Al Jazeera/ August 7, 2009
By Aunohita Mojumdar in Kabul
Shinkai Karokhail, a member of parliament in Afghanistan, has hopes that candidates running in upcoming presidential elections will bring women's issues to the fore.
She says she is concerned that since the US-led effort to oust the Taliban in 2001, women in many parts of the country have continued to face a lack of liberties and access to education.
Karokhail, who campaigned against a controversial Shia Family Law passed by the government in April, believes the major contenders for the presidential race have largely avoided women's issues in their election campaigns.
"Women's issues are as sensitive as the Durand line (the contested border between Afghanistan and Pakistan). Why should they [candidates] do something that might lose them the votes of conservatives and extremists?"
Women's political rights
Rights activists in Afghanistan are concerned that local media have focused on the high profile electoral campaigns of the candidates, particularly the top contenders, but sidelined women's issues.
special report
Al Jazeera's in-depth look at the presidential poll
Hoping to push their agenda forward, a group of women activists from Kabul organised a loya jirga (grand assembly) to mobilise women's votes and raise awareness of their rights.
Bringing together activists from around the country, the jirga was designed to put women's issues back on the agenda and to make sure that their voices are not ignored.
"We want women to learn how to obtain their political rights in a society dominated by men," Karokhail told Al Jazeera.
"Men will realise we have a voice. We need more women ministers, more diplomats, and for those who are there to come together and speak in one voice."
Making a difference
The campaign may be working.
Last week, candidates Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister, and Ashraf Ghani, a former finance minister, participated in a special TV programme debating women's issues.
in video
Violence threatens women's vote
Although Hamid Karzai, the incumbent president, did not participate in the programme, the discussion was considered a major acknowledgement of women's issues and the importance of their vote.
Mahbouba Seraj, an activist who moderated the programme, told Al Jazeera: "Women's issues may have been low in priority for the candidates but they have been pushed higher as a result of the pressure of women activists."
Although women's voting patterns have not yet developed to sufficiently decide an election, they can still play a role in the provincial council polls which are being held simultaneously on August 20.
How a woman votes, or whether she chooses to vote at all, will make a difference to many of the 3,177 candidates contesting 420 provincial council seats.
Threats and intimidation
Orzala Ashraf, a human rights campaigner who mobilised women to play a more active role in politics in the volatile eastern provinces, says a woman's vote is integral to democratic development.
"What is important in this contest is also the culture of democracy and the principle of elections. We want to maintain the value of this principle," she says.
But many activists have complained of intimidation and violence against women ahead of the elections in many parts of the country.
They say there are also real fears of disenfranchisement because of increasingly conservative attitudes which restrict women from public affairs.
Gulalai Achakzai, a delegate to the jirga from Kandahar city, feels there is a "big difference between the previous elections and this one".
"Security has become so bad that I doubt if more than 10 per cent of the women voters will come out to vote on polling day," she says.
Achakzai's own distant relative, Sitara Achakzai, a member of Kandahar's provincial council, was shot dead in April.
"Stay at home"
A recent report prepared by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Unama) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) says that "the lives of a large number of Afghan women are seriously compromised by violence".
Activists say they need a candidate who will fight for women's education [GALLO/GETTY]
"The pattern of attacks against women operating in the public sphere sends a strong message to all women to stay at home ... The effective imprisonment of women in their homes in an electoral period raises additional concerns," the report said.
The UN report also indicated that the threats have come not just from the armed opposition, including the Taliban, but also religious leaders, village mullahs and even the women's families.
The violence has already impacted the democratic process as fewer women stand for elections.
While a concerted campaign by NGOs, electoral bodies and the media helped increase the number in Kabul, there are few women candidates in Kandahar and Uruzgan provinces.
Karokhail hopes that meetings such as the women's jirga would send a message of support to women candidates and any future government. "We want them to know that we will not be silenced. We want them to understand that we have to be counted," she said.
Small steps
Wazhma Frogh, the country director of Global Rights, a human rights advocacy group, said the women's jirga is a step in the right direction
"Our campaign is not for any particular candidate. We want women to follow the agendas of the different candidates and see which is best for them," Frogh told Al Jazeera.
