CIVIL SOCIETY
Aunohita Mojumdar 3/06/09
In her home village in Afghanistan’s central Bamiyan province, Bibi Khala welcomes the occasional visitor to her home with hot tea and homemade butter and bread. Her infrequent guests usually are interested in enjoying one of the world’s most stunning natural landscapes: the nearby lakes of Band-i Amir. As part of Afghanistan’s unwritten tradition of hospitality, Bibi does not charge guests for their visits. But if Bamiyan’s new eco-tourism project achieves its objective, she one day may find herself operating a bed-and-breakfast.
Investing in tourism at a time when most predict increasing violence in Afghanistan may seem counter-intuitive. But officials and non-governmental organization activists in Afghanistan’s central province of Bamiyan are doing exactly that. They say they are determined not to let development be held hostage to the ’gloom-and-doom’ scenario facing most of the country. The province, which recently received a grant of $1.2 million from New Zealand’s government, has launched an eco-tourism development initiative that hopes to build a sustainable visitor environment, putting the livelihood of the people at the centre of the policy. (New Zealand troops maintain a small military outpost in the province).
Implemented by the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) in coordination with the provincial government, the project seeks to ensure preservation of the region’s unique natural and cultural heritage while helping locals enhance their skills to meet the demands of visiting tourists. Following the successful model of community-based tourism it has implemented in other areas of Central Asia, the AKF is focusing on capacity building, enhancing local handicraft production and constructing basic facilities for travelers. This could range from installing the most basic roadside hostels to encouraging investment in luxury accommodation.
Officials say Bamiyan will be connected to Kabul by a new road in three years. For Bamiyan residents, that is an exciting prospect and a working timeline.
"It is true that insecurity is a problem in Afghanistan now. But three years is enough for the international community and the Afghan government to think about security. We are optimistic that things will change positively in three years and that security will be better," says Amir Foladi who heads the eco-tourism program for the province. Foladi’s optimism is based not just on future hopes, but also on past realities. Though visitors to the province have dropped in the past two years, Foladi reports that up to 44,000 visitors, local and foreign, spent time in the area in 2006. Tourists are drawn to the province by its natural beauty, the local legends, religious piety, and the thrill of adventure. The main attraction is a series of interlocking lakes that sparkle in brilliant crystalline blues and greens.
The province, once a cultural crossroads, is replete with layers of history and legend, some brutal -- such as the massacres carried out by Genghis Khan’s legions -- and others auspicious, such as legends crediting Hazrat Ali with creating the lakes of Band-i Amir. Fable, history and the spectacular geography of the area fuse together.
The rise of modern commerce, trade and travel, however, caused this old branch of the Silk Road to become a backwater. The province became more isolated. The area’s neglect deepened following Sunni Islam’s rise as the predominant religious force in the region. Largely populated by Sh’ia-practicing ethnic Hazaras, Bamiyan faced horrific massacres under the Taliban. To this day, the Hazaras are some of the most welcoming to foreigners in the whole country.
With a bang, literally, the international spotlight returned to province, when the Taliban, in the last year of their rule in Kabul, blew up the area’s two giant Buddhas as a gesture of defiance. The action drew international opprobrium. Since the fall of the fundamentalist movement, the destroyed Buddhas have attracted thousands of curious visitors, just as they did during the days of the ’Hippie Trail’ of the 1960s and 70s. Combined with the relative safety of the province and the openness and warmth of the people, the area is a must-see on the itinerary of every foreigner and tourist in Afghanistan. Even several large Japanese tour groups have visited, drawn by the religious significance of the place.
While growing insecurity has caused a drop in visitors, for Hiromi Yasui, who used to help organize the Japanese tours, the hospitality business is still booming. Looking out at the caves where the fifth century Buddhas once stood some fifty meters tall, and across the verdant valley, on a recent chilly fall day, her Silk Route hotel is full. Hiromi’s spectacular cooking, combined with the luxurious trappings of her guesthouse, makes the business she runs with her Afghan husband a popular place.
But it is the development community, not tourists, who consistently fill Hiromi’s guesthouse. Bamiyan has no commercial flights and the road to Kabul is unpaved. Bumpy and pitted, it turns a distance of three hours into a backbreaking drive of eight to 12 hours, depending on the roadworthiness of the transport. The crowd at the hotel has mainly flown in on aircraft dedicated to serving the UN, NGOs, and the donor community.
At the ’Roof of Bamiyan,’ an older hotel perched on nearby cliffs, hotelier Razaq is uncertain what benefits the new eco-tourism will bring.
"What we need is security. The rest we can do ourselves. Bamiyan may be secure, but if the neighboring areas are not, people will not come," he says.
Bamiyan’s dynamic governor has an answer.
"Road, road and road," says Governor Habiba Sarobi, chanting a mantra she has repeated for several years. "Roads still remain our number one priority." Sarobi, the sole woman governor in Afghanistan, was instrumental in securing the aid for the tourism project and is generally considered to be an efficient and able administrator.
"Along with agriculture and mining, tourism can generate revenue for our people," she adds.
The natural beauty helps. Band-i Amir will likely become the first national park in Afghanistan, fulfilling a long-delayed destiny. "The area is very weak in bio-diversity," says WCS Country Director Peter Smallwood candidly, noting how the years of conflict have taken their toll on the wilderness. However he hopes that the area can be an engine to drive policy and legal issues that could then protect other large areas of bio-diversity scattered through the country.
Admitting that 2009 could be a difficult year for Afghanistan, Smallwood says WCS has nonetheless been engaged in identifying potential camping sites that seek to enhance the experience of visitors while preserving the natural habitat. "Band-i Amir is an important site," he says. "If Afghanistan can find peace, Band-i Amir will draw international tourists because there is nothing like those giant travertine dams in the world."
If that happens, tourists may enjoy the view from Bibi Khala’s doorstep.
September 06, 2009
AFGHANISTAN: CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS DEVELOPING IN KABUL, AS KARZAI STRIVES TO REMAIN RELEVANT
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar 3/02/09
Afghanistan’s fledgling Constitution is facing a test, as President Hamid Karzai and his opponents are currently battling for control of the country’s political agenda. The dispute centers on the dates for the country’s next presidential election. The legitimacy of Afghanistan’s government is at stake.
The confrontation began brewing last fall when an informal political "understanding" between parliament, the president and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) on holding elections in early autumn 2009 appeared to fall through. Following the IEC’s January 29 announcement that elections would be held August 20, members of the opposition balked. They insisted letting Karzai hold onto the presidency until August would violate the constitution, which states that all presidential terms must end on the first of the Afghan month of Jawza, this year coinciding with May 21 of the western calendar.
In response, Karzai announced on February 28 that elections should be held this spring in accordance with the constitution. His deft move surprised the opposition, which had apparently hoped the president would step down or at least agree to reduce his powers during the three-month interim between the official end to his term and elections in August.
Observers say the opposition is now in a dither. An April election puts Karzai in an advantageous position, as the perks of incumbency would prove especially useful in a short campaign season. Challengers, for instance, would have little time to organize campaigns. On the defensive, some members of the opposition United Front say they have changed their mind, and now favor an August election.
While anti-incumbency feeling is strong, the lack of a viable alternative will be Karzai’s biggest strength as he campaigns for a second term. Political analyst Haroun Mir, founder of Afghanistan’s Centre for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS), points out that no potential candidate has come forward with an alternative agenda. "Saying Karzai is bad is not enough," he told EurasiaNet. "Where are [the opposition’s] programs?"
An early election would also allow the US administration of President Barack Obama -- which appears increasingly frustrated with Karzai -- less time to formulate a new Afghan policy. Though the Obama Administration has publicly stated it will not back any candidate, most Afghans and observers believe that any sign of American support could tilt the results in favor of a particular candidate.
In response to Karzai’s call for early elections, acting State Department spokesman Robert Wood appeared to contradict the Afghan president’s view, saying in a statement that Washington preferred sticking with a summer vote. "Elections in August, as proposed by the Independent Elections Commission, are the best means to assure every Afghan citizen would be able to express his or her political preference in a secure environment," Wood said.
The country’s electoral law further complicates Karzai’s avowed intensions. Afghanistan’s constitution says the IEC must announce elections 140 days before polling, a date that has already passed if the elections are to be held in April or even May.
Independent MP Shukria Barakzai thinks the subject of dates "is a political problem, not a legal one." She suggested that invoking emergency powers in parts of the country might be a way to defuse the constitutional crisis. Afghanistan’s Constitution allows for elections to be delayed in case of an emergency declared by the president, and ratified by the parliament. The biggest drawback to this option, though, is that it would serve as a tacit admission that the government is not able to govern.
Reacting to some suggestions that a Loya Jirga, or grand tribal council, could be held as a stopgap measure, Barakzai said: "Elections are the only legitimate way of choosing a leadership, and a young democracy needs elections. We should not take a step back and have a Loya Jirga, or temporary arrangement."
Mir of ACRPS also favors change through elections, saying it would bring new momentum to the political process. "The conflict is also based on psychological perception. If people gain hope, the situation will automatically improve. We need new leadership, not a repeat of what we have had for the past five years," he said.
The IEC has not reacted to the recent developments, stating only that it would make known its stance once it is officially notified of the presidential decree. The United Nations -- which is supporting the electoral process -- and other members of the international community have also maintained public silence. Privately, however, Western officials have expressed disquiet over recent developments, concerned that given the mammoth task of preparing logistics, an early election would be nearly impossible, or at the very least compromise the principles of fairness.
The logistics of voter registration, including security, making lists and vetting of candidates, and printing and distribution of ballots are difficult tasks given the lack of capacity in Afghanistan. The difficulty is compounded by the country’s topography, the heavy snowfall in winter, and the ongoing Taliban insurgency.
While constitutional requirements and legal technicalities form the front piece of the ongoing tussle, it is the backroom agreements that will finally determine when the elections shall be held, experts say. As an international observer in Kabul remarked wryly, "All these issues were known to us. Why didn’t we deal with them before?"
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted March 2, 2009 © Eurasianet
Aunohita Mojumdar 3/02/09
Afghanistan’s fledgling Constitution is facing a test, as President Hamid Karzai and his opponents are currently battling for control of the country’s political agenda. The dispute centers on the dates for the country’s next presidential election. The legitimacy of Afghanistan’s government is at stake.
The confrontation began brewing last fall when an informal political "understanding" between parliament, the president and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) on holding elections in early autumn 2009 appeared to fall through. Following the IEC’s January 29 announcement that elections would be held August 20, members of the opposition balked. They insisted letting Karzai hold onto the presidency until August would violate the constitution, which states that all presidential terms must end on the first of the Afghan month of Jawza, this year coinciding with May 21 of the western calendar.
In response, Karzai announced on February 28 that elections should be held this spring in accordance with the constitution. His deft move surprised the opposition, which had apparently hoped the president would step down or at least agree to reduce his powers during the three-month interim between the official end to his term and elections in August.
Observers say the opposition is now in a dither. An April election puts Karzai in an advantageous position, as the perks of incumbency would prove especially useful in a short campaign season. Challengers, for instance, would have little time to organize campaigns. On the defensive, some members of the opposition United Front say they have changed their mind, and now favor an August election.
While anti-incumbency feeling is strong, the lack of a viable alternative will be Karzai’s biggest strength as he campaigns for a second term. Political analyst Haroun Mir, founder of Afghanistan’s Centre for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS), points out that no potential candidate has come forward with an alternative agenda. "Saying Karzai is bad is not enough," he told EurasiaNet. "Where are [the opposition’s] programs?"
An early election would also allow the US administration of President Barack Obama -- which appears increasingly frustrated with Karzai -- less time to formulate a new Afghan policy. Though the Obama Administration has publicly stated it will not back any candidate, most Afghans and observers believe that any sign of American support could tilt the results in favor of a particular candidate.
In response to Karzai’s call for early elections, acting State Department spokesman Robert Wood appeared to contradict the Afghan president’s view, saying in a statement that Washington preferred sticking with a summer vote. "Elections in August, as proposed by the Independent Elections Commission, are the best means to assure every Afghan citizen would be able to express his or her political preference in a secure environment," Wood said.
The country’s electoral law further complicates Karzai’s avowed intensions. Afghanistan’s constitution says the IEC must announce elections 140 days before polling, a date that has already passed if the elections are to be held in April or even May.
Independent MP Shukria Barakzai thinks the subject of dates "is a political problem, not a legal one." She suggested that invoking emergency powers in parts of the country might be a way to defuse the constitutional crisis. Afghanistan’s Constitution allows for elections to be delayed in case of an emergency declared by the president, and ratified by the parliament. The biggest drawback to this option, though, is that it would serve as a tacit admission that the government is not able to govern.
Reacting to some suggestions that a Loya Jirga, or grand tribal council, could be held as a stopgap measure, Barakzai said: "Elections are the only legitimate way of choosing a leadership, and a young democracy needs elections. We should not take a step back and have a Loya Jirga, or temporary arrangement."
Mir of ACRPS also favors change through elections, saying it would bring new momentum to the political process. "The conflict is also based on psychological perception. If people gain hope, the situation will automatically improve. We need new leadership, not a repeat of what we have had for the past five years," he said.
The IEC has not reacted to the recent developments, stating only that it would make known its stance once it is officially notified of the presidential decree. The United Nations -- which is supporting the electoral process -- and other members of the international community have also maintained public silence. Privately, however, Western officials have expressed disquiet over recent developments, concerned that given the mammoth task of preparing logistics, an early election would be nearly impossible, or at the very least compromise the principles of fairness.
The logistics of voter registration, including security, making lists and vetting of candidates, and printing and distribution of ballots are difficult tasks given the lack of capacity in Afghanistan. The difficulty is compounded by the country’s topography, the heavy snowfall in winter, and the ongoing Taliban insurgency.
While constitutional requirements and legal technicalities form the front piece of the ongoing tussle, it is the backroom agreements that will finally determine when the elections shall be held, experts say. As an international observer in Kabul remarked wryly, "All these issues were known to us. Why didn’t we deal with them before?"
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted March 2, 2009 © Eurasianet
AFGHANISTAN: SOME IN KABUL SAY WHAT’S NEEDED IS A POLITICAL & ECONOMIC SURGE, NOT NECESSARILY MORE FOREIGN TROOPS
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar 2/19/09
The US plan to carry out a troop surge in Afghanistan is proving a deeply divisive issue inside the country. While most Afghans are supportive of any move that could end the Taliban insurgency, many already view the presence of foreign troops as a mixed blessing. Some experts suggest that a winning strategy must include drastic revisions in the way foreign forces operate in Afghanistan, along with an intensification of efforts to improve political and economic conditions.
Underscoring existing misgivings is the fact that at about the same time US President Barack Obama confirmed that an additional 17,000 American soldiers would be heading to Afghanistan, the United Nations announced that civilian deaths in 2008 had risen 40 percent over the previous year’s toll. Of 2,118 civilians known to have been killed amid combat operations in 2008, the UN says, 39 percent died due to the actions of Afghan government and coalition forces.
Civilian casualties have long stoked public anger. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has regularly ratcheted up public angst, repeatedly calling for an end to the civilian deaths. On February 4, for example, he said his government and the United States had a difference of opinion over the use of air strikes and described the dispute as a cause of "tensions in our ties," adding the "tension has become severe."
Surprisingly, on February 17, Karzai welcomed Obama’s proposed "surge" and described a new agreement with the American forces to improve coordination and minimize civilian causalities. "The tension the Afghan government had with the US government is now over," Karzai said February 18. "From now on, no foreign troop operations will be uncoordinated with Afghan forces."
Stemming growing public disenchantment -- now at its highest level since the Taliban’s ouster in 2001 -- will depend more on the Afghan government’s ability to contain corruption and deliver basic services than on more fighting, most observers believe.
Aziz Hakimi, a political analyst and the Country Director for Future Generations, a non-governmental organization, is unenthused by the coming surge. "More troops will mean more fighting, more bloodshed. The conflict will be prolonged," he said. Hakimi feels more troops cannot win this war. "It is . . . too late to get the upper hand militarily. What we need is a political surge, not a military surge," he said, referring to his desire for more development aid and accountability in government.
Journalist Najiba Ayubi, managing director of Radio Killid in Kabul, agrees. Noting pros and cons to the US presence, she says Afghanistan has gained a lot in terms of assistance, but adds international troops are operating in an alien culture that they have failed to grasp. At this point, she says, rather than increasing their presence, the international military must accept "a date for withdrawal."
However, another close observer of Afghan politics, Haroun Mir, founder of the Kabul-based Centre for Research and Policy Studies, is eager for more foreign troops. He laments the deteriorating security situation and says the country needs help, quickly, to prevent the Taliban’s return to Kabul.
Of late, the UN has adopted a firmer stance on civilian casualties. At a December press conference, Kai Eide, the UN Secretary General’s new Special Representative to Afghanistan, raised the bar. He called for greater troop restraint and a revision of the bilateral agreement for their deployment, asking for changes in the procedures of house searches, arbitrary detentions and use of air power. "Any expanded military presence has to be accompanied by that change in behavior," he demanded.
Rights watchdogs also see a change in rules of engagement as critical. Human Rights Watch (HRW) is calling for a review of the weapons used in combat. Rachel Reid, the Country Representative of HRW in Afghanistan, told EurasiaNet that, "an increase in troops will lead to a surge in violence if the troops are not used differently." There will still be "too much emphasis on protecting the lives of international troops and not enough emphasis on protecting the lives of Afghans," she said.
"Are the costs of civilian casualties too high to justify the military gains? Can they defeat the insurgency while losing so much public support through civilian casualty incidents and unjust detention policies?" she asked.
International observers have repeatedly warned that coalition troops keep too far from their Afghan hosts. Operating in an atmosphere of growing public disenchantment, arriving foreign troops are likely to minimize rather than expand contact with the local population. Foot patrols, even in the capital, which were earlier meant to reassure the public, take place now with the local population kept at a distance as soldiers march through in heavy armor.
