29.10.2009 10:08 - Av Orzala Ashraf Nemat
Orzala Ashraf Nemat is one of the leading Afghan women's rights activists. She encouraged women's participation in the election and all political processes. Orzala holds a Msc in Development Studies from University of London and was selected as Young Global Leader 2009 at a World Economic Forum community.
«Did you go voting? I see your hand is still colored!»
«Yes, I went. I decided not to stay home, and see things first hand. Did you go and vote?»
«No, I didn't. I know it doesn't make any difference. Things are already decided somewhere above.»
«The local baker didn't vote». «The ice-cream man voted». «Not one woman at this polling station». «Some really young boys at that polling station.»
These were typical conversations among Afghans on the election day. Four weeks later, conversations are still full of election talk, as people wait for the results and absorb the continuing allegations of fraud. Those who did vote wonder if it was worthwhile.
The election day started with a number of explosions in Kabul. Although I live in the outskirts, some of them could be heard in my area. The government had tried to stop the media from reporting violence, but I was hearing about what was going on through Twitter: shoot-outs between insurgents and the police, rocket attacks, roadside bombs and suicide bombers.
I started phoning around to my friends and colleagues in other regions, and a mixed picture emerged. There was fighting in Baghlan-e-Jadid in the morning, and the district Police Chief was shot dead. In Nahrin only few men voted, but they asked officials not to ink their fingers because the Taliban had sent out night letters saying they would cut off any fingers colored with voting ink.
Herat had a safe and smooth process, with lots of women voting. Voting was orderly in some Nangarhar districts, but there were reports of removable ink and children voting.
I was heartened to hear that women were seen voting in two of the most dangerous cities - Kandahar and Lashkar Gah in Helmand. Even though just a few women voted, I felt it meant a lot to see even one woman ready to vote in a city so full of fear and threat.
It is clearly unrealistic to expect a truly free and fair election in my country, with corrupt leadership, no proper accountability, and people who violate fundamental human rights remaining in power. Fraud was to be expected. It was also unsurprising that many were too scared or too disillusioned to vote. It is still to be seen what powers were behind terrifying people of voting, yet we the Afghans proved to the world our commitment to peace and non-violent ways of transferring power, refuting those who argue that war is "in Afghans' nature."
The force that drove me to the polling station was the feeling that it is a critical time to encourage Afghans - especially women - to exercise their rights as citizens. I admire all those women who, despite security threats, decided to vote. I clearly understood that if I stayed home, I would allow the ones who threatened us to claim victory.
The recent discussions about negotiations with Taliban and the prospect of sharing power with those who do not respect fundamental rights has heightened concern among women that our silence and invisibility would simply give the future president a green light to forget about us. That goes for whoever wins, as they all promised to share power with Taliban.
In the days after the election the Taliban continued their intimidation. I hear reports that they chopped fingers off two voters in the south; there have been more bombs, and even in the north, I hear, Taliban have set up checkpoints. A cousin who returned from the northern province of Kundoz earlier this week said their car was stopped, and the passengers were told to show their hands. The two whose hands were still inked were taken from the car. We don't know what happened to them later.
As the violence continues, so do the investigations into fraud, perhaps for many weeks or even months. The final voting counts were announced recently by IEC, it shows that the current president Hamid Karzai is the winner with 54.6% of total votes and the second on the line is Abdullah Abdullah who won only 27.8 per cent of the votes. The international observers issued contradictory statements on their satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the results, even the United Nations representatives got into critical position by two of its leading men the Special Representative of Secretary General (SRSG) Mr. Edie and his Deputy's argument on the results and next steps leaked to media recently. This in itself presents the reality that a possible conflict is on its way and even international community does not work in harmony in regards with Afghanistan elections.
For ordinary people however, the major concern today is not the elections and who is the winner, they rather want this game to be over as soon as possible. Because their small businesses are directly affected by any little political chaos or tension. As Oxfam survey indicated, more than five million people will be in danger of food shortage for upcoming winter. We should all understand that the 38 per cent of 17 million Afghans who decided to vote at first place, were already brave enough to take part in this process by choice (or in some cases by force) and they've seen that they have been betrayed. Hence, no guarantee is there to ensure that a second round of elections could be free and fair. The rival groups still want a recount and even second round run-off, but this is indeed not the well of those who's life will not be change by any of the leading candidates in power position.
The international community needs to understand that such elections are only an indicator for democratic process on their reporting formats and certainly not for the Afghan people. Here, it is nothing to do with a real bottom up democracy, because the indicators for power are still money and military force, whoever has such 'privilege', will win the elections. Our hope is that the international community should invest further on a true democratic process and infrastructure building which requires much long-term commitment. The investment should focus on systems and certainly not on persons. Those who have people's blood on their hands and are at leading positions still threatening the national security of the country needs to be isolated by International community and through their pressure by the Government of Afghanistan.