Hasan Bano Ghazanfar, the sole woman minister in Karzai's cabinet, refrained from asking women to vote for the incumbent president.
But she did press women at the jirga to make their voices heard at the ballot box.
"Don't believe your vote does not matter. A single vote can change your family's fortunes," she said.
"It can change your life."
September 06, 2009
AFGHANISTAN: ELECTIONS SHAPING UP AS A COMPLICATED STEP FORWARD
EURASIA INSIGHT
A Eurasianet Q&A With European Commission Delegation Ambassador Hansjorg Kretschmer Aunohita Mojumdar 8/10/09
The difficulty in achieving consensus among its 27 member states is a major factor in keeping the European Union from playing a more robust role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, despite the considerable resources provided through the European Commission and individual bilateral contributions. In June, however, the EU agreed on the need to deepen its engagement with Afghanistan. Change is already evident. The EU is providing 35 million euros to help ensure a fair-and-secure presidential election on August 20, and will be deploying a 100-member Election Observer Mission. The European Commission delegation’s ambassador in Kabul, Hansjörg Kretschmer, talked recently with EurasiaNet’s Aunohita Mojumdar on the importance of elections, the current situation and the engagement of the international community with Afghanistan. The text of Kretschmer’s comments follows:
EurasiaNet: Why do you think the elections are important for Afghanistan?
Kretschmer: The elections are absolutely imperative in order maintain the credibility, or to give more credibility to the current system. From the side of the international community and our constituencies in the different countries [that] participate in this collective effort here, it is of course important to see that the elections can be held now five years after the preceding elections -- that the country is able to carry out such elections and therefore has made progress -- because these elections are conducted basically under Afghan leadership. If the elections take place in a proper way, it is a signal to our people abroad that our efforts here in Afghanistan have brought some fruit, notwithstanding all the negative media reporting we have these days about the security situation.
EurasiaNet: Surely the negative media reporting is based on a situation generally accepted to be quite dismal?
Kretschmer: Yes, of course. The security situation is worrying. No one will hide that now. We see the degree of insecurity getting bigger in the northern and western parts of the country, which until not so long ago was considered rather peaceful and stable.
EurasiaNet: Do you think it is wise to have elections in such a difficult situation where there is concern about the difficulties of campaigning and voting?
Kretschmer: We have to look at the constitution. It imposes this date. So there is no choice, but to make the utmost effort to carry out and hold the elections. There is a need for Afghans to express their verdict on the Afghan government, and authorities’ record over the last five years. The other question is, of course, whether the elections can be carried out in a way that is legitimate: on the one hand without major irregularities; on the other hand with as vast a part of the Afghan population as possible being able to participate. Measures are taken. Efforts are taken. For the time being we have to see -- especially with regard to possible disenfranchisement of the part of the population -- how many people will be able to vote. Of course the intention is to allow as many Afghans as possible to participate in the elections. The final decision has not yet been made whether some polling stations cannot be opened because of security concerns, or technical reasons. But the effort is to have the biggest possible participation in order to ensure the legitimacy of the final result.
EurasiaNet: Is there not a danger that a less-than-legitimate election will further complicate the atmosphere?
Kretschmer: Of course the risk exists and therefore all efforts are undertaken to ensure as wide and as correct a process of elections as possible. I am very impressed by the way in which the campaigning has been going until now. There appears to be a real debate in the media, in the public, about these elections; about the pros and cons of the government action and so on. That is very positive. So the Afghan people seem to be engaging in this process.
EurasiaNet: One of the factors affecting the credibility of the elections is the continuing presence of candidates who have been accused of past crimes. There has been such criticism of one of the vice presidential candidates of the incumbent president himself. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Kretschmer: There was the possibility to challenge [the eligibility of candidates]. In fact, 57 candidates have been challenged and the Electoral Complaints Commission has decided on that and removed names from the final list. But of course you are right that from an international perspective we can have questions with regard to some of the names; but in the end, again, that is an Afghan process and you can have a wider debate in relation to transitional justice. You remember the Transitional Justice Action Plan signed in December 2006 by the president. We have not seen much happening on this front. So there are, of course, difficulties in this country to carry this through and that is just the Afghan reality. It does not mean it is forgotten forever. But certainly, reality has shown that the situation is not ripe yet to handle this, as it would be in some other countries.