The lack of contact will further exacerbate the continuing failures in intelligence gathering. Heavily reliant on local strongmen or ’leaders’ to provide intelligence, the troops have at times found themselves used as a weapon in an ongoing feud between tribes or large families. The frequency of their rotation gives little chance to develop local intelligence, with the UN’s Eide bemoaning the detention of people "who happen to be amongst the UN mission’s closest contacts in the community."
So far, it is unclear what the new agreement between Kabul and Washington will mean for rules of engagement. But armed with inadequate intelligence, hemmed in by growing disenchantment and faced with the growing fighting capacity of anti-government elements, international troops may well find their numbers increased to the detriment of their mission.
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted February 19, 2009 © Eurasianet
Aunohita Mojumdar 2/19/09
The US plan to carry out a troop surge in Afghanistan is proving a deeply divisive issue inside the country. While most Afghans are supportive of any move that could end the Taliban insurgency, many already view the presence of foreign troops as a mixed blessing. Some experts suggest that a winning strategy must include drastic revisions in the way foreign forces operate in Afghanistan, along with an intensification of efforts to improve political and economic conditions.
Underscoring existing misgivings is the fact that at about the same time US President Barack Obama confirmed that an additional 17,000 American soldiers would be heading to Afghanistan, the United Nations announced that civilian deaths in 2008 had risen 40 percent over the previous year’s toll. Of 2,118 civilians known to have been killed amid combat operations in 2008, the UN says, 39 percent died due to the actions of Afghan government and coalition forces.
Civilian casualties have long stoked public anger. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has regularly ratcheted up public angst, repeatedly calling for an end to the civilian deaths. On February 4, for example, he said his government and the United States had a difference of opinion over the use of air strikes and described the dispute as a cause of "tensions in our ties," adding the "tension has become severe."
Surprisingly, on February 17, Karzai welcomed Obama’s proposed "surge" and described a new agreement with the American forces to improve coordination and minimize civilian causalities. "The tension the Afghan government had with the US government is now over," Karzai said February 18. "From now on, no foreign troop operations will be uncoordinated with Afghan forces."
Stemming growing public disenchantment -- now at its highest level since the Taliban’s ouster in 2001 -- will depend more on the Afghan government’s ability to contain corruption and deliver basic services than on more fighting, most observers believe.
Aziz Hakimi, a political analyst and the Country Director for Future Generations, a non-governmental organization, is unenthused by the coming surge. "More troops will mean more fighting, more bloodshed. The conflict will be prolonged," he said. Hakimi feels more troops cannot win this war. "It is . . . too late to get the upper hand militarily. What we need is a political surge, not a military surge," he said, referring to his desire for more development aid and accountability in government.
Journalist Najiba Ayubi, managing director of Radio Killid in Kabul, agrees. Noting pros and cons to the US presence, she says Afghanistan has gained a lot in terms of assistance, but adds international troops are operating in an alien culture that they have failed to grasp. At this point, she says, rather than increasing their presence, the international military must accept "a date for withdrawal."
However, another close observer of Afghan politics, Haroun Mir, founder of the Kabul-based Centre for Research and Policy Studies, is eager for more foreign troops. He laments the deteriorating security situation and says the country needs help, quickly, to prevent the Taliban’s return to Kabul.
Of late, the UN has adopted a firmer stance on civilian casualties. At a December press conference, Kai Eide, the UN Secretary General’s new Special Representative to Afghanistan, raised the bar. He called for greater troop restraint and a revision of the bilateral agreement for their deployment, asking for changes in the procedures of house searches, arbitrary detentions and use of air power. "Any expanded military presence has to be accompanied by that change in behavior," he demanded.
Rights watchdogs also see a change in rules of engagement as critical. Human Rights Watch (HRW) is calling for a review of the weapons used in combat. Rachel Reid, the Country Representative of HRW in Afghanistan, told EurasiaNet that, "an increase in troops will lead to a surge in violence if the troops are not used differently." There will still be "too much emphasis on protecting the lives of international troops and not enough emphasis on protecting the lives of Afghans," she said.
"Are the costs of civilian casualties too high to justify the military gains? Can they defeat the insurgency while losing so much public support through civilian casualty incidents and unjust detention policies?" she asked.
International observers have repeatedly warned that coalition troops keep too far from their Afghan hosts. Operating in an atmosphere of growing public disenchantment, arriving foreign troops are likely to minimize rather than expand contact with the local population. Foot patrols, even in the capital, which were earlier meant to reassure the public, take place now with the local population kept at a distance as soldiers march through in heavy armor.
The lack of contact will further exacerbate the continuing failures in intelligence gathering. Heavily reliant on local strongmen or ’leaders’ to provide intelligence, the troops have at times found themselves used as a weapon in an ongoing feud between tribes or large families. The frequency of their rotation gives little chance to develop local intelligence, with the UN’s Eide bemoaning the detention of people "who happen to be amongst the UN mission’s closest contacts in the community."
So far, it is unclear what the new agreement between Kabul and Washington will mean for rules of engagement. But armed with inadequate intelligence, hemmed in by growing disenchantment and faced with the growing fighting capacity of anti-government elements, international troops may well find their numbers increased to the detriment of their mission.
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted February 19, 2009 © Eurasianet
AFGHANISTAN: FOOD INSECURITY, THE PROBLEM THAT NEVER WENT AWAY
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar 2/10/09
Just as the United States is preparing for a massive reinforcement of its troops in Afghanistan, so too is the United Nations calling for a surge in humanitarian relief. Forty thousand people die every year in Afghanistan not from violence, but from the unnoticed collateral damage of war -- hunger and poverty. The number is 25 times higher than the toll due to violence, says the UN Security Council in its most recent report.
Despite repeated calls for greater attention to food security, the numbers of those who cannot meet their minimum dietary needs in Afghanistan is on the rise, growing from 30 percent to 35 percent between 2005 and 2008. The crisis is expected to worsen over the next few months as the impact of local drought and high global food prices push more Afghans into food insecurity.
Underscoring the crisis, the UN launched a Humanitarian Action Plan for Afghanistan on February 3, calling for a $604 million emergency relief package. The appeal, which will also aid health, education, water, and shelter, has earmarked over 50 percent to food and agriculture assistance. It even warns that, without urgent action, post-Taliban gains in education and health stand the risk of reversal.
Part of the problem is drought. Last year, the country received less than 24 percent of the rainfall level of 2007, resulting in an 85 percent drop in wheat production. Overall, there occurred a 30 percent drop in cereal harvest over the previous year countrywide. Today, on average, an Afghan family spends 77 percent of its income on food, compared to 56 percent in 2005. The increase, says the UN’s humanitarian appeal, "quickly pushed large segments of previously borderline food-insecure people into an inability to obtain enough basic food and having to resort to destructive coping measures."
Launching the humanitarian appeal in Geneva, the UN Under-Secretary General and Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes said: "In 2008, at a time of rising global food prices, Afghanistan harvested only two-thirds of its annual food requirements, leaving a serious gap for the government and the humanitarian agencies to fill."
Despite the urgency, and awareness among international monitors, concern has not translated into relief. A Joint Emergency Food Appeal launched in July 2008 by the Afghan government and the UN, calling for $404 million to "feed Afghanistan’s most vulnerable people who are in desperate need of food aid," was dismally under-funded. Despite repeated appeals, it has only been half-funded. The current estimate doubles the number of people in need of food assistance since last year, to almost 9 million.
According to Oxfam, the health of over a million young children and half a million women is at serious risk due to malnutrition. One out of every two Afghan children under five is stunted and 39 percent are underweight, the humanitarian agency says.
In a memo to US President Barack Obama, Oxfam has warned of the possibility of significant food shortages in 2009 that could "adversely affect public health and even spark displacement and unrest."
In the southern province of Kandahar, the new governor Tooryakai Wesa is asking for tractors and training, rather than troops, even though his province is considered one of the most violent in the country. During a recent visit to Canada, Wesa said he would like to create security through jobs, not tanks and artillery.
Though 80 percent of Afghanistan’s population is dependent on agriculture, the sector has been one of the most under-funded, receiving only $500 million out of the $15 billion spent on non-security related reconstruction in this country. The country’s leading donor, the United States, is estimated to have spent less than 5 percent of USAID’s budget for Afghanistan since 2002 on agriculture. In 2007, US spending on agriculture amounted to less than 1 percent of what it spent on security.
Speaking in Kabul on February 1, the UN’s top official in Afghanistan, the Secretary General’s Special Representative Kai Eide, described agriculture as a neglected sector: "The government and donors must make sure that agriculture becomes a priority not only in rhetoric, but in the allocation of resources."
The apparent unwillingness of donors to fund the emergency appeals for food and development aid for agriculture lie in the structural inadequacies of the funding mechanisms, say experts.
Remarking on the launch of the UN appeal, the Norwegian Refugee Council Secretary General Elizabeth Rasmusson urged "donor nations to commit more funds to establish and maintain independent humanitarian funding for Afghanistan." She pointed out that "most aid is for development and reconstruction," rather than aid for civilians in the midst of conflict.
Indeed, humanitarian funding has dried up as donors have moved towards funding the ’post-conflict’ state. Donors often target conflict zones in need of humanitarian assistance with money for development projects. Many of these target areas are unable to absorb development aid.
Spending on agriculture development, which could prevent such humanitarian crises, is less appealing. It requires long-term painstaking dedication at the ground level. Many donors are unwilling to make such commitments, Oxfam says, as it is easier to quantify development projects such as the construction of bridges and schools. Returns on humanitarian investment are both lower and slower, making such projects unattractive to the private sector with its eye on quick profits and large returns.
"A large volume of aid money goes to private, profit-making companies," Oxfam points out in its memo to President Obama, adding that "too much aid seeks to achieve rapid material results, without sufficiently promoting local ownership, sustainable poverty reduction or longer term capacity building."
According to Mudasser Hussain Siddiqui, Manager of Policy Advocacy & Research
Action Aid Afghanistan, an NGO, "the key issue here is that we are in this vicious cycle of drought and food insecurity every year. This can be attributed to lack of investment in agriculture and rural employment or livelihoods in Afghanistan."
Much will depend on the new Obama administration’s plans for Afghanistan. Initial signs suggest an approach weighted to military solutions, with a reduced emphasis on development and "less ambitious" short-term goals. None of this adds up to an encouraging future for Afghanistan’s hungry millions.
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted February 10, 2009 © Eurasianet
Aunohita Mojumdar 2/10/09
Just as the United States is preparing for a massive reinforcement of its troops in Afghanistan, so too is the United Nations calling for a surge in humanitarian relief. Forty thousand people die every year in Afghanistan not from violence, but from the unnoticed collateral damage of war -- hunger and poverty. The number is 25 times higher than the toll due to violence, says the UN Security Council in its most recent report.
Despite repeated calls for greater attention to food security, the numbers of those who cannot meet their minimum dietary needs in Afghanistan is on the rise, growing from 30 percent to 35 percent between 2005 and 2008. The crisis is expected to worsen over the next few months as the impact of local drought and high global food prices push more Afghans into food insecurity.
Underscoring the crisis, the UN launched a Humanitarian Action Plan for Afghanistan on February 3, calling for a $604 million emergency relief package. The appeal, which will also aid health, education, water, and shelter, has earmarked over 50 percent to food and agriculture assistance. It even warns that, without urgent action, post-Taliban gains in education and health stand the risk of reversal.
Part of the problem is drought. Last year, the country received less than 24 percent of the rainfall level of 2007, resulting in an 85 percent drop in wheat production. Overall, there occurred a 30 percent drop in cereal harvest over the previous year countrywide. Today, on average, an Afghan family spends 77 percent of its income on food, compared to 56 percent in 2005. The increase, says the UN’s humanitarian appeal, "quickly pushed large segments of previously borderline food-insecure people into an inability to obtain enough basic food and having to resort to destructive coping measures."
Launching the humanitarian appeal in Geneva, the UN Under-Secretary General and Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes said: "In 2008, at a time of rising global food prices, Afghanistan harvested only two-thirds of its annual food requirements, leaving a serious gap for the government and the humanitarian agencies to fill."
Despite the urgency, and awareness among international monitors, concern has not translated into relief. A Joint Emergency Food Appeal launched in July 2008 by the Afghan government and the UN, calling for $404 million to "feed Afghanistan’s most vulnerable people who are in desperate need of food aid," was dismally under-funded. Despite repeated appeals, it has only been half-funded. The current estimate doubles the number of people in need of food assistance since last year, to almost 9 million.
According to Oxfam, the health of over a million young children and half a million women is at serious risk due to malnutrition. One out of every two Afghan children under five is stunted and 39 percent are underweight, the humanitarian agency says.
In a memo to US President Barack Obama, Oxfam has warned of the possibility of significant food shortages in 2009 that could "adversely affect public health and even spark displacement and unrest."
In the southern province of Kandahar, the new governor Tooryakai Wesa is asking for tractors and training, rather than troops, even though his province is considered one of the most violent in the country. During a recent visit to Canada, Wesa said he would like to create security through jobs, not tanks and artillery.
Though 80 percent of Afghanistan’s population is dependent on agriculture, the sector has been one of the most under-funded, receiving only $500 million out of the $15 billion spent on non-security related reconstruction in this country. The country’s leading donor, the United States, is estimated to have spent less than 5 percent of USAID’s budget for Afghanistan since 2002 on agriculture. In 2007, US spending on agriculture amounted to less than 1 percent of what it spent on security.
Speaking in Kabul on February 1, the UN’s top official in Afghanistan, the Secretary General’s Special Representative Kai Eide, described agriculture as a neglected sector: "The government and donors must make sure that agriculture becomes a priority not only in rhetoric, but in the allocation of resources."
The apparent unwillingness of donors to fund the emergency appeals for food and development aid for agriculture lie in the structural inadequacies of the funding mechanisms, say experts.
Remarking on the launch of the UN appeal, the Norwegian Refugee Council Secretary General Elizabeth Rasmusson urged "donor nations to commit more funds to establish and maintain independent humanitarian funding for Afghanistan." She pointed out that "most aid is for development and reconstruction," rather than aid for civilians in the midst of conflict.
Indeed, humanitarian funding has dried up as donors have moved towards funding the ’post-conflict’ state. Donors often target conflict zones in need of humanitarian assistance with money for development projects. Many of these target areas are unable to absorb development aid.
Spending on agriculture development, which could prevent such humanitarian crises, is less appealing. It requires long-term painstaking dedication at the ground level. Many donors are unwilling to make such commitments, Oxfam says, as it is easier to quantify development projects such as the construction of bridges and schools. Returns on humanitarian investment are both lower and slower, making such projects unattractive to the private sector with its eye on quick profits and large returns.
"A large volume of aid money goes to private, profit-making companies," Oxfam points out in its memo to President Obama, adding that "too much aid seeks to achieve rapid material results, without sufficiently promoting local ownership, sustainable poverty reduction or longer term capacity building."
According to Mudasser Hussain Siddiqui, Manager of Policy Advocacy & Research
Action Aid Afghanistan, an NGO, "the key issue here is that we are in this vicious cycle of drought and food insecurity every year. This can be attributed to lack of investment in agriculture and rural employment or livelihoods in Afghanistan."
Much will depend on the new Obama administration’s plans for Afghanistan. Initial signs suggest an approach weighted to military solutions, with a reduced emphasis on development and "less ambitious" short-term goals. None of this adds up to an encouraging future for Afghanistan’s hungry millions.
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted February 10, 2009 © Eurasianet
AFGHANISTAN: RESURRECTION OF MUSEUM HELPING FORGE NEW NATIONAL IDENTITY
Eurasianet
Aunohita Mojumdar: 1/30/09
A giant granite bowl standing in the entrance to the newly rebuilt National Museum in Kabul embodies the complexity and richness of Afghanistan's past. Literally layered with history, the bowl was carved during the Buddhist era and inscribed hundreds of years later, after the advent of Islam. On display, it exemplifies how the country was transformed by centuries of invasion and trade, and how an appreciation of change is essential to rebuilding Afghanistan's identity. Today the bowl also symbolizes survival in a museum that has lost more than 70 percent of its treasures to the depredations of war. It sits on a gleaming pedestal over polished floors, housed in a museum that is painstakingly restoring itself step by step: renovating the building, restoring the damaged artifacts, re-cataloging a fractured inventory, and introducing modern methods of preservation. What's more, the museum is also working to reestablish its role as protector of heritage in a society fragmented by years of conflict.
The Director of the National Museum, Omara Khan Masoudi, is well acquainted with the challenges. His association with the museum dates back 30 years, many of them painful. At times he watched as militias looted or destroyed the museum's treasures. At other points, fighting prevented him from even reaching the site. He finally left the country in 2000, returning two years later when the post-Taliban Minister of Information and Culture invited him to take charge of the museum once again.
Contrary to the popular myth that links the Taliban to the destruction of much of Afghanistan's art and culture, Masoudi reveals that most of the losses took place during the civil war of the mid-1990s, before the Taliban came to power. It was during the mujahidin's chaotic rule that many of the museum's artifacts were destroyed, he says.
"When power changed from communist to mujahidin hands [in 1992], there was a security vacuum. The museum was looted," Masoudi told EurasiaNet. When the mujahidin factions began fighting among themselves, the South Kabul neighborhood where the museum is located became a battleground. "For two years this area was cut off and we could not reach the museum. Rocket attacks set the museum building on fire, destroying a large part of it."
Masoudi actually recalls how the Taliban helped the museum in the initial years. Most members of the movement were against the destruction of cultural artifacts and paid attention to safeguarding them, he says. In the late 1990s, even the reclusive Mullah Omar issued edicts calling for the preservation of cultural treasures, including the very Bamiyan Buddhas he would later order destroyed.
