December 17, 2006
By Aunohita Mojumdar
WeNews correspondent
KABUL, Afghanistan (WOMENSENEWS)--Sahira Sharif sits with Zabah, the youngest of her four children on her lap. He is 3 and a half years old, but looks much younger. The child suffers from Down's syndrome, says Sharif, with no trace of self-consciousness.
It is a matter of fact--along with cooking, shopping, teaching her children, taking them to and from school--in addition to her work as one of Afghanistan's first female parliamentarians.
During the session, debates can begin as early as 8:30 or 9 a.m. and go on all day, sometimes late into the evening five days a week. But there are no concessions to her traditional women's duties, no extra help. Sharif is virtually a single parent since her husband lives in Khost where he has a government job.
This week the newly constituted Afghan parliament marks its first anniversary on Dec. 19 and Sharif completes the first year of her five-year term.
In what is left of her tenure, she hopes to introduce legislation to ban forced marriages, which the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission estimates as 38 percent of all marriages in the country.
Another female member of the Afghan Parliament, Fawzia Kofi, the second deputy chair of the Wolesi Jirga, the lower house, hopes a law will be adopted to empower police to investigate suicides and domestic violence without having to refer to a complaint by the victim or the victim's family. Kofi says the family may be complicit in the violence and the victim reluctant to make a complaint.
In the past year 197 cases of suicide were attempted in Herat province, of which 69 were successful, the country's human rights commission reports. Many have been linked to domestic abuse. In Kandahar, 200 women tried to escape from abusive homes.
But whatever their legislative hopes and ambitions, female parliamentarians such as Sharif and Kofi say their first year in office leaves them prepared for more rough times ahead.
Security Problems Take Toll
The country's national security is deteriorating.
A week ago, Afghan police arrested six Taliban insurgents suspected of killing two female teachers along with three other relatives, according to press reports quoting Afghan and NATO officials. The killings come on top of attacks on aid workers, government officials and intensifying clashes between international forces and the Taliban.
Amid these dangers, female parliamentarians have made fewer trips out of the capital city of Kabul back home to their constituencies.
Sharif--who until two months ago traveled without a burka to her province of Khost--has started wearing one recently and avoids staying too long in any one area. Anyone associated with the government is at risk, she says. Not only the Taliban but commanders and political factions that have lost power are potentially dangerous.
Sharifa Zurmati Wardak, represents Paktia, a conservative Pashtun constituency in the southeastern part of the country bordering Pakistan where many women never step out of their homes for any reason whatsoever. She does not travel without a male escort.
Afghanistan's new constitution, adopted in 2004, requires that two women be elected from each of its 34 provinces. With a current strength of 248 this puts the representation of women at just over 25 percent, ahead of many legislative bodies. Internationally, 30 percent is considered the minimum for any group to leverage its representation.
Last year 19 of the 68 female parliamentarians won enough votes to have been elected even without any special mandate.
Year of Anti-Woman Debates
While providing one of the widest spaces in the country for women's participation in public life, the Parliament in the past year has debated a number of anti-women measures.
Members have discussed whether female parliamentarians should be required to have a "mehram," or male escort, when traveling outside the country.
Despite constitutional provisions for gender equality and laws that stipulate 18 as the minimum legal age for marriage, the upper house of Parliament wants it lowered to 15. Fearing the effect on young women in forced marriages, a number of female members have been battling the push, which would require passage in the lower house to become law.
Women have been unable to close ranks against a move to abolish the Ministry of Women's Affairs, which was formed in 2001 as an advisory group to help rebuild women's rights lost under the Taliban. So far the ministry has survived, although women themselves were split over the issue, with some women siding with their own male-led factions and debate over eliminating the ministry may reopen.
"Women stand against other women," says Sharif.
Efforts to Erode Representation
Women's 25-percent representation is itself insecure.
Abdul Salaam Rocketi--his last name was acquired due to his prowess with rocket launchers--is a former Taliban commander. Now representing Zabul in Parliament, he calls the reservation of seats for women "undemocratic."
Efforts to build a women's caucus are going slowly.
UNIFEM, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, has set up a resource center stocked with documents and books and research materials pertaining to Afghanistan and political issues. The center has phone lines and Internet access to aid interaction and information gathering.
The National Democratic Institute, a U.S. civil-society nonprofit, has been organizing workshops to help bring women together to discuss their common concerns and a recent meeting focused on violence against women. But the female parliamentarians are far too politically divided to realistically discuss the creation of a formal caucus.
Despite the numerous hurdles and disappointments of the past year, Wardak says the presence of women in the Parliament has nonetheless encouraged debate on issues that might otherwise have been ignored. Female parliamentarians, for instance, visited a women's prison and were upset by some of the conditions they discovered. Wardak and Sharif said that as a result of their interventions female inmates are now allowed to have visits from their children and pregnant women are getting better medical attention.