EurasiaNet: Do you foresee problems if this legitimacy and credibility is lacking?
Kretschmer: People sometimes ask whether the reaction will be like in Iran. I really don’t know. But I hear from Afghans that it will not be like in Iran. Because what you saw in Iran was, after all, peaceful demonstration on which the authorities cracked down. My Afghan interlocutors are concerned that if there is widespread dissatisfaction this could easily turn into violent action. This would of course pour oil in the fire of the general level of insecurity, so we must do everything to avoid reasons for such widespread dissatisfaction.
EurasiaNet: Stepping back, how do you see the political and security situation as having developed since you have been here?
Kretschmer: I came in the last quarter of 2006. Since then we have seen a continuous increase of insecurity, the spread of insecurity, and what was interesting was that this somehow happened in parallel with continuous gradual building up of international security forces and increase in the number and also -- I would hope -- in the quality of Afghan National Security Forces.
The big question now is whether the surge of international troops -- essentially the 17,000 American soldiers that came into the country recently -- will break the increasing tendency of insecurity. Whether this will be the case, I cannot judge at the moment. It is too fresh. Certainly the very competent, very impressive new commander of ISAF [NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force], General [Stanley A.] McChrystal, has in my view an excellent approach in having the sense to say we must first secure the Afghan people before we think of killing or attacking the insurgents.
That is very important because I think this aspect in the past has not got sufficient attention, not only in terms of civilian casualties but in terms of the overall image projected by the international community here. In military terms, this extreme buildup of security measures and also the other aspect -- behaviour in traffic, for example -- all these have been elements that clearly contributed to antagonizing the Afghan people toward the international military presence here. I think this new approach is absolutely fundamental and very correct. I hope over time the troop reinforcements together with the new approach -- which is more sensitive considering what is the Afghan wider population’s perception of us -- will lead to a positive result.
EurasiaNet: Apart from the military component of the strategy, do you think there were mistakes in the approach to civilian reconstruction?
Kretschmer: If you talk about the civilian dimension of assistance and reconstruction, we also see a very improved situation over the last one to one-and-a-half years with improved coordination of the international community and more ownership being taken by a stronger Afghan government that now, in certain areas has a clear strategy. But development, which is to have sustainable results, will take time.
EurasiaNet: The political part of the reconstruction has been dominated by the United States though the EU has spent resources here. Will that change now?
Kretschmer: I think now all sides, including the Europeans, will provide more civilian reconstruction assistance. But personally, I think it is not necessarily a matter of quantity, but quality. I think the amount of money that has come into this country since 2002 -- perhaps with a better coordinated approach and better preparedness on the side of the Afghan authorities, more could have been obtained. So quality is as important if not more important than quantity. We want to achieve sustainable development -- and for this you don’t necessarily need big money, you need right people and the right approach.
You talk about political when you refer to a civilian approach, but I think there is one dimension that is still rather a white sheet of paper. Personally I consider the situation in Afghanistan as being to a large extent a political issue and the focus on the side of the international community has until now been a dual approach -- military on the one side and civilian reconstruction on the other side. But there has not been on the side of the Afghan, or the international community, a policy on how to tackle the political questions involved. [. . .] This is usually referred to as a reintegration-reconciliation debate, which we have now had for a couple of months or a year. That is another important aspect that I think policymakers especially here in Afghanistan [must address] because it must be an Afghan-led process, but also those in the capitals abroad have to think more on it.