"I remember one time a Taliban commander said he would destroy the Buddha statutes," Masoudi said. "The [Taliban] Minister of Information refuted the idea, saying the Taliban regime would not destroy the pieces in Bamiyan. Up until 2000, they helped keep the artifacts safe. I don't know what happened after that. I think it was some outside pressure that resulted in the edicts issued in 2001 to destroy the Buddha statues and also all the artifacts in the museum that resembled human figures."
Many observers have speculated that it was the influence of Osama bin Laden on the Taliban leadership that eventually led to the Buddhas' destruction. Conservative interpretations of Islam forbid the representation of living creatures.
Much of what is left in the museum was saved through a combination of luck, courage and ingenuity. In 1988, as Soviet forces prepared to withdraw from Afghanistan, and as mujahidin forces advanced on Kabul, the government there decided to store many artifacts in three different places around the capital. These efforts helped save precious collections such as the Bactrian Gold, long thought lost forever, that is currently touring museums in the United States.
Now, thanks to the efforts of Masoudi and others like him, Kabul's National Museum is restoring damaged pieces and reviewing its inventory. With the help of UNESCO and the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the museum is also identifying stolen treasures and attempting to have known pieces returned. Masoudi describes efforts to develop a "red list" of antiquities, illegal to be owned or traded by individuals. "Last year we got back 5,000 pieces," he said. But preserving the existing treasures is still a challenge. Officials lack the resources to stop illegal archaeological excavations throughout the country.
The museum, Masoudi adds, urgently needs a security system, climate control, and illumination that will allow light sensitive objects to be stored and displayed according to conservationist requirements.
One of Masoudi's greatest laments is that the museum's collection of Afghan heritage is inaccessible to many of the country's citizens. "It is also important to have museums in the provinces. Not everyone can come to Kabul," he said. Bamiyan, for example, could have its own museum to display and store artifacts excavated locally, he suggests.
Asked what role the museum will play in shaping Afghanistan's cultural identity after years of fighting over definitions of identity, Masoudi speaks of the importance of recognizing a multi-layered past. "This country has an ancient civilization. We have to be proud of it, about the pre-Islamic history. We have artifacts which date back 60,000 years or more. When we can display the artifacts belonging to earlier periods in the museum -- for example pieces from the Bronze Age -- it will be possible for people to understand this very clearly."
"Educated people try to preserve their culture," he continued. "Now it is a big challenge." He believes that it was a lack of education that led to the past looting, and he is keen to ensure exposure to the museum now starts at a young age. "I think every museum has a role in the education of the younger generation. . . . I hope some donors can provide us with one or two buses. Then we could arrange to bring school children here and show them around for free," he said.
"We could do this everyday. We can host as many as 300 to 400 children at one time," he continued, as his eyes lit up. "We can show them our country's rich past."
Aunohita Mojumdar: 1/30/09
A giant granite bowl standing in the entrance to the newly rebuilt National Museum in Kabul embodies the complexity and richness of Afghanistan's past. Literally layered with history, the bowl was carved during the Buddhist era and inscribed hundreds of years later, after the advent of Islam. On display, it exemplifies how the country was transformed by centuries of invasion and trade, and how an appreciation of change is essential to rebuilding Afghanistan's identity. Today the bowl also symbolizes survival in a museum that has lost more than 70 percent of its treasures to the depredations of war. It sits on a gleaming pedestal over polished floors, housed in a museum that is painstakingly restoring itself step by step: renovating the building, restoring the damaged artifacts, re-cataloging a fractured inventory, and introducing modern methods of preservation. What's more, the museum is also working to reestablish its role as protector of heritage in a society fragmented by years of conflict.
The Director of the National Museum, Omara Khan Masoudi, is well acquainted with the challenges. His association with the museum dates back 30 years, many of them painful. At times he watched as militias looted or destroyed the museum's treasures. At other points, fighting prevented him from even reaching the site. He finally left the country in 2000, returning two years later when the post-Taliban Minister of Information and Culture invited him to take charge of the museum once again.
Contrary to the popular myth that links the Taliban to the destruction of much of Afghanistan's art and culture, Masoudi reveals that most of the losses took place during the civil war of the mid-1990s, before the Taliban came to power. It was during the mujahidin's chaotic rule that many of the museum's artifacts were destroyed, he says.
"When power changed from communist to mujahidin hands [in 1992], there was a security vacuum. The museum was looted," Masoudi told EurasiaNet. When the mujahidin factions began fighting among themselves, the South Kabul neighborhood where the museum is located became a battleground. "For two years this area was cut off and we could not reach the museum. Rocket attacks set the museum building on fire, destroying a large part of it."
Masoudi actually recalls how the Taliban helped the museum in the initial years. Most members of the movement were against the destruction of cultural artifacts and paid attention to safeguarding them, he says. In the late 1990s, even the reclusive Mullah Omar issued edicts calling for the preservation of cultural treasures, including the very Bamiyan Buddhas he would later order destroyed.
"I remember one time a Taliban commander said he would destroy the Buddha statutes," Masoudi said. "The [Taliban] Minister of Information refuted the idea, saying the Taliban regime would not destroy the pieces in Bamiyan. Up until 2000, they helped keep the artifacts safe. I don't know what happened after that. I think it was some outside pressure that resulted in the edicts issued in 2001 to destroy the Buddha statues and also all the artifacts in the museum that resembled human figures."
Many observers have speculated that it was the influence of Osama bin Laden on the Taliban leadership that eventually led to the Buddhas' destruction. Conservative interpretations of Islam forbid the representation of living creatures.
Much of what is left in the museum was saved through a combination of luck, courage and ingenuity. In 1988, as Soviet forces prepared to withdraw from Afghanistan, and as mujahidin forces advanced on Kabul, the government there decided to store many artifacts in three different places around the capital. These efforts helped save precious collections such as the Bactrian Gold, long thought lost forever, that is currently touring museums in the United States.
Now, thanks to the efforts of Masoudi and others like him, Kabul's National Museum is restoring damaged pieces and reviewing its inventory. With the help of UNESCO and the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the museum is also identifying stolen treasures and attempting to have known pieces returned. Masoudi describes efforts to develop a "red list" of antiquities, illegal to be owned or traded by individuals. "Last year we got back 5,000 pieces," he said. But preserving the existing treasures is still a challenge. Officials lack the resources to stop illegal archaeological excavations throughout the country.
The museum, Masoudi adds, urgently needs a security system, climate control, and illumination that will allow light sensitive objects to be stored and displayed according to conservationist requirements.
One of Masoudi's greatest laments is that the museum's collection of Afghan heritage is inaccessible to many of the country's citizens. "It is also important to have museums in the provinces. Not everyone can come to Kabul," he said. Bamiyan, for example, could have its own museum to display and store artifacts excavated locally, he suggests.
Asked what role the museum will play in shaping Afghanistan's cultural identity after years of fighting over definitions of identity, Masoudi speaks of the importance of recognizing a multi-layered past. "This country has an ancient civilization. We have to be proud of it, about the pre-Islamic history. We have artifacts which date back 60,000 years or more. When we can display the artifacts belonging to earlier periods in the museum -- for example pieces from the Bronze Age -- it will be possible for people to understand this very clearly."
"Educated people try to preserve their culture," he continued. "Now it is a big challenge." He believes that it was a lack of education that led to the past looting, and he is keen to ensure exposure to the museum now starts at a young age. "I think every museum has a role in the education of the younger generation. . . . I hope some donors can provide us with one or two buses. Then we could arrange to bring school children here and show them around for free," he said.
"We could do this everyday. We can host as many as 300 to 400 children at one time," he continued, as his eyes lit up. "We can show them our country's rich past."
Afghans rue Bush's 'war on terror'
Al Jazeera/ January 11, 2009
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
In his last visit to Afghanistan as president, George Bush said progress had been made [AFP]
On the day George Bush, the US president, ends his period in office, millions of Afghans will be battling the bitter cold of winter and possible starvation.
Eight years after Bush launched his "war on terror" following the September 11 attacks, much of the human cost of it remains under-reported.
Increased fighting in the country has gradually decreased the ability of the UN, humanitarian agencies and NGOs to deliver basic services to the most vulnerable Afghans.
The UN now categorises 79 of the 364 districts of the country as areas of "extreme risk," and international staff almost never travel by road.
The lack of access is likely to increase in the short term, further debilitating the delivery of basic services like food, health and education.
Not only is the country facing a worsening security situation, but even the best case scenario, which sees hope in the influx of additional troops next year, predicts increased fighting and greater violence in the short term.
Farewell visit
During his recent visit to Afghanistan, his last one scheduled before he leaves office, Bush spoke of the challenges ahead but said the situation had improved since the Taliban were removed from power by US forces in 2001.
US troops are coming under increasing
pressure in Afghanistan [AFP]
"You know, I was thinking ... how much Afghanistan has changed since I have been the president.
"Sometimes its hard when you're in the midst of a difficult situation, it's hard to get perspective.
"In 2002 the Taliban were brutally repressing the people of this country. I remember the images of women being stoned, or people being executed in the soccer stadium because of their beliefs.
"There was a group of killers that were hiding here and training here and plotting here to kill citizens in my country."
However, for many Afghans, 2001 no longer remains a valid comparison, as worsening security, disappointed hopes and increasing economic challenges erode the goodwill of the initial years of the government of Hamid Karzai, a government that Afghans say, was selected by the US.
'No power'
Mariam is a middle-aged woman from a proud family in the northeastern province of Panjshir, the former stronghold of the legendary Ahmed Shah Massoud, the anti-Taliban commander.
"Isn't Karzai an American installation? Najibullah worked to help Afghans. What is Karzai doing? I don't see any hope in the future."
Mariam
She is conservative enough to stay indoors when non-family male members are visiting, but also advocates family planning to her daughter-in-laws.
Mariam saw her family battle troops from the Soviet Union following their invasion in 1979.
"Then, during the Taliban, we took refuge in Panjshir. But during Najibullah's [the Soviet-backed former Afghan leader] time we had power. Now there is none. I am ill but the doctor costs so much. During the Soviet time we had free medical care.
"Isn't Karzai an American installation? Najibullah worked to help Afghans. What is Karzai doing? I don't see any hope in the future."
In decline
In a recent survey carried out by The Asia Foundation, a US-based non-governmental organisation (NGO), only 39 per cent of the population said they were more prosperous now than under the Taliban, while 36 per cent said they were less prosperous.
Many Afghans rely on foreign aid
for basic foodstuffs [AP]
Two years ago, those who felt more prosperous were nearly double those who felt less prosperous, indicating a trend of declining economic prosperity.
While Mariam is well-off by Afghan standards with several of her sons employed in urban jobs, the Afghan population at the bottom of the ladder faces severe hardship.
The percentage of the population below the minimum dietary level has increased from 30 to 35 per cent, according to the World Food Programme (WFP).
While there has been considerable focus on the need for more troops, the UN joint emergency appeal remains under-funded by 50 per cent, with donor commitments trickling in too slowly to make sure food stocks arrive before winter.
"Around 1.6 million children under five years and 625,000 women of child-bearing age are at risk of dying this winter due to malnutrition," the ministry of public health said in a recent statement, adding that food shortages had been exacerbated by drought, high food prices and loss of livestock across the country.
Deliveries of emergency food stocks have also been hampered by insecurity, with WFP food convoys being attacked more than two dozen times this year.
The crisis has been in the making for several years.
Though 80 per cent of the Afghan population is dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, the sector has been severely under-funded, receiving only about $500m of the $15bn spent on development aid in the country since 2002.
USAID, the largest donor, has spent only five per cent of its budget on the sector in this period, according to Oxfam.
Education threatened
Initial gains in the health and education sectors were largely the result of NGOs who partnered with the donor agencies and the Afghan government.
Their decreasing access means "these gains are on the verge of being reversed", says Mudasser Hussain Siddiqui, a policy advocacy and research manager for Action Aid, an international NGO.
Childbirth remains dangerous in
Afghanistan [GALLO/GETTY]
Siddiqui also points to increased threats to schools if they are used as voter registration areas or polling booths during the election year (presidential elections are expected in 2009), a step that would make them "more vulnerable to attacks since they would be perceived as legitimate targets" by Taliban-supporting fighters.
Between July 2007 and June 2008 there were 230 incidents affecting education, according to Unicef.
These included the burning down of schools, bombings, military operations in the vicinity and killings of teachers and students.
Jamshid Hashimi is from a traditional family in Logar province, adjoining Kabul.
"During the Taliban years, girls from my family attended the secret underground schools to get an education. After the departure of the Taliban, they attended the new overground schools.
"Even the young brides married into the family went to school to finish their interrupted studies. That is until last year, when they all stopped."
"My sister-in-law was shot dead by insurgents as she walked to school," says Jamshid recalling the day with a painful clarity that brought tears to his eyes.
"Now, we are too scared to send the girls to school, including my own wife. They have all stopped going."
According to the ministry of education, attacks on schools and insecurity have forced 300,000 children to abandon their schooling.
Healthcare
"We know what to expect from the Taliban, but we don't expect the same from the international forces. They are the ones upholding the rule of law and establishing democracy. They can't be the ones killing innocents."
Mohammed
Health facilities have also been forced to close as a result of attacks and threats.
Though government statistics boast that 80 per cent of Afghans receive healthcare, 36 health facilities in the southern and eastern provinces have been shut down.
As a result more than 360,000 people in the provinces of Helmund, Kandahar, Farah, Zabul and Paktika are deprived of health coverage.
Unicef says the insecurity is also hampering the polio eradication initiatives and efforts to expand the number of women health professionals in the country.
The result is one of the highest maternal mortality ratios anywhere in the world.
This year, 24,000 maternal deaths are expected in Afghanistan - several times the number of civilians who will die directly from the ongoing conflict.
Roots of anger
Most who have been affected by violence this year say the violence was not related to the insurgency.
According to the Asia Foundation survey, only eight per cent of those who had suffered violence attributed it to the Taliban.
However, civilian casualties as a result of military operations by international forces have been a lightening rod for public anger and Mohammed, a resident of Kabul, explains the roots of this anger and why deaths caused by the international forces stir more anger than those by the Taliban.
"We know what to expect from the Taliban, but we don't expect the same from the international forces. They are the ones upholding the rule of law and establishing democracy. They can't be the ones killing innocents," he said.
This willingness to hold the international community to higher standards of accountability is seen as a positive sign and evidence that Afghans still have great hope for change.
However, by constantly comparing itself to the Taliban, as Bush did during his recent visit, the international community is, many say, putting this significant distinction at risk.
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
In his last visit to Afghanistan as president, George Bush said progress had been made [AFP]
On the day George Bush, the US president, ends his period in office, millions of Afghans will be battling the bitter cold of winter and possible starvation.
Eight years after Bush launched his "war on terror" following the September 11 attacks, much of the human cost of it remains under-reported.
Increased fighting in the country has gradually decreased the ability of the UN, humanitarian agencies and NGOs to deliver basic services to the most vulnerable Afghans.
The UN now categorises 79 of the 364 districts of the country as areas of "extreme risk," and international staff almost never travel by road.
The lack of access is likely to increase in the short term, further debilitating the delivery of basic services like food, health and education.
Not only is the country facing a worsening security situation, but even the best case scenario, which sees hope in the influx of additional troops next year, predicts increased fighting and greater violence in the short term.
Farewell visit
During his recent visit to Afghanistan, his last one scheduled before he leaves office, Bush spoke of the challenges ahead but said the situation had improved since the Taliban were removed from power by US forces in 2001.
US troops are coming under increasing
pressure in Afghanistan [AFP]
"You know, I was thinking ... how much Afghanistan has changed since I have been the president.
"Sometimes its hard when you're in the midst of a difficult situation, it's hard to get perspective.
"In 2002 the Taliban were brutally repressing the people of this country. I remember the images of women being stoned, or people being executed in the soccer stadium because of their beliefs.
"There was a group of killers that were hiding here and training here and plotting here to kill citizens in my country."
However, for many Afghans, 2001 no longer remains a valid comparison, as worsening security, disappointed hopes and increasing economic challenges erode the goodwill of the initial years of the government of Hamid Karzai, a government that Afghans say, was selected by the US.
'No power'
Mariam is a middle-aged woman from a proud family in the northeastern province of Panjshir, the former stronghold of the legendary Ahmed Shah Massoud, the anti-Taliban commander.
"Isn't Karzai an American installation? Najibullah worked to help Afghans. What is Karzai doing? I don't see any hope in the future."
Mariam
She is conservative enough to stay indoors when non-family male members are visiting, but also advocates family planning to her daughter-in-laws.
Mariam saw her family battle troops from the Soviet Union following their invasion in 1979.
"Then, during the Taliban, we took refuge in Panjshir. But during Najibullah's [the Soviet-backed former Afghan leader] time we had power. Now there is none. I am ill but the doctor costs so much. During the Soviet time we had free medical care.
"Isn't Karzai an American installation? Najibullah worked to help Afghans. What is Karzai doing? I don't see any hope in the future."
In decline
In a recent survey carried out by The Asia Foundation, a US-based non-governmental organisation (NGO), only 39 per cent of the population said they were more prosperous now than under the Taliban, while 36 per cent said they were less prosperous.
Many Afghans rely on foreign aid
for basic foodstuffs [AP]
Two years ago, those who felt more prosperous were nearly double those who felt less prosperous, indicating a trend of declining economic prosperity.
While Mariam is well-off by Afghan standards with several of her sons employed in urban jobs, the Afghan population at the bottom of the ladder faces severe hardship.
The percentage of the population below the minimum dietary level has increased from 30 to 35 per cent, according to the World Food Programme (WFP).
While there has been considerable focus on the need for more troops, the UN joint emergency appeal remains under-funded by 50 per cent, with donor commitments trickling in too slowly to make sure food stocks arrive before winter.
"Around 1.6 million children under five years and 625,000 women of child-bearing age are at risk of dying this winter due to malnutrition," the ministry of public health said in a recent statement, adding that food shortages had been exacerbated by drought, high food prices and loss of livestock across the country.