The experience of last eight years in Afghanistan has proved that the idea of re-integration of warlords into the system failed to ensure a genuine democratic process. Perhaps now is the time for Afghanistan and its international alliances to experiment a new path by isolating the leading abusers of power who were involved at war in the past three decades and bring up the new generation of politicians.
Or else, we will see the same self-serving politicians and former abusers of human rights returning to power, with the prospect of the Taliban joining the political fray - the same men who organized the terrorization of voters turning into politicians. Unless and until real change comes from ordinary Afghan people, and a new generation of politicians are allowed to rise up, the promise of change that has been sold to Afghan people may be a change from bad to worse…
----
Women worry Afghan peace jirga will harm rights
Golnar Motevalli
KABUL
Sun May 30, 2010 4:05am EDT
Factbox
* Factbox: Afghan women after the Taliban
Sun, May 30 2010
KABUL (Reuters) - As Afghanistan's most powerful men arrive in Kabul for a major conference aimed at starting a peace process with the Taliban, many women are worried the event could lead to a compromise of their hard-won rights.
World
Afghanistan is holding a peace jirga or an assembly of powerful leaders, tribal elders and representatives of civil society to consider plans to open talks with Taliban leaders in an effort to end the nine-year conflict.
A possible return of the Taliban has touched off concern about the fate of women who were banned from schools, the work place and public life during the Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001.
"I would not expect the peace jirga to do anything good for women. My hope is that it will recognize their presence and protect their rights equally to men, as presented in the constitution," said Orzala Ashraf Nemat, a leading women's rights activist in Kabul.
"I'm really tired of this strategy and plans and jargon. I'd like to see activists from all 34 provinces to come to Kabul and plan a much deeper understanding of what should be done in the future for women," she said.
The Taliban and other key insurgent factions such as Hezb-i-Islami have not been formally invited to the peace jirga but organizers have said any party that wants to be involved will be welcomed and insurgent supporters are expected to attend.
Women at the peace jirga so far represent a very small number of the 1,400 seats at the event. Between 30 and 50 women are expected to attend, but none are involved in its planning.
"There is a symbolic representation of Afghan women, The organizing committee has no women in its structure, only one or two have been identified to be facilitators," said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, deputy chair of Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission.
"The positions of women in high-ranking roles have been significantly overshadowed ... One could be cynical and say that the reason there are so few women is to encourage the Taliban to come," he said.
SYMBOLIC PRESENCE
The Taliban, who are waging an insurgency that is at its deadliest in years, have in the past rejected any moves for talks, saying foreign forces must first leave Afghanistan. They continue to advocate a strict interpretation of Islamic law and have stepped up attacks on schools for girls in recent weeks.
Afghan women say their position in society and in politics is still very fragile and the small advances that have been made in recent years can be easily reversed.
Twenty-year old Safian Farahmand-Amiry is a business studies student who was born in Kabul. She grew up under the Taliban.
"I have very bitter memories of the Taliban. I should be in the third year of university, but I'm not, I'm in my first year because of the Taliban, I want Afghanistan to be better than this," she said.
"I'm sure that if the peace jirga goes as it should, it will be good, if it will help make Afghanistan stable, free and just ... If the Taliban are given a share in the government, I'm worried that those (laws) could come back," she said.
Liza Karimi is a 19-year old announcer for Afghanistan's state broadcaster. She spent her childhood living in Moscow and moved back to Afghanistan with her mother four years ago.
"I think that from what I've heard about that regime, we should be worried. We could end up giving-up positions that should belong to women. That shouldn't happen," Liza said.
----
COMMENT: Afghan loya jirga and peace prospects —Asad Munir
About 1,600 delegates, including 300 women, tribal elders, religious leaders and members of parliament from all over the country attended the loya jirga held from June 2-4 in Kabul. The three-day assembly represented the first major public debate in Afghanistan on how to end the war
Article 110, Chapter Six, of Afghanistan’s constitution recognises the loya jirga as “the highest manifestation of the will of the people of Afghanistan”. The constitution also lays down the composition of jirga. A majority of members are required to adopt the decision of the loya jirga, except in situations explicitly stated in the constitution. The Afghans proudly trace the history of loya jirga to time immemorial, while historically the term loya jirga has never been used before the second decade of 20th century. These jirgas have only been useful when convened by well-established rulers and have failed to produce any results during the time of crisis. Loya jirgas held during the Soviet occupation, Najibullah regime and by Karzai in the past have hardly achieved the objectives for which such assemblies were convened.