A Eurasianet Q&A With European Commission Delegation Ambassador Hansjorg Kretschmer Aunohita Mojumdar 8/10/09
The difficulty in achieving consensus among its 27 member states is a major factor in keeping the European Union from playing a more robust role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, despite the considerable resources provided through the European Commission and individual bilateral contributions. In June, however, the EU agreed on the need to deepen its engagement with Afghanistan. Change is already evident. The EU is providing 35 million euros to help ensure a fair-and-secure presidential election on August 20, and will be deploying a 100-member Election Observer Mission. The European Commission delegation’s ambassador in Kabul, Hansjörg Kretschmer, talked recently with EurasiaNet’s Aunohita Mojumdar on the importance of elections, the current situation and the engagement of the international community with Afghanistan. The text of Kretschmer’s comments follows:
EurasiaNet: Why do you think the elections are important for Afghanistan?
Kretschmer: The elections are absolutely imperative in order maintain the credibility, or to give more credibility to the current system. From the side of the international community and our constituencies in the different countries [that] participate in this collective effort here, it is of course important to see that the elections can be held now five years after the preceding elections -- that the country is able to carry out such elections and therefore has made progress -- because these elections are conducted basically under Afghan leadership. If the elections take place in a proper way, it is a signal to our people abroad that our efforts here in Afghanistan have brought some fruit, notwithstanding all the negative media reporting we have these days about the security situation.
EurasiaNet: Surely the negative media reporting is based on a situation generally accepted to be quite dismal?
Kretschmer: Yes, of course. The security situation is worrying. No one will hide that now. We see the degree of insecurity getting bigger in the northern and western parts of the country, which until not so long ago was considered rather peaceful and stable.
EurasiaNet: Do you think it is wise to have elections in such a difficult situation where there is concern about the difficulties of campaigning and voting?
Kretschmer: We have to look at the constitution. It imposes this date. So there is no choice, but to make the utmost effort to carry out and hold the elections. There is a need for Afghans to express their verdict on the Afghan government, and authorities’ record over the last five years. The other question is, of course, whether the elections can be carried out in a way that is legitimate: on the one hand without major irregularities; on the other hand with as vast a part of the Afghan population as possible being able to participate. Measures are taken. Efforts are taken. For the time being we have to see -- especially with regard to possible disenfranchisement of the part of the population -- how many people will be able to vote. Of course the intention is to allow as many Afghans as possible to participate in the elections. The final decision has not yet been made whether some polling stations cannot be opened because of security concerns, or technical reasons. But the effort is to have the biggest possible participation in order to ensure the legitimacy of the final result.
EurasiaNet: Is there not a danger that a less-than-legitimate election will further complicate the atmosphere?
Kretschmer: Of course the risk exists and therefore all efforts are undertaken to ensure as wide and as correct a process of elections as possible. I am very impressed by the way in which the campaigning has been going until now. There appears to be a real debate in the media, in the public, about these elections; about the pros and cons of the government action and so on. That is very positive. So the Afghan people seem to be engaging in this process.
EurasiaNet: One of the factors affecting the credibility of the elections is the continuing presence of candidates who have been accused of past crimes. There has been such criticism of one of the vice presidential candidates of the incumbent president himself. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Kretschmer: There was the possibility to challenge [the eligibility of candidates]. In fact, 57 candidates have been challenged and the Electoral Complaints Commission has decided on that and removed names from the final list. But of course you are right that from an international perspective we can have questions with regard to some of the names; but in the end, again, that is an Afghan process and you can have a wider debate in relation to transitional justice. You remember the Transitional Justice Action Plan signed in December 2006 by the president. We have not seen much happening on this front. So there are, of course, difficulties in this country to carry this through and that is just the Afghan reality. It does not mean it is forgotten forever. But certainly, reality has shown that the situation is not ripe yet to handle this, as it would be in some other countries.
EurasiaNet: Do you foresee problems if this legitimacy and credibility is lacking?
Kretschmer: People sometimes ask whether the reaction will be like in Iran. I really don’t know. But I hear from Afghans that it will not be like in Iran. Because what you saw in Iran was, after all, peaceful demonstration on which the authorities cracked down. My Afghan interlocutors are concerned that if there is widespread dissatisfaction this could easily turn into violent action. This would of course pour oil in the fire of the general level of insecurity, so we must do everything to avoid reasons for such widespread dissatisfaction.
EurasiaNet: Stepping back, how do you see the political and security situation as having developed since you have been here?