Deliveries of emergency food stocks have also been hampered by insecurity, with WFP food convoys being attacked more than two dozen times this year.
The crisis has been in the making for several years.
Though 80 per cent of the Afghan population is dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, the sector has been severely under-funded, receiving only about $500m of the $15bn spent on development aid in the country since 2002.
USAID, the largest donor, has spent only five per cent of its budget on the sector in this period, according to Oxfam.
Education threatened
Initial gains in the health and education sectors were largely the result of NGOs who partnered with the donor agencies and the Afghan government.
Their decreasing access means "these gains are on the verge of being reversed", says Mudasser Hussain Siddiqui, a policy advocacy and research manager for Action Aid, an international NGO.
Childbirth remains dangerous in
Afghanistan [GALLO/GETTY]
Siddiqui also points to increased threats to schools if they are used as voter registration areas or polling booths during the election year (presidential elections are expected in 2009), a step that would make them "more vulnerable to attacks since they would be perceived as legitimate targets" by Taliban-supporting fighters.
Between July 2007 and June 2008 there were 230 incidents affecting education, according to Unicef.
These included the burning down of schools, bombings, military operations in the vicinity and killings of teachers and students.
Jamshid Hashimi is from a traditional family in Logar province, adjoining Kabul.
"During the Taliban years, girls from my family attended the secret underground schools to get an education. After the departure of the Taliban, they attended the new overground schools.
"Even the young brides married into the family went to school to finish their interrupted studies. That is until last year, when they all stopped."
"My sister-in-law was shot dead by insurgents as she walked to school," says Jamshid recalling the day with a painful clarity that brought tears to his eyes.
"Now, we are too scared to send the girls to school, including my own wife. They have all stopped going."
According to the ministry of education, attacks on schools and insecurity have forced 300,000 children to abandon their schooling.
Healthcare
"We know what to expect from the Taliban, but we don't expect the same from the international forces. They are the ones upholding the rule of law and establishing democracy. They can't be the ones killing innocents."
Mohammed
Health facilities have also been forced to close as a result of attacks and threats.
Though government statistics boast that 80 per cent of Afghans receive healthcare, 36 health facilities in the southern and eastern provinces have been shut down.
As a result more than 360,000 people in the provinces of Helmund, Kandahar, Farah, Zabul and Paktika are deprived of health coverage.
Unicef says the insecurity is also hampering the polio eradication initiatives and efforts to expand the number of women health professionals in the country.
The result is one of the highest maternal mortality ratios anywhere in the world.
This year, 24,000 maternal deaths are expected in Afghanistan - several times the number of civilians who will die directly from the ongoing conflict.
Roots of anger
Most who have been affected by violence this year say the violence was not related to the insurgency.
According to the Asia Foundation survey, only eight per cent of those who had suffered violence attributed it to the Taliban.
However, civilian casualties as a result of military operations by international forces have been a lightening rod for public anger and Mohammed, a resident of Kabul, explains the roots of this anger and why deaths caused by the international forces stir more anger than those by the Taliban.
"We know what to expect from the Taliban, but we don't expect the same from the international forces. They are the ones upholding the rule of law and establishing democracy. They can't be the ones killing innocents," he said.
This willingness to hold the international community to higher standards of accountability is seen as a positive sign and evidence that Afghans still have great hope for change.
However, by constantly comparing itself to the Taliban, as Bush did during his recent visit, the international community is, many say, putting this significant distinction at risk.
Afghans fear spiral of violence
Al Jazeera, December 28, 2009
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
Sitting in a room warmed by woodfire because there is no electricity, Jamshid Hashimi, a young employee of a local architecture firm, watches from his window as Kabul residents hurry to avoid the rain which has turned unpaved streets into mud.
"More troops will mean more fighting," he says.
Afghan analysts agree that the expected arrival of an additional 30,000 US troops in 2009 could lead to an escalation in the ongoing battle with the Taliban and other anti-government forces.
Haroun Mir, the co-founder and deputy director of Afghanistan's Centre for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS), said: "There is a continuing trend of a downward spiral in security that we are witnessing in Afghanistan with the Taliban getting closer to Kabul."
He is still hopeful, however, that an increase in US and Nato troops will in the long-term stem the advance of the anti-government forces towards Kabul.
Situation worsening
Shakti Sinha, a former senior official with the UN's Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (Unama), feels that the situation will likely worsen before it improves.
He says an immediate influx of troops will result in increased fighting.
"The international troops have always been able to achieve battlefield success but this does not mean holding territory. The hope is that there will now be a theatre reserve that will be able to hold territory and that the lessons learned [from past battles] will be applied here," he said.
Mudasser Hussain Siddiqui, the manager of policy advocacy and research in Action Aid, and international NGO, wonders if the increased troop deployment could be part of a political settlement with the Taliban.
"The political climate will certainly be hotter because of the [presidential] elections in 2009 and security will deteriorate in the run-up to the elections," he told Al Jazeera.
The nature of deployment, both geographic and operational, will also determine the course of the ongoing conflict.
While US officials have indicated that troops will deploy in provinces close to Kabul, senior leaders including Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, have said that the battle against the Taliban needs to be fought not in the villages of Afghanistan but in the safe havens and training centres in Pakistan.
Negotiating with the Taliban
In the meantime, calls for negotiations with the Taliban, which were first suggested by Afghan leaders as well as some western allies in late 2008, are expected to grow during the coming year.
However, some senior diplomats and analysts have cautioned that such talks should be held from a position of strength rather than weakness.
Political exigencies, including that of the presidential elections, will determine much of the course of this ongoing debate in 2009 as leaders, especially the incumbent president, weigh the conventional wisdom of convening such talks.
The presidential elections themselves continue to be shrouded in uncertainty. While voter registration has begun, there is much greater public disenchantment with the process, as many blame the government of having limited ability to deliver services.
Many Afghans say they feel disenfranchised from the political and economic reconstruction of their country and say foreign leaders in remote capitals are determining the national agenda.
Threat of winter
However, for many Afghans, the more immediate threat will be the hardship of an Afghan winter.
Severe cold and drought in many parts of the country and decreasing access of humanitarian agencies to remote areas have put larger numbers of the Afghan population at risk.
Non--governmental organisations like Oxfam have warned that five million Afghans are likely to face food shortages.
The uncertain security situation, the unstable political climate and the lack of essential infrastructure like energy, water and roads will impede private sector development.
In such conditions both the government and the international community will be responsible for driving economic recovery and creating employment opportunities.
Eid Mohammad Mangal, the manager of a Kabul restaurant, says security woes are compounded by continuing high unemployment rates.
"When people have no job, no work and they are unhappy, they can join the Taliban," he says.
Mir believes severe hardship during winter may create fertile ground for Taliban recruitment. While the severity of the winter will unfold over the first two months of the year, early snow already presages a difficult period for Afghans, thousands of whom live in villages inaccessible during the severest winter.
"Even inside Kabul many families cannot find food to have three meals a day. People here don't want creature comforts," he said.
"They just want bread to survive. If this is not possible the security will deteriorate further."
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
Sitting in a room warmed by woodfire because there is no electricity, Jamshid Hashimi, a young employee of a local architecture firm, watches from his window as Kabul residents hurry to avoid the rain which has turned unpaved streets into mud.
"More troops will mean more fighting," he says.
Afghan analysts agree that the expected arrival of an additional 30,000 US troops in 2009 could lead to an escalation in the ongoing battle with the Taliban and other anti-government forces.
Haroun Mir, the co-founder and deputy director of Afghanistan's Centre for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS), said: "There is a continuing trend of a downward spiral in security that we are witnessing in Afghanistan with the Taliban getting closer to Kabul."
He is still hopeful, however, that an increase in US and Nato troops will in the long-term stem the advance of the anti-government forces towards Kabul.
Situation worsening
Shakti Sinha, a former senior official with the UN's Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (Unama), feels that the situation will likely worsen before it improves.
He says an immediate influx of troops will result in increased fighting.
"The international troops have always been able to achieve battlefield success but this does not mean holding territory. The hope is that there will now be a theatre reserve that will be able to hold territory and that the lessons learned [from past battles] will be applied here," he said.
Mudasser Hussain Siddiqui, the manager of policy advocacy and research in Action Aid, and international NGO, wonders if the increased troop deployment could be part of a political settlement with the Taliban.
"The political climate will certainly be hotter because of the [presidential] elections in 2009 and security will deteriorate in the run-up to the elections," he told Al Jazeera.
The nature of deployment, both geographic and operational, will also determine the course of the ongoing conflict.
While US officials have indicated that troops will deploy in provinces close to Kabul, senior leaders including Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, have said that the battle against the Taliban needs to be fought not in the villages of Afghanistan but in the safe havens and training centres in Pakistan.
Negotiating with the Taliban
In the meantime, calls for negotiations with the Taliban, which were first suggested by Afghan leaders as well as some western allies in late 2008, are expected to grow during the coming year.
However, some senior diplomats and analysts have cautioned that such talks should be held from a position of strength rather than weakness.
Political exigencies, including that of the presidential elections, will determine much of the course of this ongoing debate in 2009 as leaders, especially the incumbent president, weigh the conventional wisdom of convening such talks.
The presidential elections themselves continue to be shrouded in uncertainty. While voter registration has begun, there is much greater public disenchantment with the process, as many blame the government of having limited ability to deliver services.
Many Afghans say they feel disenfranchised from the political and economic reconstruction of their country and say foreign leaders in remote capitals are determining the national agenda.
Threat of winter
However, for many Afghans, the more immediate threat will be the hardship of an Afghan winter.
Severe cold and drought in many parts of the country and decreasing access of humanitarian agencies to remote areas have put larger numbers of the Afghan population at risk.
Non--governmental organisations like Oxfam have warned that five million Afghans are likely to face food shortages.
The uncertain security situation, the unstable political climate and the lack of essential infrastructure like energy, water and roads will impede private sector development.
In such conditions both the government and the international community will be responsible for driving economic recovery and creating employment opportunities.
Eid Mohammad Mangal, the manager of a Kabul restaurant, says security woes are compounded by continuing high unemployment rates.
"When people have no job, no work and they are unhappy, they can join the Taliban," he says.
Mir believes severe hardship during winter may create fertile ground for Taliban recruitment. While the severity of the winter will unfold over the first two months of the year, early snow already presages a difficult period for Afghans, thousands of whom live in villages inaccessible during the severest winter.
"Even inside Kabul many families cannot find food to have three meals a day. People here don't want creature comforts," he said.
"They just want bread to survive. If this is not possible the security will deteriorate further."
Interview: Adrian Edwards
Al Jazeera/ December 9, 2008
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
The UN prepared local communities for Afghanistan's first parliamentary elections [GALLO/GETTY]
The UN has been providing assistance to Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion of the country in 1979 but significantly increased its aid efforts after the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
It was recognised at a meeting of Afghan leaders and world powers in Bonn, Germany in December 2001, that the "United Nations, as the internationally recognised, impartial institution, has a particularly important role to play".
On March 28, 2002, the Security Council established the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Unama) "to promote national reconciliation ... strengthen government capacity and institutions; promote human rights, the rule of law, and women's rights; assist in the rehabilitation of security forces and the disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration of former combatants; and coordinate all UN humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and development programmes in Afghanistan.
Al Jazeera recently interviewed Adrian Edwards, the Unama spokesman in Afghanistan.
Al Jazeera: How has Unama's role developed since it was established? What of its mandate has been achieved?
Edwards: The UN has been here in Afghanistan for half a century. In that time we have developed a perspective that is somewhat different from others. We view Afghanistan as a country and a people not just as a conflict.
The UN has a role in many areas people don't often look at: refugees, it supports development in healthcare and agriculture - somewhat un-trendy things to look at- but we do it 365 days a year through thick and thin.
We also have the UN's political mission here, Unama, a small mission which looks at the core objective of all of us in Afghanistan which is to search for peace and for justice in this country.
The mission has had a job in trying to build peace, trying to coordinate the efforts of the international community since 2002 in terms of development, in terms of other assistance here. Fundamentally our aim is about peace in this country and the search for it and the search for solutions which will be needed if the country is to move forward.
Recently the mandate of the UN in Afghanistan was increased. Why was this felt to be necessary?
Edwards says the police are now tasked with fighting terrorism rather than public security
If you look back over the last years the original expectations were that we would move from a period of rapid reconstruction into a development phase during which people would start to see the peace dividends, the effect of considerable investment in development and so on.
What happened of course as we all know now is that in 2004, 2005 and entering into spring of 2006 we saw a return towards conflict and the situation we are in today.
That of course has changed circumstances enormously here and it does mean that people are being robbed of the development that they were led to expect would be coming here and people hoped would be coming here.
So although you have seen enormous progress in some areas - for example education, heath care, growth of a media here - people are nonetheless frustrated with the fact that they haven't seen the progress that was expected in the early years.
So our mandate has had to change accordingly. We have a mandate that gives us a role in supporting a reconciliation, in supporting human rights in this country and in coordinating all the efforts that go into helping Afghanistan.
Which things could have been done differently that may have allowed the progress to continue?
Very many of the problems stem from insecurity. For example the police - you would have seen the growth of an institution that delivered on law enforcement.
Now the effect of insecurity has meant the police has been sidelined into combatting insurgency and protection issues and that has meant that one of the most crucial institutions of any country is not able to deliver satisfactorily.
You have constant problems with corruption, you have breakdown of law and order in some areas, that allows, combined with insurgency issues, the growth of illegality, the poppy trade, criminality.
I think security is one of the core elements.
If you look at the political development in Afghanistan, you may say in 2008-2009 that were we back in 2001 we would have done things differently. We would have included the Taliban in peace talks, we would have strengthened justice and transitional justice systems.
Certainly were we able to turn back the clock and do thing differently for sure we would love to take that opportunity but at the time people really did their best efforts under the circumstances and we have to adjust as we go along.
The "Balkanisation" of the country – which has seen different countries take on different sectors and different areas – do you think it was a good idea?
The Taliban have grown stronger in recent years and now mount brazen attacks [AFP]
That model is not being followed so much nowadays and that says something. We are coming up to the seventh anniversary of the Bonn agreement. There is a tendency to look back at what we did right and what we did wrong. We have done a lot of that over the years.
What we are concerned about at this point is much more forward-looking given where we are today.
Right now we are in the process of seeing a new US administration come into being. Everyone, Afghan and internationals looking to see what the impact might be of changes outside the country.
We are seeing changes in the immediate surrounding region: the recent signs of open Saudi involvement.
We have a changing situation in Pakistan. You need a mixture of circumstances to resolve the problem inside the country. One is resolving the external conflict, the conflicts between the neighbours or the powers behind those neighbours sometimes and of course within the country you need to de-conflate local issues.
So we are some way away from arriving at an enduring solution for Afghanistan and there are certainly challenges along the way to getting there.
What is your view on talks with the Taliban? How do you see it unfolding and what will be the role of UN?
We are mandated to support reconciliation if that is what the government wants us to do. We very clearly think that there has to be a real emphasis on political direction, both in renewing the determination to build proper institutions and getting government delivering better to the people and of course in finding solutions to the conflict here.
We do not think military solutions alone will be the answer to Afghanistan’s needs but there has to be an end to this conflict. We have to get Afghanistan back to the position where it can start to move forward again ad we can start delivering on things people need.
Are Afghans increasingly alienated from the international community and their goverment?
The trajectory of this country from reconstruction through development and then conflict arose along that track. That has had a real effect in robbing people of some of the development dividends, the peace dividends they could have expected.
Yes, of course that causes frustration when people look at a police that doesn't work as they want it, when they look at courts that don't work as they want it, when they look at other things.
It's only natural that there is frustration. That doesn't mean you abandon the project. There is a lot of work to be done in this country. Even without any conflict at all development takes many years, many decades.
Look at where Afghanistan is today and where it was back in 2001 and how far its got to go. There is a long, long route to go and you need the best of circumstances and at the moment we are a long way from achieving the best of circumstances. In other words we are a long way from ending the conflict.
In Afghanistan people tend to focus on negatives but if you look at it you still have an Afghanistan with a great deal of international support. We need to work together with everyone to make sure the common visions best serve the country.
In some areas there is real progress.
The recent Asia Foundation survey shows a relatively high degree of satisfaction with education, with improved health systems. When you have that in an environment where people don't have security, don't have jobs there is frustration.
We need security. We need jobs in Afghanistan for sure.
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
The UN prepared local communities for Afghanistan's first parliamentary elections [GALLO/GETTY]
The UN has been providing assistance to Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion of the country in 1979 but significantly increased its aid efforts after the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
It was recognised at a meeting of Afghan leaders and world powers in Bonn, Germany in December 2001, that the "United Nations, as the internationally recognised, impartial institution, has a particularly important role to play".
On March 28, 2002, the Security Council established the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Unama) "to promote national reconciliation ... strengthen government capacity and institutions; promote human rights, the rule of law, and women's rights; assist in the rehabilitation of security forces and the disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration of former combatants; and coordinate all UN humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and development programmes in Afghanistan.
Al Jazeera recently interviewed Adrian Edwards, the Unama spokesman in Afghanistan.
Al Jazeera: How has Unama's role developed since it was established? What of its mandate has been achieved?
Edwards: The UN has been here in Afghanistan for half a century. In that time we have developed a perspective that is somewhat different from others. We view Afghanistan as a country and a people not just as a conflict.
The UN has a role in many areas people don't often look at: refugees, it supports development in healthcare and agriculture - somewhat un-trendy things to look at- but we do it 365 days a year through thick and thin.
We also have the UN's political mission here, Unama, a small mission which looks at the core objective of all of us in Afghanistan which is to search for peace and for justice in this country.
