Commentary
Sarah Chayes
{
"authors": [
"Sarah Chayes"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"South Asia",
"Afghanistan"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Civil Society",
"Religion"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
A Negotiated Future for Afghanistan
The future of Afghanistan depends on the willingness of the U.S. and Afghan governments to incorporate constituencies besides the Taliban in peace negotiations.
By Sarah Chayes
Published on Mar 28, 2013
Source: WBEZ's Worldview
Speaking on WBEZ Chicago, Carnegie's Sarah Chayes argued that the United States has been too tolerant of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's political gesturing, and as a result, negotiations for a peaceful resolution to the conflict there are off track. She suggested that a major course correction is needed if the governments are to succeed in staunching the violence, and recommended as a first step broadening negotiations to include a diverse group of constituents within Afghanistan, rather than focusing exclusively on the Taliban. Chayes also observed that the U.S. government has sent very mixed signals to Karzai, further complicating efforts to end the war on favorable terms.
About the Author
Sarah Chayes
Former Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Sarah Chayes is internationally recognized for her innovative thinking on corruption and its implications. Her work explores how severe corruption can help prompt such crises as terrorism, revolutions and their violent aftermaths, and environmental degradation.
- China Financial Markets test
Recent Work
Political ReformDemocracySecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyCivil SocietyReligionNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaAfghanistan
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Methods of National Power Analysis: Pitfalls and Best PracticesPaper
Power assessments shape our perceptions of the limits of the possible, but quantitative rankings and dashboards can provide false confidence.
Nicholas Kitchen
- There Is No Shortcut for Europe in ArmeniaCommentary
Europe has an interest in supporting Armenian leader Nikol Pashinyan as he tries to make peace with neighbors and loosen ties with Russia. But it is depersonalized support in the long term, not quickfire flash, that will win the day.
Thomas de Waal
- Governing AI in the Shadow of Giants: Korea’s Strategic Response to Great Power AI CompetitionArticle
In its version of an AI middle power strategy, Seoul is pursuing alignment with the United States not as an endpoint but as a strategy to build industrial and geopolitical leverage. Whether this balance holds remains an open question.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Seungjoo Lee
- The Iran War Shows the Limits of U.S. PowerArticle
If Washington cannot adapt to the ongoing transformations of a multipolar world, its superiority will become a liability.
Amr Hamzawy
- Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?Commentary
A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.
Michael Young