Kretschmer: I came in the last quarter of 2006. Since then we have seen a continuous increase of insecurity, the spread of insecurity, and what was interesting was that this somehow happened in parallel with continuous gradual building up of international security forces and increase in the number and also -- I would hope -- in the quality of Afghan National Security Forces.
The big question now is whether the surge of international troops -- essentially the 17,000 American soldiers that came into the country recently -- will break the increasing tendency of insecurity. Whether this will be the case, I cannot judge at the moment. It is too fresh. Certainly the very competent, very impressive new commander of ISAF [NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force], General [Stanley A.] McChrystal, has in my view an excellent approach in having the sense to say we must first secure the Afghan people before we think of killing or attacking the insurgents.
That is very important because I think this aspect in the past has not got sufficient attention, not only in terms of civilian casualties but in terms of the overall image projected by the international community here. In military terms, this extreme buildup of security measures and also the other aspect -- behaviour in traffic, for example -- all these have been elements that clearly contributed to antagonizing the Afghan people toward the international military presence here. I think this new approach is absolutely fundamental and very correct. I hope over time the troop reinforcements together with the new approach -- which is more sensitive considering what is the Afghan wider population’s perception of us -- will lead to a positive result.
EurasiaNet: Apart from the military component of the strategy, do you think there were mistakes in the approach to civilian reconstruction?
Kretschmer: If you talk about the civilian dimension of assistance and reconstruction, we also see a very improved situation over the last one to one-and-a-half years with improved coordination of the international community and more ownership being taken by a stronger Afghan government that now, in certain areas has a clear strategy. But development, which is to have sustainable results, will take time.
EurasiaNet: The political part of the reconstruction has been dominated by the United States though the EU has spent resources here. Will that change now?
Kretschmer: I think now all sides, including the Europeans, will provide more civilian reconstruction assistance. But personally, I think it is not necessarily a matter of quantity, but quality. I think the amount of money that has come into this country since 2002 -- perhaps with a better coordinated approach and better preparedness on the side of the Afghan authorities, more could have been obtained. So quality is as important if not more important than quantity. We want to achieve sustainable development -- and for this you don’t necessarily need big money, you need right people and the right approach.
You talk about political when you refer to a civilian approach, but I think there is one dimension that is still rather a white sheet of paper. Personally I consider the situation in Afghanistan as being to a large extent a political issue and the focus on the side of the international community has until now been a dual approach -- military on the one side and civilian reconstruction on the other side. But there has not been on the side of the Afghan, or the international community, a policy on how to tackle the political questions involved. [. . .] This is usually referred to as a reintegration-reconciliation debate, which we have now had for a couple of months or a year. That is another important aspect that I think policymakers especially here in Afghanistan [must address] because it must be an Afghan-led process, but also those in the capitals abroad have to think more on it.
AFGHANISTAN: UN REPORT DOCUMENTS STEADY INCREASE IN CIVILIAN DEATHS
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar 8/04/09
Civilian casualties in Afghanistan increased sharply during the first six months of 2009, according to a mid-year review conducted by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.
The UNAMA review found civilian deaths increased by 24 percent during the first half of this year in comparison to the same period in 2008. The report also indicated that existing factors on the ground are likely to cause civilian casualties to keep on rising.
The UN only counts civilian fatalities when victims can be verified as non-combatants. In cases where there is even slight doubt, or where the UN cannot corroborate the status of the victim, it does not list the individual as a civilian casualty. The final UN tally is therefore likely to be lower than the actual number of civilian fatalities.
The mid-year review, released on July 31, found that the number of civilians killed by anti-government elements (AGEs) and pro-government forces had both increased, though the proportionate increase of deaths caused by AGEs, including the Taliban and other insurgent groups, was far greater. The findings may heighten anxiety as Afghanistan goes through the final weeks of campaigning before the country holds a presidential election, scheduled for August 20.