President Karzai announced the holding of a loya jirga in his inauguration speech in November 2009, after winning elections for a second term, to end the ongoing insurgency. Karzai wanted to offer the Taliban incentives to lay down their arms, and to hold conditional talks with the top Taliban leaders. The US administration was more interested in reintegration of Taliban’s foot soldiers into society, and wanted negotiations with the Taliban leadership, once militant forces were weakened on the battlefield. Taliban leaders and other insurgent groups were, therefore, not invited to the jirga. The Afghan opposition parties boycotted the meeting saying it did not represent the full spectrum of Afghan politics.
Despite this, about 1,600 delegates, including 300 women, tribal elders, religious leaders and members of parliament from all over the country attended the loya jirga held in Kabul from June 2-4. The three-day assembly represented the first major public debate in Afghanistan on how to end the war. Some 12,000 security personnel were on guard against attack from the Taliban. The Taliban rejected the loya jirga, terming it a phony reconciliation process aimed at securing the interests of foreign powers. They reiterated their stance of not holding peace talks until foreign troops left Afghanistan. NATO has 130,000 troops in the country, likely to rise to 150,000 by August.
Mr Karzai’s proposals included granting amnesty and reintegration incentives to low-level Taliban who accept the constitution. He also offered to give certain leaders asylum in other Islamic countries for holding peace talks. In the gathering, all the delegates debated these proposals. While the jirga concluded with an endorsement of Mr Karzai’s proposals, there was disagreement over the details of what the militants should be offered. Some of the members wanted the government to remove the names of Taliban leaders from a UN blacklist. More than 130 Taliban and their associates are on the list. Some participants called on the authorities and the international forces to guarantee the safety of former Taliban members, and release those being held in American and Afghan prisons. Some sub-groups proposed amendment in the constitution to bring it in line with some of Taliban’s reasonable demands. Former Afghan president, Burhanuddin Rabbani, the jirga chairperson, suggested that the government set up a women-only commission to talk peace with the wives, mothers and sisters of Taliban fighters.
The jirga was a consultative forum, aimed at building national consensus, on a peace plan, likely to be presented in July to the Kabul Conference, a gathering of mostly Western foreign ministers. The first proposal of the peace process is to reintegrate and demobilise armed fighters including low rank Taliban, by offering them amnesty, jobs and other incentives. A commission for this purpose has been constituted. However, this scheme may not motivate significant numbers of foot soldiers to defect Taliban. Especially once they know that negotiations with their leadership are on cards. They would like to be rewarded by their leadership, which, in their perception, may be more attractive than what is being offered by the Karzai regime. Surrendering, after fighting for eight years, may also not be a preferred option for traditional Pashtuns. The response of low ranking Taliban would also depend on the nature of incentives and the guarantees offered to them about their security once they surrender. The US administration would be more interested in this proposal, as even its partial success would weaken the insurgents.
The most important outcome of the jirga is the offer of asylum to Taliban leaders. Once they get asylum in any country, holding of negotiations would be open, transparent and overseen by international observers. The blame game would also come to an end. However, this is not likely to happen in the near future. The US would support such talks only once Taliban are weakened on the battlefield; coalition forces secure more Taliban-dominated areas, including Kandahar; and the insurgents are conditioned to dilute there bargaining power during negotiations. The US will never compromise on women’s rights and support the delegates, who argued that women would have much to lose in a settlement that gives the insurgents a prominent political role in the Afghan society.
The removal of the Taliban from the UN list, which bars travel and freezes overseas assets, may not be possible at this stage. It may happen once the Taliban are taken on board and ground work is completed for holding of peace dialogue. Though the UN has supported the loya jirga and proposals for peace talks, the US consent as the main stakeholder would be required for making such a major decision.
The jirga is the first step towards a long process of reconciliation and reintegration. The main gainer has been Karzai, who got a mandate for his peace efforts and his government months after his victory in a controversial election. The Taliban and other insurgent groups are the main players in the whole peace process. They may be of the opinion that since they are winning the war, therefore they may not gain much through negotiations. They were not part of this jirga; therefore the prospects of peace may not be very bright, unless some of them are onboard through back door channels. Pakistan is likely to play a very significant role in the peace process. It should, because a peaceful and stable Afghanistan would minimise the terrorist activities in Pakistan.
The writer is a retired brigadier. He can be reached at asadmunir38@yahoo.com
----
Report says Pakistan meddling in Afghanistan
13 Jun 2010 19:56:57 GMT
Source: Reuters
* War difficult to win without Pakistani help
* Support for Taliban is "official ISI policy"
* Zardari reported working for release of Taliban prisoners
* Pakistan rejects allegations as "spurious" (# Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.)