The mission has had a job in trying to build peace, trying to coordinate the efforts of the international community since 2002 in terms of development, in terms of other assistance here. Fundamentally our aim is about peace in this country and the search for it and the search for solutions which will be needed if the country is to move forward.
Recently the mandate of the UN in Afghanistan was increased. Why was this felt to be necessary?
Edwards says the police are now tasked with fighting terrorism rather than public security
If you look back over the last years the original expectations were that we would move from a period of rapid reconstruction into a development phase during which people would start to see the peace dividends, the effect of considerable investment in development and so on.
What happened of course as we all know now is that in 2004, 2005 and entering into spring of 2006 we saw a return towards conflict and the situation we are in today.
That of course has changed circumstances enormously here and it does mean that people are being robbed of the development that they were led to expect would be coming here and people hoped would be coming here.
So although you have seen enormous progress in some areas - for example education, heath care, growth of a media here - people are nonetheless frustrated with the fact that they haven't seen the progress that was expected in the early years.
So our mandate has had to change accordingly. We have a mandate that gives us a role in supporting a reconciliation, in supporting human rights in this country and in coordinating all the efforts that go into helping Afghanistan.
Which things could have been done differently that may have allowed the progress to continue?
Very many of the problems stem from insecurity. For example the police - you would have seen the growth of an institution that delivered on law enforcement.
Now the effect of insecurity has meant the police has been sidelined into combatting insurgency and protection issues and that has meant that one of the most crucial institutions of any country is not able to deliver satisfactorily.
You have constant problems with corruption, you have breakdown of law and order in some areas, that allows, combined with insurgency issues, the growth of illegality, the poppy trade, criminality.
I think security is one of the core elements.
If you look at the political development in Afghanistan, you may say in 2008-2009 that were we back in 2001 we would have done things differently. We would have included the Taliban in peace talks, we would have strengthened justice and transitional justice systems.
Certainly were we able to turn back the clock and do thing differently for sure we would love to take that opportunity but at the time people really did their best efforts under the circumstances and we have to adjust as we go along.
The "Balkanisation" of the country – which has seen different countries take on different sectors and different areas – do you think it was a good idea?
The Taliban have grown stronger in recent years and now mount brazen attacks [AFP]
That model is not being followed so much nowadays and that says something. We are coming up to the seventh anniversary of the Bonn agreement. There is a tendency to look back at what we did right and what we did wrong. We have done a lot of that over the years.
What we are concerned about at this point is much more forward-looking given where we are today.
Right now we are in the process of seeing a new US administration come into being. Everyone, Afghan and internationals looking to see what the impact might be of changes outside the country.
We are seeing changes in the immediate surrounding region: the recent signs of open Saudi involvement.
We have a changing situation in Pakistan. You need a mixture of circumstances to resolve the problem inside the country. One is resolving the external conflict, the conflicts between the neighbours or the powers behind those neighbours sometimes and of course within the country you need to de-conflate local issues.
So we are some way away from arriving at an enduring solution for Afghanistan and there are certainly challenges along the way to getting there.
What is your view on talks with the Taliban? How do you see it unfolding and what will be the role of UN?
We are mandated to support reconciliation if that is what the government wants us to do. We very clearly think that there has to be a real emphasis on political direction, both in renewing the determination to build proper institutions and getting government delivering better to the people and of course in finding solutions to the conflict here.
We do not think military solutions alone will be the answer to Afghanistan’s needs but there has to be an end to this conflict. We have to get Afghanistan back to the position where it can start to move forward again ad we can start delivering on things people need.
Are Afghans increasingly alienated from the international community and their goverment?
The trajectory of this country from reconstruction through development and then conflict arose along that track. That has had a real effect in robbing people of some of the development dividends, the peace dividends they could have expected.
Yes, of course that causes frustration when people look at a police that doesn't work as they want it, when they look at courts that don't work as they want it, when they look at other things.
It's only natural that there is frustration. That doesn't mean you abandon the project. There is a lot of work to be done in this country. Even without any conflict at all development takes many years, many decades.
Look at where Afghanistan is today and where it was back in 2001 and how far its got to go. There is a long, long route to go and you need the best of circumstances and at the moment we are a long way from achieving the best of circumstances. In other words we are a long way from ending the conflict.
In Afghanistan people tend to focus on negatives but if you look at it you still have an Afghanistan with a great deal of international support. We need to work together with everyone to make sure the common visions best serve the country.
In some areas there is real progress.
The recent Asia Foundation survey shows a relatively high degree of satisfaction with education, with improved health systems. When you have that in an environment where people don't have security, don't have jobs there is frustration.
We need security. We need jobs in Afghanistan for sure.
Interview: Afghan war on narcotics
Al Jazeera/ December 5, 2008
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
Afghan farmers in some provinces have continued to cultivate poppy fields [EPA]
Afghanistan's fight against the drug trade is becoming more challenging as ties between the insurgency and drug-traffickers appear to strengthen.
In her tenure as the the country director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Afghanistan, Christina Oguz, has had to fight a multi-faceted battle.
Though 2008 saw a drop in poppy cultivation for the first time, Oguz says real dangers remain.
Speaking to Al Jazeera just before concluding her term in Afghanistan, Oguz discussed her concerns about the justice sector, the lack of trained judges, what she says is an ineffective police force and the absence of the fundamental right of all citizens - the presumption of innocence.
Al Jazeera: You have had one of the most challenging assignments in Afghanistan – dealing with both drug control and the justice sector. Which are the areas which have shown progress and which have not?
Oguz: I wish I could be only positive but I think there are still so many things that are needed in this country. If I look at the justice side it is very gloomy I am afraid because the rule of law doesn't really exist in this country and that is very grave because it is fundamental to democracy.
But now there is the first independent bar association and I am very hopeful that will make a lot of difference with more defence lawyers.
But it will take time. Because in terms of the authorities, there is a presumption of guilt rather than innocence.
Has progress been made in Afghanistan's war on the drug trade?
Christina Oguz has had to fight a multi-faceted battle against drug-traffickers
Drug reduction its still a major major major major problem so there remains a lot to do, to say the least.
But I think what has happened in the last two years is quite interesting. First of all this year we saw a little bit of a reduction - 20 per cent in terms of cultivated area.
But also what is quite important is that this year, 98 per cent of the production is taking place in seven provinces in the south and southwest while the rest of the country is either free of poppy cultivation or is cultivating very little.
The reduction is in the areas where there is a government. The rest of the 98 per cent of the production is in the areas where the government has lost control; areas which are controlled by a kind of alliance of insurgents, corrupt officials and criminal networks.
In a way it is easier to understand the problem and see what you could do about it but it is also in a way more difficult.
The carrot-and-stick approach has worked in the north. But the north and also the east are characterised by small landholdings and as you know there has been a drought which has very very severely affected these parts of Afghanistan because it is rain-fed land there isn’t enough irrigation.
The implications can be very serious.
If people suffer during the winter because they do not have any more food and because they do not have any means to buy food then they may turn back to cultivating opium. I would urge the international community and the government to speed up and really make a concerted effort.
I am not talking about bureaucratic layers of analysing, reviewing and planning. I am talking about action. We have to get food aid out to these areas and we have to start to involve the people themselves in building up income opportunities.
The drug control policy and implementation has been somewhat controversial or at least debated with differences over whether there should be more emphasis on eradication or interdiction. What is the shift in policy direction you think is necessary?
I think you have to have a two-pronged policy. What I talked about in the northern part is containing the problem. In the south it is obvious that because there is this overlap between insecurity, lack of control over territory and opium cultivation that eradication will play a very marginal role because they are not even afraid of eradication.
In the south they do not care about that because the government cannot enforce the law or anyhow only around the areas where they are in control or close to the city or whatever but otherwise they cannot enforce that.
So you have to keep eradication or the threat of eradication as a tool in your toolbox but you have to sharpen the other weapons which is interdiction.
When I talk about interdiction I mean wiping out some laboratories, emptying stocks interdicting convoys of drugs going out of the country and chemicals used in manufacturing of heroin and morphine going in.
That has to be done but I do not have the illusion that it would be forever because the laboratories are small and mobile so its not that you would solve the problem by bombing the laboratories or something like that but you induce a risk to those who are running these businesses and you make it more expensive for them. T
hat is important.
Some consider reform of the justice sector in Afghanistan to be lacking. What is your assessment of where it stands today?
There is so much to do in the justice sector. It is absolutely crucial for people's lives but you have for example judges that have no legal training - very common.
You have low investigative capacity within the police and the prosecution and you have very very few defence lawyers. So it is a weak system for the ordinary Afghan.
There are many who are working with training these groups and criminal justice institutions. It will take a long time but I think it is not only professional training, it is also the mindset.
How you view crime and punishment because for example detention and incarceration should be the exception not the rule but here it is the rule, the norm.
It seems that the first thing that comes to mind is to arrest people or put them in prison and many people are there without having had a trial.
Even young people and children are incarcerated for years for crimes that are minor and for crimes that they may not even have committed.
It is important to have a reaction to these kind of criminal activities but there must be proportion between the offence and the punishment. Now the connection here seems to be the poorer you are the less power you have and the more severe the punishment.
How is the government incorporating the protection of human rights as it moves towards a democratic country?
Experts say the drug trade and the insurgency are strongly linked [AFP]
The Constitution is very clear - it does not apply only to some people. It is the task of the state to defend the dignity and liberty of everybody in the country so I really don't think that Afghanistan is different from other countries in that respect and I am convinced that the people of Afghanistan would not accept anything else.
The problem we are facing here is the low level of education and the fact that so many people are not reached by radio or television the kind of institutions that could play a crucial role in educating the public.
The rule of law is fundamental to democracy and I cannot imagine that the Afghan people would say that human rights do not matter to them. I cannot envision that.
There is growing anti-foreigner sentiment. Where will this lead?
Are we sure that this sentiment is an Afghan sentiment? I am not sure it is.
I do not think this anti-foreigner feeling is a general sentiment. I know that it is a sentiment that can be exploited by various groups obviously.
I do think, however, that we as the intentional community need to learn how to communicate with people. We need to understand better where this country is in terms of development.
For us, coming, in many cases from well-functioning countries it is difficult to understand what it means to work in a country where 60 per cent of the police officers cannot read and write for example.
With no bad intention is easily done that we start at the wrong level. We start with something we are familiar with rather than what people need.
I think we need to become better in communicating with people and having a dialogue with people and talking to people to find out what they need and what is it they want but we also need to come with new ideas because being so isolated means you need ideas.
What are your hopes and fears for this country?
My fear is that the international community and the government will not be strong enough, united enough, to put in place some positive measures for the people here. That is what I fear because I don't believe a military solution is the only solution in this country.
But if we allow the insurgents to take on even distributing electricity or collecting the electricity bills which they do in some places down in Helmand; if we allow them to run the justice system because the government is not able to do it, then I think this country is in great danger.
We cannot allow that. We need to make sure we reach people to provide for their immediate needs with the winter coming up and the drought. We need to create simple solutions, not come up with grand schemes about how to transform this or how to do that.
Very simple things can be done here including increasing the number of people who can read and write, increasing the number of judges who have legal training and increasing the number of police who are honest and willing to work.
These are some of things I hope for.
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
Afghan farmers in some provinces have continued to cultivate poppy fields [EPA]
Afghanistan's fight against the drug trade is becoming more challenging as ties between the insurgency and drug-traffickers appear to strengthen.
In her tenure as the the country director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Afghanistan, Christina Oguz, has had to fight a multi-faceted battle.
Though 2008 saw a drop in poppy cultivation for the first time, Oguz says real dangers remain.
Speaking to Al Jazeera just before concluding her term in Afghanistan, Oguz discussed her concerns about the justice sector, the lack of trained judges, what she says is an ineffective police force and the absence of the fundamental right of all citizens - the presumption of innocence.
Al Jazeera: You have had one of the most challenging assignments in Afghanistan – dealing with both drug control and the justice sector. Which are the areas which have shown progress and which have not?
Oguz: I wish I could be only positive but I think there are still so many things that are needed in this country. If I look at the justice side it is very gloomy I am afraid because the rule of law doesn't really exist in this country and that is very grave because it is fundamental to democracy.
But now there is the first independent bar association and I am very hopeful that will make a lot of difference with more defence lawyers.
But it will take time. Because in terms of the authorities, there is a presumption of guilt rather than innocence.
Has progress been made in Afghanistan's war on the drug trade?
Christina Oguz has had to fight a multi-faceted battle against drug-traffickers
Drug reduction its still a major major major major problem so there remains a lot to do, to say the least.
But I think what has happened in the last two years is quite interesting. First of all this year we saw a little bit of a reduction - 20 per cent in terms of cultivated area.
But also what is quite important is that this year, 98 per cent of the production is taking place in seven provinces in the south and southwest while the rest of the country is either free of poppy cultivation or is cultivating very little.
The reduction is in the areas where there is a government. The rest of the 98 per cent of the production is in the areas where the government has lost control; areas which are controlled by a kind of alliance of insurgents, corrupt officials and criminal networks.
In a way it is easier to understand the problem and see what you could do about it but it is also in a way more difficult.
The carrot-and-stick approach has worked in the north. But the north and also the east are characterised by small landholdings and as you know there has been a drought which has very very severely affected these parts of Afghanistan because it is rain-fed land there isn’t enough irrigation.
The implications can be very serious.
If people suffer during the winter because they do not have any more food and because they do not have any means to buy food then they may turn back to cultivating opium. I would urge the international community and the government to speed up and really make a concerted effort.
I am not talking about bureaucratic layers of analysing, reviewing and planning. I am talking about action. We have to get food aid out to these areas and we have to start to involve the people themselves in building up income opportunities.
The drug control policy and implementation has been somewhat controversial or at least debated with differences over whether there should be more emphasis on eradication or interdiction. What is the shift in policy direction you think is necessary?
I think you have to have a two-pronged policy. What I talked about in the northern part is containing the problem. In the south it is obvious that because there is this overlap between insecurity, lack of control over territory and opium cultivation that eradication will play a very marginal role because they are not even afraid of eradication.
In the south they do not care about that because the government cannot enforce the law or anyhow only around the areas where they are in control or close to the city or whatever but otherwise they cannot enforce that.
So you have to keep eradication or the threat of eradication as a tool in your toolbox but you have to sharpen the other weapons which is interdiction.
When I talk about interdiction I mean wiping out some laboratories, emptying stocks interdicting convoys of drugs going out of the country and chemicals used in manufacturing of heroin and morphine going in.
That has to be done but I do not have the illusion that it would be forever because the laboratories are small and mobile so its not that you would solve the problem by bombing the laboratories or something like that but you induce a risk to those who are running these businesses and you make it more expensive for them. T
hat is important.
Some consider reform of the justice sector in Afghanistan to be lacking. What is your assessment of where it stands today?
There is so much to do in the justice sector. It is absolutely crucial for people's lives but you have for example judges that have no legal training - very common.
You have low investigative capacity within the police and the prosecution and you have very very few defence lawyers. So it is a weak system for the ordinary Afghan.
There are many who are working with training these groups and criminal justice institutions. It will take a long time but I think it is not only professional training, it is also the mindset.
How you view crime and punishment because for example detention and incarceration should be the exception not the rule but here it is the rule, the norm.
It seems that the first thing that comes to mind is to arrest people or put them in prison and many people are there without having had a trial.
Even young people and children are incarcerated for years for crimes that are minor and for crimes that they may not even have committed.
It is important to have a reaction to these kind of criminal activities but there must be proportion between the offence and the punishment. Now the connection here seems to be the poorer you are the less power you have and the more severe the punishment.
How is the government incorporating the protection of human rights as it moves towards a democratic country?
Experts say the drug trade and the insurgency are strongly linked [AFP]
The Constitution is very clear - it does not apply only to some people. It is the task of the state to defend the dignity and liberty of everybody in the country so I really don't think that Afghanistan is different from other countries in that respect and I am convinced that the people of Afghanistan would not accept anything else.
The problem we are facing here is the low level of education and the fact that so many people are not reached by radio or television the kind of institutions that could play a crucial role in educating the public.
The rule of law is fundamental to democracy and I cannot imagine that the Afghan people would say that human rights do not matter to them. I cannot envision that.
There is growing anti-foreigner sentiment. Where will this lead?
Are we sure that this sentiment is an Afghan sentiment? I am not sure it is.
I do not think this anti-foreigner feeling is a general sentiment. I know that it is a sentiment that can be exploited by various groups obviously.
I do think, however, that we as the intentional community need to learn how to communicate with people. We need to understand better where this country is in terms of development.
For us, coming, in many cases from well-functioning countries it is difficult to understand what it means to work in a country where 60 per cent of the police officers cannot read and write for example.
With no bad intention is easily done that we start at the wrong level. We start with something we are familiar with rather than what people need.
I think we need to become better in communicating with people and having a dialogue with people and talking to people to find out what they need and what is it they want but we also need to come with new ideas because being so isolated means you need ideas.
What are your hopes and fears for this country?
My fear is that the international community and the government will not be strong enough, united enough, to put in place some positive measures for the people here. That is what I fear because I don't believe a military solution is the only solution in this country.
But if we allow the insurgents to take on even distributing electricity or collecting the electricity bills which they do in some places down in Helmand; if we allow them to run the justice system because the government is not able to do it, then I think this country is in great danger.
We cannot allow that. We need to make sure we reach people to provide for their immediate needs with the winter coming up and the drought. We need to create simple solutions, not come up with grand schemes about how to transform this or how to do that.
Very simple things can be done here including increasing the number of people who can read and write, increasing the number of judges who have legal training and increasing the number of police who are honest and willing to work.
These are some of things I hope for.
AFGHANISTAN: REFUGEE RETURNS SHOULD NO LONGER BE A CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION IN KABUL
Eurasia Insight:
11/18/08
A EurasiaNet Commentary by Aunohita Mojumdar
Afghanistan lately boasts few reasons for optimism. But on the short list that international community representatives and Afghan government officials regularly point to as cause for optimism, one holds pride of place: the fact that 5 million refugees have returned to their homeland since 2001.