The UN attributes the rise in civilian casualties to the surge of foreign troops and the insurgent response, as well as stepped up operations by pro-government forces in civilian residential areas. Improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks by anti-government elements and air strikes carried out by international military forces were identified as the major causes of civilian deaths, which rose from 818 during the first half of 2008 to 1,013 in the corresponding period this year, according to the UN. A close reading of figures however reveals the numbers don’t provide the complete picture
In what was perhaps the single largest incident of civilian casualties since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, for example, a May 4 American air strike in Herat Province’s Bala Baluk District killed 63 civilians according to UNAMA. That figure excluded all men from the total, counting only the women and children. With difficulty in determining whether the "men of military age" were combatants or non-combatants, the UN figures still exclude all men killed in the Bala Baluk attack, even though the incident occurred three months ago.
The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission found that as many as 97 civilians may have been killed in the May 4 attack, 76 of whom it said were women and children, the commission’s spokesperson Nader Nadery told EurasiaNet.
The discrepancy in numbers suggests that UN figures are, at best, incomplete. Acknowledging this possibility, Norah Niland, the head of UNAMA’s Human Rights Unit, the office behind the report, told EurasiaNet that, "we can only record and report figures that we have triple checked. Our focus is on trying to mitigate the impact of war on civilians. We also focus on the circumstances in which civilians are killed so that avoidable deaths do not occur." Niland acknowledged that figures reported in the regular UNAMA reports on civilian casualties may well underestimate the actual number killed.
The UN report found that civilian deaths caused by anti-government elements had almost doubled since last year. AGE attacks on humanitarian workers and government employees, moreover, appeared to be impairing Afghans’ access to humanitarian assistance.
Even so, casualties caused by international forces appear to generate the most public anger. Tolerance among Afghans for civilian casualties caused by international military forces is steadily decreasing, making every small incident a potential tinderbox. Highlighting the trend, a rally of clerics in Laghman Province in eastern Afghanistan on August 1 called for the government to set the date for withdrawal of foreign troops.
In response to such public sentiments, one of President Hamid Karzai’s main reelection promises is to rewrite agreements with international troops operating in Afghanistan.
As fighting intensifies ahead of Election Day, the UN report predicts a further climb in civilian causalities. Recent Taliban statements calling for fighters to place themselves among civilians, insurgent promises of violence under "Operation Victory" in response to the Obama Administration’s troop surge, and promises of attacks on the presidential and provincial council elections are immediate causes for concern, the report says. These factors "raise the prospect of a further intensification of the conflict in Afghanistan. Given the pattern of the conflict so far, further significant casualties in the coming months are likely" the UN states.
Aunohita Mojumdar 8/04/09
Civilian casualties in Afghanistan increased sharply during the first six months of 2009, according to a mid-year review conducted by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.
The UNAMA review found civilian deaths increased by 24 percent during the first half of this year in comparison to the same period in 2008. The report also indicated that existing factors on the ground are likely to cause civilian casualties to keep on rising.
The UN only counts civilian fatalities when victims can be verified as non-combatants. In cases where there is even slight doubt, or where the UN cannot corroborate the status of the victim, it does not list the individual as a civilian casualty. The final UN tally is therefore likely to be lower than the actual number of civilian fatalities.
The mid-year review, released on July 31, found that the number of civilians killed by anti-government elements (AGEs) and pro-government forces had both increased, though the proportionate increase of deaths caused by AGEs, including the Taliban and other insurgent groups, was far greater. The findings may heighten anxiety as Afghanistan goes through the final weeks of campaigning before the country holds a presidential election, scheduled for August 20.
The UN attributes the rise in civilian casualties to the surge of foreign troops and the insurgent response, as well as stepped up operations by pro-government forces in civilian residential areas. Improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks by anti-government elements and air strikes carried out by international military forces were identified as the major causes of civilian deaths, which rose from 818 during the first half of 2008 to 1,013 in the corresponding period this year, according to the UN. A close reading of figures however reveals the numbers don’t provide the complete picture
In what was perhaps the single largest incident of civilian casualties since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, for example, a May 4 American air strike in Herat Province’s Bala Baluk District killed 63 civilians according to UNAMA. That figure excluded all men from the total, counting only the women and children. With difficulty in determining whether the "men of military age" were combatants or non-combatants, the UN figures still exclude all men killed in the Bala Baluk attack, even though the incident occurred three months ago.
