Forum Comments Please Go To "Forum Submissions" and send us your comments.
(Thoughts and Images: Afghanistan)
__________________________
"Comments will appear in section below."
_____________________________________________________________
"Comment Section"
(Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of New World Strategies Coalition, Inc.)
All Comments and Ideas submitted to NWSC Inc by email or to its website become the property of
New World Strategies Coalition, Inc., to be used at our discretion; with prudence towards all, and prejudice towards none.
*****************************************************************************************************
Salaam Khalil Nouri,
Thank you for including us in your e-mail forum.
Your alternative solution to this current quagmire in Afghanistan is the only explanation to revert the war torn country back into prosperity and tranquility, as it was evidenced prior to Soviet occupation in 1979.
More importantly, the genuine bonding of various tribes will definitely be in effect where 70 years of Emir Abdul Rahman Khan’s success will be transformed and nationalism once again to thrive.
We Afghans know that the Afghan tribal structure is enormously complex and far beyond the comprehension of the West, and I suggest as an exclusive university curriculum that it should be focused under the subject of “Afghan Tribal-logy”.
In fact the tribal allegiance depends on the credibility and prominence of the head of state that he should be completely identified and accepted in the hierarchy of tribal makeup.
As history thought us that many Afghan tribes had difficulties to compromise and could not come to a concession for power sharing, and always thirst for such supremacy amid the factions resulted in wars and killings. This moved on for century or so until a Jirgah in the name of “one tribe to rule Afghanistan” was formed, which resulted with consensus that the “Mohamadzai” tribe the most obedient and passive of all was to be given the privilege to rule Afghanistan. This is where the foundation of an Afghan state began and for three centuries dishonesty or sham amongst the tribes was nonexistent. But the inner circle “Mohamadzai” intrigues were embedded within the members of the ruling families and were always successfully resolved.
Furthermore, as noticed during the “Mohamadzai” reign: warlordism, self-made kings, and any other antigovernment trickery as exist now were absent, and for century plus Afghan nation progressed forward.
This all ended in 2002 with Mr. Khalilzad who was the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan.
He manipulated the Loya Jirgah processes and told the press that the organizing commission decided to postpone the opening of Loya Jirgah to ascertain the true intentions of the former King Zahir Shah who was also from the prominent “Mohamazai” tribe. Before the King could make his own announcement, Khalilzad gave the answer:
“The former King is not a candidate for a position in the Transitional Authority…. He then endorses the candidacy of Chairman Karzai.” Khalilzad and Karzai flanked the King and they were only interested in using the King’s popularity to legitimize Karzai.
Khalilzad used the former King in the name of symbol of national unity because of the support he enjoyed along the ethnic lines.
It is well known that, if given the chance, the Shah probably would have won a significant number of votes. Many delegates then felt the highly popular ex-King would probably have had the votes to be chosen for a role in the transitional government, but as mentioned above, he was prevented from declaring his candidacy.
Furthermore, had the ex-King given the role as the head of transitional Afghan government, which was also supported by congressmen Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher and Duncan Hunter of California, then the existent dire turmoil in Afghanistan could have been prevented.
This was evident that the U.S. envoy was deliberately manipulating the politics of Afghanistan so that a weak leader who depended on foreign backing and who needed to appease the warlords be in charge.
Is the West once again walking away from Afghanistan?
Moreover, Khalilzad was very instrumental in undermining Afghanistan’s chance for democracy and human right, and helped to cement the political power of war criminals and fundamentalist. His deception and betrayal to his birth country evidenced when he was a former Unocal Corporation consultant and conducted risk analyses for the company. At the time that Unocal was engaging the Taliban on the construction of an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Khalizad’s willingness to sell his skills to a cooperation that was working with the Taliban revealed his lack of serious concern for the people of Afghanistan.
In that regards, due to Khalilzad’s assessment we can clearly see a half century plus western involvement in Afghanistan.
Beyond doubt, and as the result, the election in Afghanistan is not working, and the Afghans here in Vancouver, and Toronto believe that it demonstrates a circus resembling “Ali Baba and the forty thieves”.