Indeed, returnee statistics headline the Government of Afghanistan's report card of achievements in its National Development Strategy adopted earlier this year.
Following the removal of the Taliban, Afghans who had sought refuge in camps in Iran and Pakistan started returning. Again and again, the government and aid groups held up this single fact as evidence of something right about the country, and justly so. Had intervention not toppled the Taliban, most of the 5 million refugees would still be languishing abroad. Though they had left Afghanistan during different periods over the past three decades, and for differing reasons, they returned united in the hope of building a stable and prosperous future.
Behind the glossy number of returnees, however, the reality has been changing for some time. Since 2005, returnees, due to a variety of factors, have felt more of a push to head home, rather than feel a pull to go back. Over the same span, the situation for returnees has become more strained, and a growing number of people must jostle for slender resources.
On November 19, a high-level conference in Kabul will take a look at some of the challenges of return and reintegration. The question is will it go far enough. Tackling some of the root problems demands an acknowledgement of political realities that the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, as well as the international community, may find too sensitive to broach.
The first challenge is acknowledging that the returning population has changed over the past two to three years, according to UNHCR's Acting Representative in Afghanistan, Ewen MacLeod. "Since 2006, the return and particularly the reintegration challenges have been more difficult mainly because the majority of those involved have now been absent from the country for more than 20 years and, indeed, half of them have been born outside Afghanistan."
For this population, as for the remaining 3 million refugees still abroad, the sense of identification with the country of refuge is likely to be stronger than the ties they have with Afghanistan.
Because of the way they have grown up, "they find themselves to be completely different," the former UNHCR Country Representative, Salvatore Lombardo, told a EurasiaNet reporter earlier this year. Many of them left as peasants, he says, but have been urbanized and would find it difficult to return to their former rural communities.
Their wishes "certainly do not find an answer in the Afghanistan of today. But one issue that is often neglected is what they have become after 30 years?" he said. "There is not enough recognition that a population that has been in exile for 30 years doesn't necessarily want to [go] back."
Lombardo expressed hope that the November conference would provide an "injection of reality," into the way the refugee situation is perceived. "How many people actually can come back to Afghanistan? We would like discussion in the conference to clarify that. I think the reality today tells you very clearly that if the conditions are what they are today that number would be [miniscule]."
But accepting that the remaining population may wish to be absorbed into the host countries is politically inexpedient. Even those living for two or three decades in Pakistan and Iran are rarely afforded the opportunity of citizenship. Moreover, the Afghan government's position is to seek the return of all the refugees, no matter how tenuous their links with home.
Under two separate trilateral agreements that the UNHCR has signed with the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, the two host countries agreed repatriation should be voluntary. That is, neither country would coerce refugees to leave. While the UNHCR has succeeded in preventing a mass forced exodus, the definition of 'voluntary' appears to be shifting.
Some are returning to Afghanistan under the pressure of worsening security and economic conditions in the host countries. In Pakistan, authorities fear the camps shelter terrorist groups.
Iran has forced back what it terms illegal emigrants, deporting 350,000 "unregistered Afghans." Some of those might be migrant workers, but many are refugees, and Iran uses the gray area to avoid its commitments. Pakistan has closed some refugee camps, leaving residents no choice but to return. Earlier this year, authorities shut the Jalozai Camp, one of the largest and oldest in Pakistan. Though the UNHCR was able to delay the closure, Pakistani authorities made their intentions clear by shutting off water and electricity to the enclave.
The second challenge facing the conference is acknowledging the state of conditions for returnees. When refugees return hoping for easier conditions in Afghanistan, they often find themselves trapped. The scarcity of land, jobs and insecurity in their homeland drives many to try to return to Pakistan or Iran. There, they become illegal migrants without the legal rights of refugees.
According to the UNHCR the bulk of the returns have been to the central and eastern region, with Kabul province alone accounting for 1.1 million, and the province of Nangarhar for 850,000, creating crowded settlements of jobless returnees.
The future is grim for Afghanistan's unwanted abroad. The government estimates between 400,000 and a million more refugees will return over the next five years. And according to its own prognosis, the outcome depends on future uncertain conditions inside Afghanistan, as well as relations with Pakistan and Iran.
With ongoing violence inside Afghanistan, internally displaced populations are again swelling. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The UNHCR says there are currently 235,000 internally displaced persons inside the country. But even this problem is hidden to a large extent in the folds of traditional family and kinship ties. Afghanistan's population has been extremely generous in absorbing the returnees. Small rooms are packed to overflowing, sparse meals become sparser to accommodate new arrivals, and it is only the really destitute who live in camps and get counted.
The conference also is expected to look at basic aspects of successful reintegration.
According to Lombardo, the success of the refugee reintegration policy will depend on how it is woven into the overall reconstruction picture. "When you enter into the question of how do you develop a community, how do you sustain a community, how do you find an answer for the long term wishes of the population, we don't have the answers," he said.
If the conference tackles even some of these contentious issues, it will have achieved much. But this would necessitate an admission by the Afghan government, and the international community, that the returns are now a problem, rather than a source of satisfaction.
11/18/08
A EurasiaNet Commentary by Aunohita Mojumdar
Afghanistan lately boasts few reasons for optimism. But on the short list that international community representatives and Afghan government officials regularly point to as cause for optimism, one holds pride of place: the fact that 5 million refugees have returned to their homeland since 2001.
Indeed, returnee statistics headline the Government of Afghanistan's report card of achievements in its National Development Strategy adopted earlier this year.
Following the removal of the Taliban, Afghans who had sought refuge in camps in Iran and Pakistan started returning. Again and again, the government and aid groups held up this single fact as evidence of something right about the country, and justly so. Had intervention not toppled the Taliban, most of the 5 million refugees would still be languishing abroad. Though they had left Afghanistan during different periods over the past three decades, and for differing reasons, they returned united in the hope of building a stable and prosperous future.
Behind the glossy number of returnees, however, the reality has been changing for some time. Since 2005, returnees, due to a variety of factors, have felt more of a push to head home, rather than feel a pull to go back. Over the same span, the situation for returnees has become more strained, and a growing number of people must jostle for slender resources.
On November 19, a high-level conference in Kabul will take a look at some of the challenges of return and reintegration. The question is will it go far enough. Tackling some of the root problems demands an acknowledgement of political realities that the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, as well as the international community, may find too sensitive to broach.
The first challenge is acknowledging that the returning population has changed over the past two to three years, according to UNHCR's Acting Representative in Afghanistan, Ewen MacLeod. "Since 2006, the return and particularly the reintegration challenges have been more difficult mainly because the majority of those involved have now been absent from the country for more than 20 years and, indeed, half of them have been born outside Afghanistan."
For this population, as for the remaining 3 million refugees still abroad, the sense of identification with the country of refuge is likely to be stronger than the ties they have with Afghanistan.
Because of the way they have grown up, "they find themselves to be completely different," the former UNHCR Country Representative, Salvatore Lombardo, told a EurasiaNet reporter earlier this year. Many of them left as peasants, he says, but have been urbanized and would find it difficult to return to their former rural communities.
Their wishes "certainly do not find an answer in the Afghanistan of today. But one issue that is often neglected is what they have become after 30 years?" he said. "There is not enough recognition that a population that has been in exile for 30 years doesn't necessarily want to [go] back."
Lombardo expressed hope that the November conference would provide an "injection of reality," into the way the refugee situation is perceived. "How many people actually can come back to Afghanistan? We would like discussion in the conference to clarify that. I think the reality today tells you very clearly that if the conditions are what they are today that number would be [miniscule]."
But accepting that the remaining population may wish to be absorbed into the host countries is politically inexpedient. Even those living for two or three decades in Pakistan and Iran are rarely afforded the opportunity of citizenship. Moreover, the Afghan government's position is to seek the return of all the refugees, no matter how tenuous their links with home.
Under two separate trilateral agreements that the UNHCR has signed with the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, the two host countries agreed repatriation should be voluntary. That is, neither country would coerce refugees to leave. While the UNHCR has succeeded in preventing a mass forced exodus, the definition of 'voluntary' appears to be shifting.
Some are returning to Afghanistan under the pressure of worsening security and economic conditions in the host countries. In Pakistan, authorities fear the camps shelter terrorist groups.
Iran has forced back what it terms illegal emigrants, deporting 350,000 "unregistered Afghans." Some of those might be migrant workers, but many are refugees, and Iran uses the gray area to avoid its commitments. Pakistan has closed some refugee camps, leaving residents no choice but to return. Earlier this year, authorities shut the Jalozai Camp, one of the largest and oldest in Pakistan. Though the UNHCR was able to delay the closure, Pakistani authorities made their intentions clear by shutting off water and electricity to the enclave.
The second challenge facing the conference is acknowledging the state of conditions for returnees. When refugees return hoping for easier conditions in Afghanistan, they often find themselves trapped. The scarcity of land, jobs and insecurity in their homeland drives many to try to return to Pakistan or Iran. There, they become illegal migrants without the legal rights of refugees.
According to the UNHCR the bulk of the returns have been to the central and eastern region, with Kabul province alone accounting for 1.1 million, and the province of Nangarhar for 850,000, creating crowded settlements of jobless returnees.
The future is grim for Afghanistan's unwanted abroad. The government estimates between 400,000 and a million more refugees will return over the next five years. And according to its own prognosis, the outcome depends on future uncertain conditions inside Afghanistan, as well as relations with Pakistan and Iran.
With ongoing violence inside Afghanistan, internally displaced populations are again swelling. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The UNHCR says there are currently 235,000 internally displaced persons inside the country. But even this problem is hidden to a large extent in the folds of traditional family and kinship ties. Afghanistan's population has been extremely generous in absorbing the returnees. Small rooms are packed to overflowing, sparse meals become sparser to accommodate new arrivals, and it is only the really destitute who live in camps and get counted.
The conference also is expected to look at basic aspects of successful reintegration.
According to Lombardo, the success of the refugee reintegration policy will depend on how it is woven into the overall reconstruction picture. "When you enter into the question of how do you develop a community, how do you sustain a community, how do you find an answer for the long term wishes of the population, we don't have the answers," he said.
If the conference tackles even some of these contentious issues, it will have achieved much. But this would necessitate an admission by the Afghan government, and the international community, that the returns are now a problem, rather than a source of satisfaction.
November 15, 2008
Obama win hailed by US Afghan aid workers
BBC November 6
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
There has been a warm welcome among aid workers in the Afghan capital, Kabul, over the election of Barack Obama as US president.
The last seven years of Western-led reconstruction in Afghanistan have been determined by policies emanating from George W Bush's Republican administration - and aid workers in Afghanistan are predominantly Democrats.
In contrast, senior US embassy staffers are often political appointees and the US army has a large proportion of Republican supporters.
Aid workers, including many senior staff working in the US government's aid agency, USAID, have often expressed extreme frustration with the approach of the White House, especially during President's Bush's second term.
'Respect'
The Obama victory saw many in this community express hope that "change", the watchword of the Democratic campaign, would go beyond the polling booth and transform the direction of policies in Afghanistan.
But many aid workers also argue that changes in the White House will not automatically make much difference. They point out that there are not yet enough details of the president-elect's policies.
Even so, many see Barack Obama's triumph an opportunity that will be enhanced greatly by his openness towards dialogue and the respect he is held within the international community.
"The US interest in Afghanistan had fallen apart after Iraq," said Kevin Gash, a development worker, who felt that the country was now a high priority for the new administration.
"We need dialogue between the two governments [Afghanistan and the US] and a long term commitment, though it will take a while to see the difference on the ground."
Mr Gash, who has eight years of experience working in the US Congress, also emphasised the need for the US to negotiate with allies in the region including Pakistan, India and Iran.
He and other aid workers see Mr Obama's willingness to engage in dialogue with governments previously seen as hostile to the US as a major asset.
The election of Mr Obama will, they hope, signal a change within the US.
"We have been able to show a more tolerant and open side to America," he said.
'Strategic significance'
Aid workers argue that Mr Obama's victory will also go a long way towards reducing animosity towards America by securing solidarity from other countries.
Eric Bartz, another aid worker, stressed that while increased attention on Afghanistan is helpful, the way this is done is what really matters. He argues that more consultation with the Afghan government is required, so that the people of the country believe that there is a common agenda for both countries.
Susan Marx, a compatriot, felt Mr Obama had already shown understanding of the complexities of the region. What was needed was someone who could grapple with the strategic significance of Afghanistan, she argued, and not someone who approached it from an ideological standpoint.
"Obama gets it," she said.
Ms Marx recently acquired US citizenship through marriage and was the lynchpin for Democrats Abroad in Afghanistan.
She said that she was surprised by the show of support her events drew.
"The first time we expected 25 people to show up but we got 90 instead."
The same desire to get involved in the polling process seen in the US was also evident among aid workers in Afghanistan, despite the logistical difficulties.
Postal ballots could not be received in Kabul, a city where years of bombing have meant that streets remain unnamed and houses are unnumbered.
Eventually the ballots were downloaded and mailed with the help of the US embassy.
Many aid workers have been in Afghanistan for several years. While they are cautious about the future of Afghanistan, they are uninhibited about the significance they see in Mr Obama's win.
Vitelli said that she felt that America had lost its morale and soul over the last few years, but the results proved "that we can be the change".
There is now a real sense among aid workers that their period of alienation under the Bush administration, especially in the post-9/11 period, is coming to an end.
"I had a hard time identifying with America," said one. "Every time I went back I would be frustrated with its policies and way of life. I tended to escape it by leaving. For once I feel it would be exciting to go back and get involved. There is a chance that things could be a little different."
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
There has been a warm welcome among aid workers in the Afghan capital, Kabul, over the election of Barack Obama as US president.
The last seven years of Western-led reconstruction in Afghanistan have been determined by policies emanating from George W Bush's Republican administration - and aid workers in Afghanistan are predominantly Democrats.
In contrast, senior US embassy staffers are often political appointees and the US army has a large proportion of Republican supporters.
Aid workers, including many senior staff working in the US government's aid agency, USAID, have often expressed extreme frustration with the approach of the White House, especially during President's Bush's second term.
'Respect'
The Obama victory saw many in this community express hope that "change", the watchword of the Democratic campaign, would go beyond the polling booth and transform the direction of policies in Afghanistan.
But many aid workers also argue that changes in the White House will not automatically make much difference. They point out that there are not yet enough details of the president-elect's policies.
Even so, many see Barack Obama's triumph an opportunity that will be enhanced greatly by his openness towards dialogue and the respect he is held within the international community.
"The US interest in Afghanistan had fallen apart after Iraq," said Kevin Gash, a development worker, who felt that the country was now a high priority for the new administration.
"We need dialogue between the two governments [Afghanistan and the US] and a long term commitment, though it will take a while to see the difference on the ground."
Mr Gash, who has eight years of experience working in the US Congress, also emphasised the need for the US to negotiate with allies in the region including Pakistan, India and Iran.
He and other aid workers see Mr Obama's willingness to engage in dialogue with governments previously seen as hostile to the US as a major asset.
The election of Mr Obama will, they hope, signal a change within the US.
"We have been able to show a more tolerant and open side to America," he said.
'Strategic significance'
Aid workers argue that Mr Obama's victory will also go a long way towards reducing animosity towards America by securing solidarity from other countries.
Eric Bartz, another aid worker, stressed that while increased attention on Afghanistan is helpful, the way this is done is what really matters. He argues that more consultation with the Afghan government is required, so that the people of the country believe that there is a common agenda for both countries.
Susan Marx, a compatriot, felt Mr Obama had already shown understanding of the complexities of the region. What was needed was someone who could grapple with the strategic significance of Afghanistan, she argued, and not someone who approached it from an ideological standpoint.
"Obama gets it," she said.
Ms Marx recently acquired US citizenship through marriage and was the lynchpin for Democrats Abroad in Afghanistan.
She said that she was surprised by the show of support her events drew.
"The first time we expected 25 people to show up but we got 90 instead."
The same desire to get involved in the polling process seen in the US was also evident among aid workers in Afghanistan, despite the logistical difficulties.
Postal ballots could not be received in Kabul, a city where years of bombing have meant that streets remain unnamed and houses are unnumbered.
Eventually the ballots were downloaded and mailed with the help of the US embassy.
Many aid workers have been in Afghanistan for several years. While they are cautious about the future of Afghanistan, they are uninhibited about the significance they see in Mr Obama's win.
Vitelli said that she felt that America had lost its morale and soul over the last few years, but the results proved "that we can be the change".
There is now a real sense among aid workers that their period of alienation under the Bush administration, especially in the post-9/11 period, is coming to an end.
"I had a hard time identifying with America," said one. "Every time I went back I would be frustrated with its policies and way of life. I tended to escape it by leaving. For once I feel it would be exciting to go back and get involved. There is a chance that things could be a little different."
US votes, Afghan hopes
Al Jazeera, November 5
Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
As Americans voted in a new president on the promise of "change," Afghans were watching the election of Barack Obama with cautious optimism, hopeful that a loud and clear mandate for change will extend to US policy towards Afghanistan, so helping to transform their lives.
Increasing insecurity, rising costs and growing lawlessness have left many Afghans sceptical of the US-dominated Western intervention, which began seven years ago.
But the infectious enthusiasm of Obama's supporters seems to have touched Afghanistan too - resulting in a cautious optimism that has been absent for a very long time.
At an election night gathering for American-Afghans and other foreign nationals, organised by the US embassy in Kabul, a mock poll saw 74 out of 77 votes cast in favour of Obama by the mixed group, according to Zubair Babakarkhail, who attended the event.
Babakarkhail, a journalist with the independent Afghan news agency Pajhwok, said event at Kabul's Serena Hotel was held in a room decorated with red and blue while badges of the two candidates were distributed.