"We are there," Wardak says. "Our voices exist."
Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian journalist who is currently based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for 16 years and she has covered the Kashmir conflict and post-conflict development in Punjab extensively.
Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.
December 16, 2006
December 10, 2006
Focus: Nato's Afghan policy
Al Jazeera
December 7
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
Nato forces faced a fierce engagement in the Musakala district of the Southern province of Helmand this weekend, resulting, according to Nato officials, in the death of 70-80 Taliban fighters.
While Nato troops have fought several pitched battles in the Southern provinces since they took control of the South of Afghanistan, this weekend's engagement was distinguished by one new factor. Musakala is the area where in October this year Nato troops and local elders brokered a truce for "cessation of hostilities" with the insurgent forces.
The apparent peace that the deal brought to the area in the weeks since has been promoted as a measure of its success by both UN and Nato officials.
The return of fighting near Musakala is a blow for the Nato deal with local tribes
However the deal was also suggestive of a withdrawal by the Afghan government, with the possibility of leaving the area a safe sanctuary for use by Taliban fighters, a scenario that may have just turned into a reality this weekend.
Musakala reflects of the attempts by the architects of Afghanistan’s reconstruction to restore some semblance of control to a peace that increasingly looks like it is slipping away.
"Cessation of hostilities"
Background
Al Jazeera first reported the Nato deal with tibal leaders in Musa Kala
Nato's agreement in Musakala and president Hamid Karzai's declaration via a loya jirga (meeting of tribal elders) could indicate that decision makers are now moving toward quicker fixes rather than long term solutions.
In doing so both the government and the international forces may be securing some transitory peace in return for ceding their authority.
According to Nato officials the agreement there is not a ceasefire but a "cessation of hostilities". The absence of fighting in the area since then was being exhibited as a major triumph.
Justifying the agreement General James L Jones, Nato's outgoing Supreme Allied Commander said, "anything that can be done to reduce violence and to control the outbreak of violence and make people more safe and secure is our goal".
Yet Jones stopped short of revealing that the agreement actually represented a retreat of the international forces.
According to a Nato official who did not want to be named, the reason for the Musakala agreement was the realisation that the forces had been stretched too thinly and were suffering severe losses as a result.
However Nato officials have also openly supported the idea of coming to similar arrangements elsewhere.
No policy support
Nato's civilian spokesman Mark Laity has said that "in principle, ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] is open to similar kinds of arrangements elsewhere" while pointing out that no two situations are the same.
However in terms of the implication of the agreement on national security there is no defence policy that mandates it, no UN Security Council resolution that calls for it and no policy document nor approach that supports it.
General Jones himself pointed to the ad hoc nature of the policy by saying such agreements are to be "reported up the chain of command so that we can have visibility on exactly what the nature of those discussions are”, adding such moves had to be "carefully coordinated and worked within the overall context of our campaign objectives".
In recent weeks senior UN and Nato officials have suggested that the success of the agreement has been evident from the lack of conflict.
However the peace in the area came to an abrupt end in this weekend's fighting.
Major Luke Knittig, a spokeman for Nato, said that the fighting did not represent a breach of the original agreement which had been limited solely to the area of the Musakala town.
"The elders, as I understand it, have extraordinary influence, but that influence doesn't spread across the whole district, just mostly in the town," he said.
Development
Asked whether the agreement had allowed the Taliban to use the area as a safe sanctuary, Knittig said there was "nothing to indicate that the large group of insurgents that Nato had engaged have used the town as a support base".
Nato officials say that the cessation of hostilities has helped create the space for development and Knittig argued that the development activities were proceeding in Musa Kalan despite the battle.
Jones has defended the
agreement in Musa Kalan
Both UN officials as well as Nato have referred repeatedly to the consultation with the tribal and community leaders in arriving at this agreement, and a senior UN official described the decision as one of "empowering the tribal leadership."
However, although community involvement is important and clearly lacking in many areas of development, village and provincial leaders usually do not determine military strategies.
Also such community consultations seem lacking in another recent political decision, the cross border loya jirga or 'peace jirga' as it is being termed.
Scepticism
The decision, taken during the visit of President Hamad Karzai to the US, was done so without the backing of or consultation with Afghan institutions and groups.
Media reports have suggested that several cabinet ministers have also expressed scepticism about the jirga privately, given how it will work practically is yet unclear.
It is also arguable whether any such peace deals will be able to yield results if they do not have the backing of major political forces in Afghanistan.
The last five years has seen a concentration of political and administrative power in the presidency, with the marginalisation and exclusion of major political groups who may lay claim to power.
The same formula is in operation now, in the exclusive appeal to Pashtuns on either side of the border. President Karzai himself has spoken of the "traditional Pashtun leadership of Pakistan "being undermined systematically and violently".
The danger now is that the constant appeal to Pashtun leadership, could have the effect of increasing separatist instincts and reinforcing their existence outside the structures of state and the rule of law creating a scenario that the leadership of Pakistan and Afghanistan are not likely to be ready to deal with at present.