In final, reading Khalilzad’s article, I believe he again has something up his sleeve by complement Barak Obama.
He should bear in mind that his U.S. Viceroy days are over and there will be no need for his ill service for U.S. or Afghanistan.
With all due respect to all other fellow Laghmanis in Afghanistan, and Khalilzad himself being one, he really knows how to fool the Satan effectively. He is a con artist that has betrayed his birth country and ignored his code of Pashtunwali as well as placing U.S. in a dreadful current situation in Afghanistan.
He is also a homeless man that neither Afghanistan nor America will ratify a position for him.
Dear Mr. Khalilzad;
I thoroughly had the opportunity to read your article below to Prof. Barney Rubin.
It was precise and to the point, but why Afghanistan must experience such dilemma where democratic election is a futile effort?
I would appreciate your view on the following:
Generally speaking the recent Afghan election extravaganza is unclear, unconfined, and unpopular amongst the vast voters in Afghanistan.
Per the latest survey, constituencies in 12 provinces cannot cast their votes due to startling threat from the antigovernment factions.
A genuine and legitimate election is the wholehearted participation of electorates, and when such resolute does not transpire effectively, then the definition of election changes into anonymous or influential determination of the head of state.
In this case it does not matter who wins, whether it is Ghani, Karzai or Abdullah, or anyone, then this does not covey the factual wish of majority of the people.
On the other hand, if democracy is to be forced upon Afghans just as Soviets tried communism in 1979 to 1989 then the 80% illiterate population cannot distinguish the good or bad schema. Therefore the result will be futile and vague.
For centuries Afghans chose their heads of state through indisputable compromise between the tribal elders, and since such tribal system is still in effect then norms of democracy does not need to be applied.
But if this method of free democratic election is to be considered then it can only be implemented gradually and not immediately as it is now.
Afghans cannot absorb such a change in this magnitude expeditiously.
Given the case if the election is to be won by one of the candidates;
Then the future concern regarding Afghan election will possibly be in the form of favoritism. This is when the outgoing president to help a blood relative or a friend to win the election under an arrangement.
The recent example was the presidential election in Russian Federation when Vladimir Putin the outgoing president nominated his longtime friend Dmitry Medvedev, and he used personal and government resources as well as his political power to place Medvedev in the high office.
Both made the deal that Putin to serve as the Russian prime minister.
Also, if moderate Islamic nations for example Egypt and Syria choose their heads of state for life, then a similar deception is likely in Afghanistan where for example Karzai family could rule Afghanistan eternally. Could this be a fare election?
Introducing A New Initiative:
This starts by communicating with Afghan tribal leaders and inviting them to a series of leadership conferences outside of Afghanistan. We should first have them meet in several Arabic capitals prior to inviting them to Western capitals; and finally invite them to come as special guests of the United Nations in New York City.
During this process, we will have time to build good relationships with these leaders while at the same time screening out the really bad blood if necessary; while building up the spirit of unity within the group.
What we would be accomplishing by doing this is bringing these leaders into the 21st century while at the same time addressing the legitimate issues that they will bring to the table concerning their individual tribal groups.
At first, we may be seen as trying to Westernize Afghan leadership; however, by presenting this process as a listening tour for both sides, much can be accomplished. And, by recognizing today’s status of facts on the ground as well as yesterdays tribal governing traditions, a bridge between yesterday’s successes and 21st Century needs can be created and strengthened. The real goal is to create a true Afghan democracy based on Afghan consciousness and consensus, while bringing Afghanistan’s people into the 21st Century.
From this group a number of things can be accomplished, like having these leaders put forth the names of young people who they see as future leaders that can to be trained in the ideas of traditional Afghan values as well as 21st Century concepts that will benefit their nation for generations; always with great respect for the full integrity of Afghanistan’s multi-tribal influences.