However, it was the "Obama badges that were being snapped up by most people. We in Afghanistan mainly supported Obama. It is a historic election not just for Americans but for the whole world," he said.
Frustration
Babakarkhail said Afghans have been "frustrated with the situation here and we need someone in America who can lead the war against terrorism.
"Obama, during his campaign, has paid attention to Afghanistan and we think this will make a big difference. He has promised to take troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan. He will bring a change".
"Change" was also the watchword in the remote province of Bamiyan in the central highlands of Afghanistan.
Though less affected by the security situation, Bamiyan has seen a dwindling number of tourists due to deteriorating security in adjoining areas.
Hotelier Razaq was huddled around the TV with his friends on the cold late autumn morning watching the results on Al Jazeera in his hotel, The Roof of Bamiyan, which overlooks the giant Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban.
"This is history. It is unbelievable. It is a new day for the whole world," he said.
"I am one of the strong supporters of Obama in Afghanistan. I think he has a good policy towards my country as well as towards the border region of Afghanistan-Pakistan and will deal with the problems in Pakistan."
Successive Republican administrations had failed to deal with problems emanating from Pakistan because, Razaq believes, they just continued to treat the country as "a good friend".
With the country still deeply dependant on external aid, Western troops and American support, many Afghans were closely following the results on TV and radio, aware that their own futures were inextricably linked to that of the American election.
Mustafa Rawan, a young business manager living in Kabul, followed the unfolding drama, switching from TV to radio as the city power, scant even seven years after the Western intervention, ran out.
Obama's promise to deal with al-Qaeda and the Taliban was his top priority.
Troops promise
Obama's promise of bringing troops from Iraq to Afghanistan was reason enough to win Rawan's backing and support, sentiments which he says are echoed amongst his friends and family.
Rawan hopes, however, that the new administration will seek to work with Afghans - consulting the people on policies - rather than act unilaterally.
"We still need the help of other countries and I hope Americans will provide it," he said.
Referring to Obama's promise to make Afghanistan a priority, Shahir Zahine, the managing director of Radio Killid, was all smiles.
"For eight years I was on the wrong side of history. I said, even then, that we should all be allowed to vote in the US elections because the faith of the US changes the faith of the world," he said.
"Today it is a great message for America and a great message for the world."
Zahine emphasised that the details of the US administration's new strategy towards Afghanistan were yet to be articulated.
Wahed Hashimi, who works for a media development non-governmental organisation, feels the US needs to re-evaluate its strategy in Afghanistan to see what had worked and what had not.
"The fundamentals of the American policy will not change since this is decided by multinational corporations rather than individual leaders," he said.
However, Hashimi believes change within America will also change its attitude towards the world and so have an indirect effect on other countries including Afghanistan.
Abdul Suboh Faizy, a political adviser to some Western diplomats, says the overwhelming desire for change forms a direct link between the two countries at this time.
"There has been a major gap between the people and the government of Afghanistan. The ordinary people have not seen the change they need in their lives," he said.
"After the American polls there will be a change towards Afghanistan. When we go to the polls we will also be voting for a change."
Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
As Americans voted in a new president on the promise of "change," Afghans were watching the election of Barack Obama with cautious optimism, hopeful that a loud and clear mandate for change will extend to US policy towards Afghanistan, so helping to transform their lives.
Increasing insecurity, rising costs and growing lawlessness have left many Afghans sceptical of the US-dominated Western intervention, which began seven years ago.
But the infectious enthusiasm of Obama's supporters seems to have touched Afghanistan too - resulting in a cautious optimism that has been absent for a very long time.
At an election night gathering for American-Afghans and other foreign nationals, organised by the US embassy in Kabul, a mock poll saw 74 out of 77 votes cast in favour of Obama by the mixed group, according to Zubair Babakarkhail, who attended the event.
Babakarkhail, a journalist with the independent Afghan news agency Pajhwok, said event at Kabul's Serena Hotel was held in a room decorated with red and blue while badges of the two candidates were distributed.
However, it was the "Obama badges that were being snapped up by most people. We in Afghanistan mainly supported Obama. It is a historic election not just for Americans but for the whole world," he said.
Frustration
Babakarkhail said Afghans have been "frustrated with the situation here and we need someone in America who can lead the war against terrorism.
"Obama, during his campaign, has paid attention to Afghanistan and we think this will make a big difference. He has promised to take troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan. He will bring a change".
"Change" was also the watchword in the remote province of Bamiyan in the central highlands of Afghanistan.
Though less affected by the security situation, Bamiyan has seen a dwindling number of tourists due to deteriorating security in adjoining areas.
Hotelier Razaq was huddled around the TV with his friends on the cold late autumn morning watching the results on Al Jazeera in his hotel, The Roof of Bamiyan, which overlooks the giant Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban.
"This is history. It is unbelievable. It is a new day for the whole world," he said.
"I am one of the strong supporters of Obama in Afghanistan. I think he has a good policy towards my country as well as towards the border region of Afghanistan-Pakistan and will deal with the problems in Pakistan."
Successive Republican administrations had failed to deal with problems emanating from Pakistan because, Razaq believes, they just continued to treat the country as "a good friend".
With the country still deeply dependant on external aid, Western troops and American support, many Afghans were closely following the results on TV and radio, aware that their own futures were inextricably linked to that of the American election.
Mustafa Rawan, a young business manager living in Kabul, followed the unfolding drama, switching from TV to radio as the city power, scant even seven years after the Western intervention, ran out.
Obama's promise to deal with al-Qaeda and the Taliban was his top priority.
Troops promise
Obama's promise of bringing troops from Iraq to Afghanistan was reason enough to win Rawan's backing and support, sentiments which he says are echoed amongst his friends and family.
Rawan hopes, however, that the new administration will seek to work with Afghans - consulting the people on policies - rather than act unilaterally.
"We still need the help of other countries and I hope Americans will provide it," he said.
Referring to Obama's promise to make Afghanistan a priority, Shahir Zahine, the managing director of Radio Killid, was all smiles.
"For eight years I was on the wrong side of history. I said, even then, that we should all be allowed to vote in the US elections because the faith of the US changes the faith of the world," he said.
"Today it is a great message for America and a great message for the world."
Zahine emphasised that the details of the US administration's new strategy towards Afghanistan were yet to be articulated.
Wahed Hashimi, who works for a media development non-governmental organisation, feels the US needs to re-evaluate its strategy in Afghanistan to see what had worked and what had not.
"The fundamentals of the American policy will not change since this is decided by multinational corporations rather than individual leaders," he said.
However, Hashimi believes change within America will also change its attitude towards the world and so have an indirect effect on other countries including Afghanistan.
Abdul Suboh Faizy, a political adviser to some Western diplomats, says the overwhelming desire for change forms a direct link between the two countries at this time.
"There has been a major gap between the people and the government of Afghanistan. The ordinary people have not seen the change they need in their lives," he said.
"After the American polls there will be a change towards Afghanistan. When we go to the polls we will also be voting for a change."
Afghans sceptical of US intentions
Al Jazeera: November 4, 2008
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
As a managing director of Radio Killid, a radio station dedicated to socially relevant programming, Najiba Ayubi keeps a keen eye on international political developments and is well aware of public opinion in Afghanistan.
Like many Afghans, the rhetoric towards Afghanistan used by the US presidential candidates ahead of Barack Obama's victory left her less than impressed.
"They are tools to come to power with," she says.
Unlike the focus on talk of a so-called "surge" in the number of troops in Afghanistan which dominates US talk shows and occupies American political pundits, Afghans are concerned on what the troops will do, the nature of the military operations and the rules of engagement.
The increase in both the violence and the number of Afghan civilians being killed, continuing poverty and a loss of hope are making Afghans' relationship with the foreign presence in their land more complicated.
Anger over casualties
Many Afghans continue to view foreign troops on their land as a necessary evil, but even those supporting them want fundamental changes in the conditions of their presence.
"We have got some good things from the US - the laws, the new constitution, the parliament - but we would like the international military presence here to be under a framework which includes a date for its withdrawal," says Ayubi.
Ayubi is no traditionalist. Her radio programming raises social awareness and tackles difficult subjects such as violence against women.
However, she feels Afghans have become very critical of the US because of the increasing civilian casualties in military operations.
She says: "In 2001, we would have welcomed anyone who came to deliver us from the Taliban. But now that feeling is changing.
"The US does not consult anyone. It decides, unilaterally, to do whatever it wants."
Civilian casualties, for example, could be prevented if there was greater consultation with locals "since the foreign troops do not know the customs or culture".
What the soldiers take for a militant gathering may just be the Afghan tradition of setting-up open kitchens for weddings which go on for several days," she says.
Occupation anger
Khalid Dawari, a young man who works in an architect's firm, shares Ayubi's lack of interest in how Barack Obama's victory in the US presidential elections will affect Afghanistan.
"The foreign policy of the US doesn't depend on one individual. It will not change." he says but, unlike Ayubi, he feels civilian casualties are part of any conflict.
He is more strident in his criticism of the western presence.
"Afghanistan has been occupied or captured by Americans or other European countries," he says, explaining that the very presence of foreign soldiers denotes occupation.
"It is fine for now. But they are doing it for their own benefit. Bush is in the oil and gas business isn't he?"
A 'tortured' relationship
Khalid's remarks reflect the tortured relationship of many Afghans to the presence of the West which is something they cannot live with, nor without.
He believes his country's president, Hamid Karzai, has been selected by the US and not the Afghans.
"Who is he? We never heard of him earlier. He was not a leader. He has been selected by Mr Bush," he said.
He sees a substantive portion of the country's aid going back to the donor countries but sees no way out.
"Afghanistan is not in a situation where it can help itself. We are hopeless from every side. If they withdraw, the Taliban may come and capture Kabul."
Dawari is clear that the western intervention in Afghanistan is dominated and led by the US.
As for other countries, he says "the rest are just members of the party".
Taliban memories
US dominance of the foreign intervention in Afghanistan is overwhelming.
It has contributed approximately half of the troops there and, between 2002 to 2008, provided one-third of the entire aid to Afghanistan.
The large presence of US consultants, contractors and aid workers has spawned its own economy, services and goods for the expatriate market.
The Kabul Coffee House, for example, is an American style cafe that is frequented largely by internationals.
Haseebullah Fayez, 20, is grateful for his work there as a cashier.
He was living in Kabul during the rule of the Taliban and has strong memories of what life was like.
"I went to school, but got no education. There was no work," he says.
"After they [the Taliban] left I could study. I learnt English. Now at least we can find some work. I support my family. My father's salary as a school teacher is only $60 a month and not enough for our family of five," he said.
Haseeb has been in the cafe for three years and along the way has acquired a taste for cheeseburgers, Bob Dylan's music and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies.
He regularly hears the criticism of the foreign reconstruction effort in his country.
He agrees that civilians get killed in military operations and that a substantial portion of the money Afghanistan receives goes back to the donor countries.
But his anger is not directed towards them.
"I wonder why it [war and destruction] had to happen to Afghanistan," he says.
He says that lives do get lost in a war but "they [US forces] don't want to kill them. It happens by mistake".
No 'nation building'
Aziz Hakimi, the country director of the charity Future Generations, digs much deeper than his compatriots, questioning not just the US role but the entire idea of "nation building" by the West.
The mistakes made in the initial days of the US intervention – such as putting in power 'warlords' and "the very people who are a threat to security" has cost dearly, he feels.
"The Afghans welcomed the intervention as they welcomed change each time. However, just as in the past, they were disappointed again," he said.
The change in Afghan society must be rooted in the community, he feels.
Decisions must be made by local communities "rather than being dictated by budgets in Brussels or Washington" he says.
Hakimi does not buy into the popular notion that the foreign aid has not been enough.
"It's dangerous to assume that throwing dollars at the problem will solve it. It will compound the problem. You cannot use development dollars and military might to deal with a political problem."
While he agrees that the Western presence is dominated by the US, he blames, at least partially, the Europeans who have contributed to Nato's Afghan troop force, for it, and echoes the feelings of many Afghans who believe the West has abandoned them repeatedly.
"The West abandoned us after they got what they wanted in the Cold War. They are here now to fight the 'war on terror'," he says.
He insists: "They will abandon us again if the al-Qaeda is routed. Afghans should think about this."
Source: Al Jazeera
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
As a managing director of Radio Killid, a radio station dedicated to socially relevant programming, Najiba Ayubi keeps a keen eye on international political developments and is well aware of public opinion in Afghanistan.
Like many Afghans, the rhetoric towards Afghanistan used by the US presidential candidates ahead of Barack Obama's victory left her less than impressed.
"They are tools to come to power with," she says.
Unlike the focus on talk of a so-called "surge" in the number of troops in Afghanistan which dominates US talk shows and occupies American political pundits, Afghans are concerned on what the troops will do, the nature of the military operations and the rules of engagement.
The increase in both the violence and the number of Afghan civilians being killed, continuing poverty and a loss of hope are making Afghans' relationship with the foreign presence in their land more complicated.
Anger over casualties
Many Afghans continue to view foreign troops on their land as a necessary evil, but even those supporting them want fundamental changes in the conditions of their presence.
"We have got some good things from the US - the laws, the new constitution, the parliament - but we would like the international military presence here to be under a framework which includes a date for its withdrawal," says Ayubi.
Ayubi is no traditionalist. Her radio programming raises social awareness and tackles difficult subjects such as violence against women.
However, she feels Afghans have become very critical of the US because of the increasing civilian casualties in military operations.
She says: "In 2001, we would have welcomed anyone who came to deliver us from the Taliban. But now that feeling is changing.
"The US does not consult anyone. It decides, unilaterally, to do whatever it wants."
Civilian casualties, for example, could be prevented if there was greater consultation with locals "since the foreign troops do not know the customs or culture".
What the soldiers take for a militant gathering may just be the Afghan tradition of setting-up open kitchens for weddings which go on for several days," she says.
Occupation anger
Khalid Dawari, a young man who works in an architect's firm, shares Ayubi's lack of interest in how Barack Obama's victory in the US presidential elections will affect Afghanistan.
"The foreign policy of the US doesn't depend on one individual. It will not change." he says but, unlike Ayubi, he feels civilian casualties are part of any conflict.
He is more strident in his criticism of the western presence.
"Afghanistan has been occupied or captured by Americans or other European countries," he says, explaining that the very presence of foreign soldiers denotes occupation.
"It is fine for now. But they are doing it for their own benefit. Bush is in the oil and gas business isn't he?"
A 'tortured' relationship
Khalid's remarks reflect the tortured relationship of many Afghans to the presence of the West which is something they cannot live with, nor without.
He believes his country's president, Hamid Karzai, has been selected by the US and not the Afghans.
"Who is he? We never heard of him earlier. He was not a leader. He has been selected by Mr Bush," he said.
He sees a substantive portion of the country's aid going back to the donor countries but sees no way out.
"Afghanistan is not in a situation where it can help itself. We are hopeless from every side. If they withdraw, the Taliban may come and capture Kabul."
Dawari is clear that the western intervention in Afghanistan is dominated and led by the US.
As for other countries, he says "the rest are just members of the party".
Taliban memories
US dominance of the foreign intervention in Afghanistan is overwhelming.
It has contributed approximately half of the troops there and, between 2002 to 2008, provided one-third of the entire aid to Afghanistan.
The large presence of US consultants, contractors and aid workers has spawned its own economy, services and goods for the expatriate market.
The Kabul Coffee House, for example, is an American style cafe that is frequented largely by internationals.
Haseebullah Fayez, 20, is grateful for his work there as a cashier.
He was living in Kabul during the rule of the Taliban and has strong memories of what life was like.
"I went to school, but got no education. There was no work," he says.
"After they [the Taliban] left I could study. I learnt English. Now at least we can find some work. I support my family. My father's salary as a school teacher is only $60 a month and not enough for our family of five," he said.
Haseeb has been in the cafe for three years and along the way has acquired a taste for cheeseburgers, Bob Dylan's music and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies.
He regularly hears the criticism of the foreign reconstruction effort in his country.
He agrees that civilians get killed in military operations and that a substantial portion of the money Afghanistan receives goes back to the donor countries.
But his anger is not directed towards them.
"I wonder why it [war and destruction] had to happen to Afghanistan," he says.
He says that lives do get lost in a war but "they [US forces] don't want to kill them. It happens by mistake".
No 'nation building'
Aziz Hakimi, the country director of the charity Future Generations, digs much deeper than his compatriots, questioning not just the US role but the entire idea of "nation building" by the West.
The mistakes made in the initial days of the US intervention – such as putting in power 'warlords' and "the very people who are a threat to security" has cost dearly, he feels.
"The Afghans welcomed the intervention as they welcomed change each time. However, just as in the past, they were disappointed again," he said.
The change in Afghan society must be rooted in the community, he feels.
Decisions must be made by local communities "rather than being dictated by budgets in Brussels or Washington" he says.
Hakimi does not buy into the popular notion that the foreign aid has not been enough.
"It's dangerous to assume that throwing dollars at the problem will solve it. It will compound the problem. You cannot use development dollars and military might to deal with a political problem."
While he agrees that the Western presence is dominated by the US, he blames, at least partially, the Europeans who have contributed to Nato's Afghan troop force, for it, and echoes the feelings of many Afghans who believe the West has abandoned them repeatedly.
"The West abandoned us after they got what they wanted in the Cold War. They are here now to fight the 'war on terror'," he says.
He insists: "They will abandon us again if the al-Qaeda is routed. Afghans should think about this."
Source: Al Jazeera
November 03, 2008
THREE-NATION ART SHOW OPENS IN KABUL
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar
October 31, 2008
It is not often a painting arrives at an exhibition with the extra protection of war and terrorism insurance. But that is exactly what Jemima Montagu, the director of culture and heritage at the Turquoise Mountain Foundation (TMF), had to obtain when she planned an international art exhibition in Kabul, bringing together contemporary artists from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The show -- titled Living Traditions, and containing 50 pieces by 15 artists from the three countries -- opened October 11 in the restored Babur Gardens of the eponymous Mughal Dynasty founder.