The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission found that as many as 97 civilians may have been killed in the May 4 attack, 76 of whom it said were women and children, the commission’s spokesperson Nader Nadery told EurasiaNet.
The discrepancy in numbers suggests that UN figures are, at best, incomplete. Acknowledging this possibility, Norah Niland, the head of UNAMA’s Human Rights Unit, the office behind the report, told EurasiaNet that, "we can only record and report figures that we have triple checked. Our focus is on trying to mitigate the impact of war on civilians. We also focus on the circumstances in which civilians are killed so that avoidable deaths do not occur." Niland acknowledged that figures reported in the regular UNAMA reports on civilian casualties may well underestimate the actual number killed.
The UN report found that civilian deaths caused by anti-government elements had almost doubled since last year. AGE attacks on humanitarian workers and government employees, moreover, appeared to be impairing Afghans’ access to humanitarian assistance.
Even so, casualties caused by international forces appear to generate the most public anger. Tolerance among Afghans for civilian casualties caused by international military forces is steadily decreasing, making every small incident a potential tinderbox. Highlighting the trend, a rally of clerics in Laghman Province in eastern Afghanistan on August 1 called for the government to set the date for withdrawal of foreign troops.
In response to such public sentiments, one of President Hamid Karzai’s main reelection promises is to rewrite agreements with international troops operating in Afghanistan.
As fighting intensifies ahead of Election Day, the UN report predicts a further climb in civilian causalities. Recent Taliban statements calling for fighters to place themselves among civilians, insurgent promises of violence under "Operation Victory" in response to the Obama Administration’s troop surge, and promises of attacks on the presidential and provincial council elections are immediate causes for concern, the report says. These factors "raise the prospect of a further intensification of the conflict in Afghanistan. Given the pattern of the conflict so far, further significant casualties in the coming months are likely" the UN states.
AFGHANISTAN: KARZAI BRACES FOR EMBOLDENED CHALLENGERS AS ELECTION NEARS
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar 7/28/09
"Its probably going to be Karzai, isn’t it?" lamented Fareed, a taxi driver in Kabul as he weaved his way through crowded traffic on cratered roads lined with open sewers and glitzy new glass and chrome buildings. "I don’t like him, but I might vote for him," he added with a tone of deep resignation.
Afghan citizens will go to the polls next month amid an escalation of Taliban violence. The first four months of 2009 saw a 46 percent increase in security-related incidents over the previous. Since then, the fighting has continued to intensify with a new large-scale military operation in southern Helmand Province. While those operations are being touted as an effort to boost security before the polls, most observers expect violence will continue to increase until election day on August 20.
Incumbent President Hamid Karzai’s shrewd maneuvering in the early stages of the campaign appears to have put him ahead in the race. Despite considerable voter disenchantment due to increasing violence, bad governance and inadequate reconstruction progress, the anti-incumbency vote is divided among as many as 41 challengers. Moreover, observers speculate that Afghanistan’s nascent democratic polity also tends to favor the likely winner, thus drawing votes even from those who would prefer to see him replaced. They suggest this tendency developed over 30 years of war when backing the most powerful figure was a survival mechanism.
To enhance his chances, Karzai and his supporters have sought to forge a series of truces with Taliban insurgents. The government reached the first such truce on July 25 in Badghis Province, situated near the border with Turkmenistan. The area is not considered a Taliban stronghold.
In recent days, what appeared to be a fait accompli is now seeing a subtle subterranean shift. The image that Karzai is vulnerable seems to be spreading. "Yes, it looks like Karzai has done all the right deals. But if the mood changes, this might even go against him. The powerful figures he has aligned with are themselves discredited. Can they even deliver the votes? They are no longer as powerful as they were four years ago," says Javid, who works with an international news agency and asked his last name not be printed.
Among those now on Karzai’s side are the northern strongman Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostum, who was earlier appointed to the mainly symbolic post of presidential chief of staff, was removed from that position following a series of embarrassing events that included the kidnapping of a rival in downtown Kabul. Evidence also came to light earlier in July that forces under Dostum’s control may have carried out war crimes, in particular the mass killing of prisoners.