--
Thank you,
Khalil Nouri
How to make Afghan votes count
By Zalmay KhalilzadPublished: August 11 2009 21:54 | Last updated: August 11 2009 21:54Afghanistan is in the grip of the second presidential campaign in its history. By their nature, elections are polarising events. However, in the case of Afghanistan, with its limited experience in electoral politics and ongoing insurgency, there is a real risk that the campaign could further destabilise the country.I know, and have seen and felt, the tragedy of Afghanistan. Its origins lie in the cycle of no-holds-barred political competition among internal rivals and the decisions of foreign powers to manipulate Afghan factions for their own purposes. These actions, by Afghans and outsiders, have cost Afghanistan millions of lives and consigned it to isolation and poverty at a time of rising worldwide prosperity. The destructive cycle was interrupted by the overthrow of the Taliban regime and United Nations-sponsored Bonn process. The test today is to build on that success.I know the leading candidates, all of whom have committed to respecting the democratic process. Yet the danger exists that some of them, or their supporters, will overstep the bounds of responsible competition. I also know that outsiders are easily tempted to pursue their own preferences rather than allow candidates to find their own level through a test of political support at the ballot box.In this respect, I see several dangers in the current elections. The first is ethnic polarisation. As election day draws closer, the process is acquiring ugly ethnic undertones. Despite progress among young Afghans, ethnicity remains the most dangerous faultline in Afghan politics. Ethnic appeals could have serious negative consequences for the stability of the country and the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission there.Already there are disturbing signs in northern Afghanistan, an area dominated by Tajiks and Uzbeks but with pockets of Pashtuns, the country’s largest ethnic group. Recent reports indicate that some local Pashtuns have felt intimidated and are turning to the Taliban, allowing it to infiltrate a region that has been relatively stable until recently.Second, the Taliban and others who oppose progress in Afghanistan might seek to escalate the violence in order to prevent elections from taking place as planned. This could occur, for example, if one of the candidates were killed, which would lead to a mandatory postponement of the election under the Afghan constitution. Unsuccessful assassination attempts have already occurred against presidential and vice-presidential candidates.If a candidate were to be killed, it is likely that those remaining would blame one another and the current government, which is responsible for the security of candidates and, arguably, would gain by staying in power if elections were delayed. A postponement would also prompt questions about whether the government could legitimately run the country after its mandate expires on August 20.Third, there is the danger that one or more of the contenders might not accept the declared results, leading to protracted violence, probably focused on Kabul. It is unclear whether Afghan security forces could control the situation on their own or would require assistance from the ISAF. This could be a no-win situation, with serious consequences for the ISAF role in Afghanistan whether it participated in the pacification effort or not.Fourth, the international community is also taking unhelpful actions. While the ISAF and the UN are playing crucial roles in providing security and meeting the logistical needs of the elections, some officials are taking inappropriate partisan positions. Some favour Mr Karzai and are encouraging Afghans to support him. Others are working to unite his opponents or, at a minimum, to push the elections to a second round.If unchecked, these dangers could produce an election that deepens the divisions in Afghan society and undermines stability. To minimise these risks, the US should take the lead with other friends of Afghanistan to ensure a level playing field. We must avoid actions that create the appearance that outsiders are seeking to decide the outcome of the election.The second – and most important – step is for the US, UK and UN missions in Kabul to work out agreements among the key Afghan candidates to respect certain “red lines”. They should agree not to mobilise support on an ethnic basis and to accept the election outcome if rules on transparency are respected.The main candidates should also issue a joint declaration to facilitate post-election unity. They should articulate areas of agreement such as the formation of a competent national unity government by the winner of the presidential elections, support for the ISAF deployment, and the imperative to improve governance and delivery of services. Last, the ISAF needs to help develop, jointly with the Afghans, an emergency plan to prevent and contain violence should the results be disputed.Five years ago, I had the privilege of representing the US in Afghanistan as we helped Afghanistan hold successful elections. The country still needs our help. President Barack Obama has correctly recognised that success in Afghanistan is an important American priority. It is vital that the US work actively to enable Afghan voices to be heard and to facilitate reconciliation, unity and stability after the people make their choice.The writer was US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN and is now a counsellor at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies
*********************************************************************
Does Afghanistan need a firm fisted leader?
Perhaps Afghanistan needs a savior, an Afghan from its own soil. More than a hundred years ago, that Afghan was Amir Abdul Rahman Khan; who through good or bad policies played an effective role in bringing the country under the rule of his administration. He had to fight against extreme odds both inside and outside the country; and also within himself as he made critical decisions that shaped the nation.
He did not have the benefit of many western educated and experienced advisors. He also did not live in a world that benefited from lightening fast communications and technological information gathering systems; yet, he devised methods that allowed him to be informed of all important events and trends in his kingdom. He did not believe in the modern system of democratic rule, yet he wanted justice for his subjects to be rendered through a system devised by his government. He also had to maintain a fine balance between international powers of the time; including the most experienced colonial power of the time, the British government.
Ultimately things worked for him, and they continued working until the cycle of prosperity was ended by the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1979.
Afghanistan is in need of a leader who can not only take no for an answer, but can also be forceful, intelligent, and capable of unifying his divided people into a solid nation. Above all, he should have the unyielding support and backing of tribal society. Democracy as it is framed in the West may be painted on the face of the government, but in reality it does not exist because the people, the voters, do not comprehend the meaning of, or even trust, rules and laws not coming from their tribal elders. How can they even begin to think for themselves if they cannot read?
So far, perhaps only one of the leading Afghan presidential candidates, when compared to the Iron Emir, has shown the ability to generate absolute public confidence from tribal leadership. Others do not garner such public pull, and they could prove to fail as a strong, firm fisted and decisive head of state.
Going back to the Emir’s era, Afghans were divided mostly by loyalties to a variety of princes and local warlords. Afghan courts were poisoned with intrigue and conspiracies as it is now. But the man did what was necessary to make Afghanistan stand on its own feet; and for the next 70 years it produced more bright intellects than anyone could have imagined.
All the past reigns since the 1979 Soviet invasion, including the current predicament in Afghanistan must be give a “Failing grade”, when compared to the Emir’s 1880’s achievements; which then must be given an “A+” for the successes. One may ask, “How can the late 19th century Afghanistan realistically be compared with today’s Afghanistan”? The answer can be seen as structural adjustments needed for present day requirements to succeed.
The Emir’s effectiveness could be measured because he held open court to receive petitioners and to dispense justice; and in his disposition of justice he was remorseless. He succeeded in imposing an organized government upon the fiercest and most unruly population in Asia that resembles the current Afghan dilemma; he also availed himself of European weapons and inventions that strengthened his military.
Perhaps the same cycle is repeating itself; and the situation may only be resolved if and when an emerging Afghan visionary has the same strength of will that the Emir had.
****************************************************************************************** First Name : Cole Last Name : H....... City : Roslindale Zip Code : 02131 State : MA Comments : I work with United for Justice with Peace, a Boston area coalition of peace and justice groups, www.justicewithpeace.org. I was referred by Najim A...... This is a very interesting initiative. You want to organize diaspora Afghans to do something constructive, and indicate your willingness to organize work to implement non-military solutions. That is very commendable. You seek to cultivate moderate Islam and tribal leaders to strengthen the strong roots of Afghan society. Some have expressed the view that with the large migration to Kabul and migration caused by many years of instability, a lot of Afghan society is no longer so traditional as it once was and that while these efforts to strengthen the traditional moderate organization are helpful, they may not be sufficient. The main limitation I see in this initiative is that you stand aside from the question of military occupation and US intervention. By writing words such as "military force alone will never...." you are either acknowledging that military force will be used and you are working on something to add to the military effort, or you are throwing up their hands and saying we cannot stop or change the military effort, so we will just work on what we can work on. My feeling is that the military effort and associated warlordism, corruption, violence, and other evils, will do more to destabilize Afghan society than anything NWSC and like minded forces can do to build it up, and that resentment of a foreign occupation will strengthen jihadis more than the the moderate forces that NWSC supports. Therefore that in addition to promoting the commendable initiatives NWSC proposes, Afghan emigres should also address the political arena and promote a democratic unifying solution for Afghanistan and an early end to the conflict. I see that several of the items on your list go in this direction, and hope they will be written soon. Good luck and keep in touch. *************************************************************************************************************
************************************************************************
DONATE TO:
AFGHAN PEACE -THROUGH PROSPERITY