Source: Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera
December 7
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
Nato forces faced a fierce engagement in the Musakala district of the Southern province of Helmand this weekend, resulting, according to Nato officials, in the death of 70-80 Taliban fighters.
While Nato troops have fought several pitched battles in the Southern provinces since they took control of the South of Afghanistan, this weekend's engagement was distinguished by one new factor. Musakala is the area where in October this year Nato troops and local elders brokered a truce for "cessation of hostilities" with the insurgent forces.
The apparent peace that the deal brought to the area in the weeks since has been promoted as a measure of its success by both UN and Nato officials.
The return of fighting near Musakala is a blow for the Nato deal with local tribes
However the deal was also suggestive of a withdrawal by the Afghan government, with the possibility of leaving the area a safe sanctuary for use by Taliban fighters, a scenario that may have just turned into a reality this weekend.
Musakala reflects of the attempts by the architects of Afghanistan’s reconstruction to restore some semblance of control to a peace that increasingly looks like it is slipping away.
"Cessation of hostilities"
Background
Al Jazeera first reported the Nato deal with tibal leaders in Musa Kala
Nato's agreement in Musakala and president Hamid Karzai's declaration via a loya jirga (meeting of tribal elders) could indicate that decision makers are now moving toward quicker fixes rather than long term solutions.
In doing so both the government and the international forces may be securing some transitory peace in return for ceding their authority.
According to Nato officials the agreement there is not a ceasefire but a "cessation of hostilities". The absence of fighting in the area since then was being exhibited as a major triumph.
Justifying the agreement General James L Jones, Nato's outgoing Supreme Allied Commander said, "anything that can be done to reduce violence and to control the outbreak of violence and make people more safe and secure is our goal".
Yet Jones stopped short of revealing that the agreement actually represented a retreat of the international forces.
According to a Nato official who did not want to be named, the reason for the Musakala agreement was the realisation that the forces had been stretched too thinly and were suffering severe losses as a result.
However Nato officials have also openly supported the idea of coming to similar arrangements elsewhere.
No policy support
Nato's civilian spokesman Mark Laity has said that "in principle, ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] is open to similar kinds of arrangements elsewhere" while pointing out that no two situations are the same.
However in terms of the implication of the agreement on national security there is no defence policy that mandates it, no UN Security Council resolution that calls for it and no policy document nor approach that supports it.
General Jones himself pointed to the ad hoc nature of the policy by saying such agreements are to be "reported up the chain of command so that we can have visibility on exactly what the nature of those discussions are”, adding such moves had to be "carefully coordinated and worked within the overall context of our campaign objectives".
In recent weeks senior UN and Nato officials have suggested that the success of the agreement has been evident from the lack of conflict.
However the peace in the area came to an abrupt end in this weekend's fighting.
Major Luke Knittig, a spokeman for Nato, said that the fighting did not represent a breach of the original agreement which had been limited solely to the area of the Musakala town.
"The elders, as I understand it, have extraordinary influence, but that influence doesn't spread across the whole district, just mostly in the town," he said.
Development
Asked whether the agreement had allowed the Taliban to use the area as a safe sanctuary, Knittig said there was "nothing to indicate that the large group of insurgents that Nato had engaged have used the town as a support base".
Nato officials say that the cessation of hostilities has helped create the space for development and Knittig argued that the development activities were proceeding in Musa Kalan despite the battle.
Jones has defended the
agreement in Musa Kalan
Both UN officials as well as Nato have referred repeatedly to the consultation with the tribal and community leaders in arriving at this agreement, and a senior UN official described the decision as one of "empowering the tribal leadership."
However, although community involvement is important and clearly lacking in many areas of development, village and provincial leaders usually do not determine military strategies.
Also such community consultations seem lacking in another recent political decision, the cross border loya jirga or 'peace jirga' as it is being termed.
Scepticism
The decision, taken during the visit of President Hamad Karzai to the US, was done so without the backing of or consultation with Afghan institutions and groups.
Media reports have suggested that several cabinet ministers have also expressed scepticism about the jirga privately, given how it will work practically is yet unclear.
It is also arguable whether any such peace deals will be able to yield results if they do not have the backing of major political forces in Afghanistan.
The last five years has seen a concentration of political and administrative power in the presidency, with the marginalisation and exclusion of major political groups who may lay claim to power.
The same formula is in operation now, in the exclusive appeal to Pashtuns on either side of the border. President Karzai himself has spoken of the "traditional Pashtun leadership of Pakistan "being undermined systematically and violently".
The danger now is that the constant appeal to Pashtun leadership, could have the effect of increasing separatist instincts and reinforcing their existence outside the structures of state and the rule of law creating a scenario that the leadership of Pakistan and Afghanistan are not likely to be ready to deal with at present.
Source: Al Jazeera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)