The exhibition, organised by TMF, a charity working to preserve Afghanistan’s traditional crafts, is going forward against the odds. It is scheduled to run through November 20. There were perhaps more reasons not to hold the show than to hold it. At the opening, a bomb scare saw several of the elite visitors depart hastily. Two paintings missed the opening due to transit delays, and few artists were willing to participate in an exhibition in Kabul, a city where there is as yet no sophisticated constituency for art and no PR points for those wishing to further their careers. Artists "thought if they sent their work, they would never see it again," recalled Montagu.
If it was difficult to get people to contribute their work, it was even more difficult to get them to participate in person. Why Kabul? Why now? How was it possible to ensure an exhibition of international quality with all its exacting standards? In the end, the answer to all those doubts and questions had to be answered with the single simple question: ’Why not?’
"The three countries [represented in the show] share a strong bond, particularly in art and in the way Islamic calligraphy and painting evolved," said Montagu. "These traditions can and need to be adapted if they are to survive."
Of the 15 artists who contributed their work, five were present at the opening. Among those in attendance was a young Pakistani couple, Muhammed Imran Qureshi and Aisha Khalid. A professor at the National College of Arts in Lahore, Qureshi saw participation as an act of faith. "It was exciting and scary at the same time. It is important for the people of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan to have this connection," he said, speaking as he worked to help his wife finish her installation the day before the opening. Both were well aware that they had to complete the job before dusk since -- like most of Kabul -- the exhibition grounds would have no electricity. "Things may be primitive here after the impact of years of war. But they will not remain the same. We cannot control things, but we can make efforts to change it," he said.
Both Qureshi and his wife had their sanity questioned by their friends and family who perceive Kabul as a very dangerous place. For Khalid the decision to come was impelled by her desire to challenge western stereotypes of women from this region. Khalid’s exhibits center around the theme of the ’burkha,’ whether it is a graphical pattern of the ruffle of the hem or how it outlines the shape of a woman. "I want to question the stereotype that goes with the image of a burkha. If the Taliban were imposing their values, so is the West," she said.
For Iranian Khosrow Hassanzadeh, this visit was the first step in what he hopes will be a continuing regional collaboration. Hassanzadeh, who has shown his work in many western capitals, said "this is more important than showing in New York. We have a shared tradition and it is important for people here to get an idea about their own rich culture."
Most of the artists were conscious that their cross-cultural exchange countered existing political tension among the three countries. "We need to look at each other rather than have outsiders look at us," said Hassanzadeh. Qureshi, meanwhile, stressed how his own perceptions about Afghanistan had been changed by the visit.
Zolaykha Sherzad, an Afghan designer who has been interpreting traditional Afghan design in contemporary form, saw immediate similarities in the works coming from across borders: the use of calligraphy, the use of certain colours, the use of gold were present in many of the art works in the exhibition, she said. Sherzad, who divides her time between New York and Kabul, said this exhibition was a way to find common ground in the midst of conflict.
Despite the attendance of Kabul’s elite, largely foreigners, at the opening, Montagu made it clear this was not the target audience. "This is not a project for expatriates. There is no existing audience for arts and culture here. You have to create it," the former Tate curator said. The exhibition’s most important audience will be the 3,000-4,000 school children who will attend guided tours explaining the relevance and context of the artwork, Montagu suggested.
The past three decades of conflict in Afghanistan have caused the slow and steady decimation of art in the country. Survival, displacement and violence all took their toll. Long before the Taliban’s deliberate destruction of works depicting living forms, art had become a luxury that virtually all Afghans could not bother to contemplate. Post-2001 artists are back at work, but the extended, enforced hiatus has skewed Afghanistan’s art environment. Much of what is being produced now is tourist kitsch. Showing contemporary art in this milieu created perhaps even more of a challenge for organizers than the security constraints imposed by the difficult reconstruction process.
Ahead are more challenges. Montagu hopes she can take the exhibition to both Pakistan and Iran, but is not quite sure. "It is hard to raise funds for culture anywhere, but especially here, where there is often a feeling that any money spent on culture is money taken away from hospitals." Qureshi, who gave a lecture at Kabul University’s faculty of fine arts, expressed his strong conviction about the relevance of this exhibition. "This kind of opportunity is historical. We will feel the value of it later."
Qureshi’s special moment in the exhibition came from one of the Babur Gardens’ caretakers. "He saw me doing the floor paintings and said, ’The other art pieces can be sold. But what you painted on the floor is really just for us.’"
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted October 31, 2008 © Eurasianet
Aunohita Mojumdar
October 31, 2008
It is not often a painting arrives at an exhibition with the extra protection of war and terrorism insurance. But that is exactly what Jemima Montagu, the director of culture and heritage at the Turquoise Mountain Foundation (TMF), had to obtain when she planned an international art exhibition in Kabul, bringing together contemporary artists from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The show -- titled Living Traditions, and containing 50 pieces by 15 artists from the three countries -- opened October 11 in the restored Babur Gardens of the eponymous Mughal Dynasty founder.
The exhibition, organised by TMF, a charity working to preserve Afghanistan’s traditional crafts, is going forward against the odds. It is scheduled to run through November 20. There were perhaps more reasons not to hold the show than to hold it. At the opening, a bomb scare saw several of the elite visitors depart hastily. Two paintings missed the opening due to transit delays, and few artists were willing to participate in an exhibition in Kabul, a city where there is as yet no sophisticated constituency for art and no PR points for those wishing to further their careers. Artists "thought if they sent their work, they would never see it again," recalled Montagu.
If it was difficult to get people to contribute their work, it was even more difficult to get them to participate in person. Why Kabul? Why now? How was it possible to ensure an exhibition of international quality with all its exacting standards? In the end, the answer to all those doubts and questions had to be answered with the single simple question: ’Why not?’
"The three countries [represented in the show] share a strong bond, particularly in art and in the way Islamic calligraphy and painting evolved," said Montagu. "These traditions can and need to be adapted if they are to survive."
Of the 15 artists who contributed their work, five were present at the opening. Among those in attendance was a young Pakistani couple, Muhammed Imran Qureshi and Aisha Khalid. A professor at the National College of Arts in Lahore, Qureshi saw participation as an act of faith. "It was exciting and scary at the same time. It is important for the people of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan to have this connection," he said, speaking as he worked to help his wife finish her installation the day before the opening. Both were well aware that they had to complete the job before dusk since -- like most of Kabul -- the exhibition grounds would have no electricity. "Things may be primitive here after the impact of years of war. But they will not remain the same. We cannot control things, but we can make efforts to change it," he said.
Both Qureshi and his wife had their sanity questioned by their friends and family who perceive Kabul as a very dangerous place. For Khalid the decision to come was impelled by her desire to challenge western stereotypes of women from this region. Khalid’s exhibits center around the theme of the ’burkha,’ whether it is a graphical pattern of the ruffle of the hem or how it outlines the shape of a woman. "I want to question the stereotype that goes with the image of a burkha. If the Taliban were imposing their values, so is the West," she said.
For Iranian Khosrow Hassanzadeh, this visit was the first step in what he hopes will be a continuing regional collaboration. Hassanzadeh, who has shown his work in many western capitals, said "this is more important than showing in New York. We have a shared tradition and it is important for people here to get an idea about their own rich culture."
Most of the artists were conscious that their cross-cultural exchange countered existing political tension among the three countries. "We need to look at each other rather than have outsiders look at us," said Hassanzadeh. Qureshi, meanwhile, stressed how his own perceptions about Afghanistan had been changed by the visit.
Zolaykha Sherzad, an Afghan designer who has been interpreting traditional Afghan design in contemporary form, saw immediate similarities in the works coming from across borders: the use of calligraphy, the use of certain colours, the use of gold were present in many of the art works in the exhibition, she said. Sherzad, who divides her time between New York and Kabul, said this exhibition was a way to find common ground in the midst of conflict.
Despite the attendance of Kabul’s elite, largely foreigners, at the opening, Montagu made it clear this was not the target audience. "This is not a project for expatriates. There is no existing audience for arts and culture here. You have to create it," the former Tate curator said. The exhibition’s most important audience will be the 3,000-4,000 school children who will attend guided tours explaining the relevance and context of the artwork, Montagu suggested.
The past three decades of conflict in Afghanistan have caused the slow and steady decimation of art in the country. Survival, displacement and violence all took their toll. Long before the Taliban’s deliberate destruction of works depicting living forms, art had become a luxury that virtually all Afghans could not bother to contemplate. Post-2001 artists are back at work, but the extended, enforced hiatus has skewed Afghanistan’s art environment. Much of what is being produced now is tourist kitsch. Showing contemporary art in this milieu created perhaps even more of a challenge for organizers than the security constraints imposed by the difficult reconstruction process.
Ahead are more challenges. Montagu hopes she can take the exhibition to both Pakistan and Iran, but is not quite sure. "It is hard to raise funds for culture anywhere, but especially here, where there is often a feeling that any money spent on culture is money taken away from hospitals." Qureshi, who gave a lecture at Kabul University’s faculty of fine arts, expressed his strong conviction about the relevance of this exhibition. "This kind of opportunity is historical. We will feel the value of it later."
Qureshi’s special moment in the exhibition came from one of the Babur Gardens’ caretakers. "He saw me doing the floor paintings and said, ’The other art pieces can be sold. But what you painted on the floor is really just for us.’"
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted October 31, 2008 © Eurasianet
OPINION SURVEY REVEALS INCREASING WORRY AMONG AFGHANS
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar
October 29, 2008
The lack of security outranks poor economic conditions as the population’s top worry in Afghanistan, according to a newly released public opinion survey. While support for the country’s reconstruction process has declined over the past two years, a plurality still believes the country is moving in the right direction.
The opinion survey, prepared by the Asia Foundation and released October 28, represents one of the largest efforts to gauge the mood of Afghans. When compared with Asia Foundation polls in previous years, the 2008 results indicate that Afghans are experiencing a steady decline of hope for a better future, and they are growing increasingly disenchanted with the government’s performance. At the same time, the 2008 survey shows that public acceptance of the presence of foreign troops on Afghan soil remains steady, as does approval of international assistance efforts.
According to the survey, the percentage of the population that feels the country is moving in the right direction dropped from 44 percent in 2006 to 38 percent in 2008, while the number saying the country is going in the wrong direction increased from 21 percent in 2006 to 32 percent this year.
In 2006, economic worries topped the list of concerns for Afghans, but over the last two years security worries have surged ahead. Nationally, 36 percent of respondents in the 2008 survey identified security as the biggest problem, followed by 31 percent who cited unemployment as their main concern. A breakdown of responses by region showed that insecure feelings are spreading across Afghanistan, and are no longer limited to the traditional hotbeds of Islamic militant activity in southern and eastern sections of the country. Even relatively stable areas in the North registered a drop in confidence.
The survey also indicates that the perception of insecurity is more widespread than actual incidents of violence. In addition, the results seem to dispel the notion that Islamic insurgents are the most widespread cause of insecurity. Just over 1 percent of the Afghan population reported they had experienced violence at the hands of insurgents or militants. In a worrying trend, 1 percent of Afghans said they had suffered violence at the hands of the foreign forces, drawing attention once again to the dangers associated with the growing number of civilian casualties connected with US and NATO military operations. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
In the southwest region -- which in the survey covers the provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, Nimroz and Zabul, where the bulk of radical Islamic insurgent activity occurs -- 16 percent reported suffering from insurgent-related violence; 12 percent in those provinces suffered violence connected to actions by foreign forces.
In a deeply worrying trend, despite the expenditure of $25 billion in aid over the past seven years, and the promise of $21 billion more in additional assistance pledged during the Paris summit in June this year, there is now little difference in the number of people who feel their economic situation is better today than it was under the Taliban (39 percent) and those who feel they were better off during the Taliban era (36 percent).
The survey identifies unemployment as a "major problem." More than three-fourths said the availability of jobs in their area was very low and "a significant proportion of respondents expect the availability of jobs to be even lower in the coming year."
In analysing the biggest problems facing their country, Afghans surprisingly did not cite the lack of foreign assistance as a major issue, even though 30 percent identified the poor economy, poverty, unemployment and corruption as the biggest problems they face.
Corruption was seen as a major problem at the national level (76 percent), with as many as 51 percent terming it a major problem in their daily lives. Over half the respondents felt corruption had increased at the national level over the past 12 months, while a quarter felt it had increased in their daily lives. While a majority felt the government had done a good job, the number of those dissatisfied with the government increased by 13 percent.
In evaluating public services, Afghans positively rated their access to education and health care. Unemployment was cited as the biggest local problem followed by lack of electricity and water.
On the matter of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, the results were mixed. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. An overwhelming majority, 82 percent, considered it wrong to cultivate poppy. But in some of the country’s leading poppy-producing regions in the Southeast and East, opposition to poppy cultivation is eroding. In southeastern Afghanistan, for example, the percentage opposing poppy cultivation slipped from 85 percent in 2006 to 77 percent this year.
The revelation that fewer people believe that participation in the electoral process will bring future benefits is a worrying trend, as the country prepares to hold presidential and parliamentary elections over the next two years. Confidence in the electoral process dropped from 75 percent in 2006 to 65 percent in 2008; the number of people who were likely to vote dropped by 9 percent over last year.
Satisfaction with the democratization process in Afghanistan dropped from 73 percent last year to 68 percent in 2008, with dissatisfaction rates highest in the insurgency-prone areas of the South and the East. On the positive side, the number of Afghans who felt democracy was a challenge to Islam dropped slightly, from 29 percent to 26 percent.
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted October 29, 2008 © Eurasianet
Aunohita Mojumdar
October 29, 2008
The lack of security outranks poor economic conditions as the population’s top worry in Afghanistan, according to a newly released public opinion survey. While support for the country’s reconstruction process has declined over the past two years, a plurality still believes the country is moving in the right direction.
The opinion survey, prepared by the Asia Foundation and released October 28, represents one of the largest efforts to gauge the mood of Afghans. When compared with Asia Foundation polls in previous years, the 2008 results indicate that Afghans are experiencing a steady decline of hope for a better future, and they are growing increasingly disenchanted with the government’s performance. At the same time, the 2008 survey shows that public acceptance of the presence of foreign troops on Afghan soil remains steady, as does approval of international assistance efforts.
According to the survey, the percentage of the population that feels the country is moving in the right direction dropped from 44 percent in 2006 to 38 percent in 2008, while the number saying the country is going in the wrong direction increased from 21 percent in 2006 to 32 percent this year.
In 2006, economic worries topped the list of concerns for Afghans, but over the last two years security worries have surged ahead. Nationally, 36 percent of respondents in the 2008 survey identified security as the biggest problem, followed by 31 percent who cited unemployment as their main concern. A breakdown of responses by region showed that insecure feelings are spreading across Afghanistan, and are no longer limited to the traditional hotbeds of Islamic militant activity in southern and eastern sections of the country. Even relatively stable areas in the North registered a drop in confidence.
The survey also indicates that the perception of insecurity is more widespread than actual incidents of violence. In addition, the results seem to dispel the notion that Islamic insurgents are the most widespread cause of insecurity. Just over 1 percent of the Afghan population reported they had experienced violence at the hands of insurgents or militants. In a worrying trend, 1 percent of Afghans said they had suffered violence at the hands of the foreign forces, drawing attention once again to the dangers associated with the growing number of civilian casualties connected with US and NATO military operations. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
In the southwest region -- which in the survey covers the provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, Nimroz and Zabul, where the bulk of radical Islamic insurgent activity occurs -- 16 percent reported suffering from insurgent-related violence; 12 percent in those provinces suffered violence connected to actions by foreign forces.
In a deeply worrying trend, despite the expenditure of $25 billion in aid over the past seven years, and the promise of $21 billion more in additional assistance pledged during the Paris summit in June this year, there is now little difference in the number of people who feel their economic situation is better today than it was under the Taliban (39 percent) and those who feel they were better off during the Taliban era (36 percent).
The survey identifies unemployment as a "major problem." More than three-fourths said the availability of jobs in their area was very low and "a significant proportion of respondents expect the availability of jobs to be even lower in the coming year."
In analysing the biggest problems facing their country, Afghans surprisingly did not cite the lack of foreign assistance as a major issue, even though 30 percent identified the poor economy, poverty, unemployment and corruption as the biggest problems they face.
Corruption was seen as a major problem at the national level (76 percent), with as many as 51 percent terming it a major problem in their daily lives. Over half the respondents felt corruption had increased at the national level over the past 12 months, while a quarter felt it had increased in their daily lives. While a majority felt the government had done a good job, the number of those dissatisfied with the government increased by 13 percent.
In evaluating public services, Afghans positively rated their access to education and health care. Unemployment was cited as the biggest local problem followed by lack of electricity and water.
On the matter of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, the results were mixed. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. An overwhelming majority, 82 percent, considered it wrong to cultivate poppy. But in some of the country’s leading poppy-producing regions in the Southeast and East, opposition to poppy cultivation is eroding. In southeastern Afghanistan, for example, the percentage opposing poppy cultivation slipped from 85 percent in 2006 to 77 percent this year.
The revelation that fewer people believe that participation in the electoral process will bring future benefits is a worrying trend, as the country prepares to hold presidential and parliamentary elections over the next two years. Confidence in the electoral process dropped from 75 percent in 2006 to 65 percent in 2008; the number of people who were likely to vote dropped by 9 percent over last year.
Satisfaction with the democratization process in Afghanistan dropped from 73 percent last year to 68 percent in 2008, with dissatisfaction rates highest in the insurgency-prone areas of the South and the East. On the positive side, the number of Afghans who felt democracy was a challenge to Islam dropped slightly, from 29 percent to 26 percent.
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 18 years.
Posted October 29, 2008 © Eurasianet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)