(Adds comment from report's author)
By Jonathon Burch
KABUL, June 13 (Reuters) - Pakistani military intelligence not only funds and trains Taliban fighters in Afghanistan but is officially represented on the movement's leadership council, giving it significant influence over operations, a report said.
The report, published by the London School of Economics on Sunday, said its research strongly suggested support for the Taliban was the "official policy" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.
Although links between the ISI and the Taliban have been widely suspected, the findings, which it said were corroborated by two senior Western security officials, could raise more concerns in the West over Pakistan's role in Afghanistan.
The report also said Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari was reported to have visited senior Taliban prisoners in Pakistan earlier this year, where he is believed to have promised their release and help for militant operations, suggesting support for the Taliban "is approved at the highest level of Pakistan's civilian government".
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For more on Afghanistan click [ID:nAFPAK]
or see http://link.reuters.com/syx62d
Afghan blog: http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<
In Islamabad, a Pakistani presidential spokeswoman, Farah Ispahani, dismissed the allegations in the report as "absolutely spurious". She said there "seems to be a concentrated effort to try to damage the new Pakistan-American strategic dialogue".
Militants were feeling the pressure, she added, because "we will rout them from every area of Pakistan we find them in".
"Pakistan appears to be playing a double-game of astonishing magnitude," said the report, based on interviews with Taliban commanders, former senior Taliban ministers and Western and Afghan security officials.
In March 2009, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, said they had indications elements in the ISI supported the Taliban and must end such activities.
Western officials have been reluctant to talk publicly on the subject for fear of damaging cooperation from Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state Washington has propped up with billions of dollars in military and economic aid.
"The Pakistan government's apparent duplicity -- and awareness of it among the American public and political establishment -- could have enormous geo-political implications," said the report's author, Matt Waldman, a fellow at Harvard University.
"Without a change in Pakistani behaviour it will be difficult if not impossible for international forces and the Afghan government to make progress against the insurgency," Waldman said in the report.
The report comes at the end of one of the bloodiest weeks for foreign troops in Afghanistan -- more than 30 were killed -- and at a time when the insurgency is at its most violent.
More than 1,800 foreign troops, including some 1,100 Americans, have died in Afghanistan since U.S.-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban in late 2001. The war has already cost the United States around $300 billion and now costs more than $70 billion a year, the report said, citing 2009 U.S. Congressional research figures.
ISI, GULF FUNDING
The report said interviews with Taliban commanders "suggest that Pakistan continues to give extensive support to the insurgency in terms of funding, munitions and supplies".he said. (Additional reporting by Myra MacDonald in London and Chris Allbritton in Islamabad, Editing by Matthew Jones) (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/afghanistanpakistan)
"These accounts were corroborated by former Taliban ministers, a Western analyst and a senior U.N. official based in Kabul, who said the Taliban largely depend on funding from the ISI and groups in Gulf countries," the report said.
Almost all of the Taliban commanders interviewed in the report believed the ISI was represented on the Quetta Shura, the Taliban's supreme leadership council based in Pakistan.
"Interviews strongly suggest that the ISI has representatives on the (Quetta) Shura, either as participants or observers, and the agency is thus involved at the highest level of the movement," the report said.
The report also said Zardari, and a senior ISI official, allegedly visited some 50 senior Taliban prisoners at a secret location in Pakistan where he told them they had been arrested only because he was under pressure from the United States.
Afghanistan has been highly critical of ISI involvement in the conflict, while analysts believe Pakistan will be unwilling to cooperate fully against the Taliban without reassurances about a reduction in India's large presence in country.
The report's author, said some, but not all, the commanders he spoke to said the ISI support was given so as to undermine Indian influence in Afghanistan.
The main focus of those he interviewed was on driving out foreign forces, restoring sharia law and obtaining justice and security. "They didn't talk about the Taliban regaining the reins of government," Waldman told Reuters in London.
Nor was there any sign of al Qaeda being a significant influence. None expressed any affection for al Qaeda and some acknowledged its role in the Taliban's downfall in 2001.
He said those he spoke to wanted peace, but not at any cost.
While he detected some reluctance to see an immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces -- which could precipitate a civil war -- the massive presence of troops was a major problem.
They wanted clean and honest government and the separation of men and women, including at work. They were happy to see girls' education, but only up to a certain age.
They were also well aware of factors running in their favour, including the unpopularity of the government and divisions in the international community about the Afghan war.
"Although they are tired and war-weary, they feel a level of confidence in the eventual outcome,"
No comments:
Post a Comment