerable. For instance, in one of the case, in the Kabul University tragedy, terrorists did not segregate men and women and killed both. Additionally, in a poor society, the rights of men and women does not make any sense. Women’s rights are Western phenomenon taught to us by the Westerners.  

CSHRN: If a peace agreement was signed and the Taliban took power, would women be able to continue working in different sectors like today?

Mousavi: It depends on those parties that finances the Doha talks. They do not care about Afghan women. If they want a medieval Emirate system will rule Afghanistan as they did the rule of the Taliban for six years. It does not matter to the United States whether the Taliban rule in Afghanistan or a democratic system is established. The interests of the United States as a whole is important for them, and whoever guarantees those interests is important to the United States.

CSHRN: Some believe that the outcome of the US presidential election will determine the fate of the Afghan peace talks. Given the outcome of this election, what is your general prediction of the outcome of the peace talks?

Mousavi: First, the Doha talks were a hasty move enormous amount of money was traded in the name of peace. Second, the Doha peace was more because of the US election, which fortunately did not end in favor of the ruling party in Washington. The plan that was laid out before will not go ahead, and these talks will definitely be suspended until the new US administration takes office. But, I do not think that it will continue after that and the new US president will have a special interest in Afghanistan. The only difference is that maybe he will agree with his European allies and not leave Afghanistan at once to upset the situation. However, Mr. Joe Biden may have a different plan. He had said many years ago in a very violent confrontation with Mr. Karzai in Kabul that they had no reason to stay in Afghanistan. In general, US foreign policy will not differ much and there will not be much difference in dealing with Afghanistan. With the democrats in power, the Taliban will be dismantled, but the war and violence will continue.

CSHRN: How will this war continue?

Mousavi: In my opinion, the war situation in Afghanistan will not be much different. It is only possible that with the democrats in power, the intensity of the war will decrease to some extent and they will bring the situation under control a little. War and peace are both proxies here. This war will end when there is a national administration and an inclusive national government in Afghanistan, and the people feel ownership and participation in all national processes. It will end when there is a mutual trust between the government and the people, the administration itself wants to be independent and the people want to move towards independence too. The Afghan army and police are very strong if they are allowed to fight, but the army has been active in defense since the time of Mr. Karzai. This means that even if the Taliban attack, the army has no right to fight. Otherwise how can one accept that the 44 best countries in the world are present in Afghanistan and are not able to confront the Taliban? The fact is that they do not have the will to do so.

CSHRN: If Taliban do not return, as you say, what will be the situation for women? For example, will cases such as the traditional summary trials?

Mousavi: The situation will be the same until we unite and the central government is strengthened, because not only in the Taliban-controlled areas, but also in the areas controlled by the Afghan government, barbaric practices and violence against women continue. Stoning and amputation are carried out in the areas under the control of the government. The government is weak with no plans. It is more of a joint stock company and all their discussions are about ethnic issues, which is not our problem. Our problem is the lack of social justice. In the absence of social justice all ethnic and gender groups are harmed. Our problem is illiteracy; we have to pay attention to schools. Our problem is the low quality of education at the universities with low skilled students. Our problem is security and economy. The debates in the cabinet are about things that have nothing to do with the social needs of the people; that is why the people have lost hope on the government.

CSHRN: How to fight Talibanism?

Mousavi: I want to present my proposed solution in three stages. First, in the current situation we all must defend the republic system. Secondly, in the medium term, we must make reforms to the constitution. For example, the constitution does not prohibit discrimination. So we have to fight against it. In the long run, we must move towards an inclusive national government; because the current government is not inclusive, but the multi-ethnic government is the best interpretation that can be given.

According to Dr. Mousavi, currently the best option for the people is to support the negotiating team, and this is a kind of choice between bad and worse in the current situation.

For more interviews: