And it arrives a week from Thursday at the U.S. Institute of Peace: “Peace vs. Human Rights? Implications for a Peace Settlement with the Taliban.” From the description:

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?

Enormous credit to USIP for crystalizing the emerging contours of this debate in a provocative way. I’ve been to enough think-tank fora to know it will inevitably be flavored like Wheatena, but this is really the heart of what we mean when we discuss Taliban reconciliation. For my part, I tend to wish this binary didn’t overlook the fact that war is typically very bad for human rights, but you know what, USIP means to be provocative and I support that broader endeavor.

Spencer Ackerman

Spencer Ackerman

1 Comment