Karzai also sought to bolster his base by reaching out to Northern Alliance commander Marshall Mohammed Qasim Fahim, who is currently campaigning as Karzai’s vice-presidential running mate. Some international observers have expressed reservations about Fahim, who was a leader of the anti-Taliban resistance in the late 1990s. Early on in Karzai’s presidential administration he served as defense minister and was for a brief period vice president. In a 2005 report, Human Rights Watch said Fahim was responsible for "systematic human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law." While campaigning in Kunduz Province on July 26, Fahim’s convoy experienced an ambush. The vice presidential candidate was not hurt in the episode.
As the attack underscored, increased violence has curtailed the ability of candidates to canvass for votes, not just for the presidential polls but also for the concurrently held provincial council elections. A joint monitoring project carried out by the UN’s Assistance mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission during the nomination and challenge period from April 25 to June 12 expressed concern that the period was characterized by deteriorating security in many parts of the country. Worryingly, the report described widespread intimidation throughout the country. "Insecurity will have an impact on the overall ability of candidates to actively campaign and by extension, on the ability of voters to make informed choices," the report stated.
Violence is a constant feature of the campaign as it enters the home stretch. On July 28, for example, a campaign manager for Abdullah Abdullah, one of Karzai’s leading challengers, was badly wounded and his driver killed in a July 28 attack in Laghman Province. In Helmand Province on the same day, a bomb killed eight private security guards.
The pool of possible winners appears to have narrowed to the incumbent Karzai and two former cabinet members: former Foreign Minister and Northern Alliance leader Abdullah Abdullah and former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani.
In recent weeks, speculation on the likely winner, which centered for weeks on Karzai, has shifted to a question on whether the elections will necessitate a second round of polling. Under Afghanistan’s electoral law, unless a candidate can secure more than 51 percent in the first round, there must be a runoff. In a runoff, the contest would likely narrow to a choice between Karzai and one other opposition candidate, thus making possible a consolidation of anti-incumbency votes. "A second round would at least be healthy, in terms of democracy. I think a Karzai win in the first round will disappoint Afghans and create greater resentment and instability," said a western aid worker who wished not to be identified.
The polls are also turning into a test of Afghanistan’s independence. Many Afghans suspect, perhaps unfairly, that the next president of the country will be picked in Washington. "Do you think we will be the ones to decide? It is America which picks our leader," says Naqib, an educated, middle-aged former civil servant who stayed in Afghanistan through all the years of war.
While the US did play a major role in selecting Karzai as the first president and backing him for his second term, relations between Karzai and the Obama Administration have been much cooler than during the Bush years. The US has kept a respectable distance from the contest, perhaps, some say, since there are no clear challengers to back.
Both the suspicion about a hidden foreign hand and the resignation about the reelection of the incumbent candidate reflect Afghan voters’ limited belief in their own ability to affect democratic change. However, there are signs that this is already changing with some questioning the qualification of candidates and the fairness of the process.
On a July 21 election-related visit to Afghanistan, EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana was repeatedly asked by the Afghan media why he had singled out three of the 41 challengers for meetings. Was this based on his presumption that no one else could win, journalists asked. While the repetitive questions annoyed EU officials, they perhaps denoted the Afghans’ increasing awareness about the importance of a transparent and credible electoral process.
Aunohita Mojumdar 7/28/09
"Its probably going to be Karzai, isn’t it?" lamented Fareed, a taxi driver in Kabul as he weaved his way through crowded traffic on cratered roads lined with open sewers and glitzy new glass and chrome buildings. "I don’t like him, but I might vote for him," he added with a tone of deep resignation.
Afghan citizens will go to the polls next month amid an escalation of Taliban violence. The first four months of 2009 saw a 46 percent increase in security-related incidents over the previous. Since then, the fighting has continued to intensify with a new large-scale military operation in southern Helmand Province. While those operations are being touted as an effort to boost security before the polls, most observers expect violence will continue to increase until election day on August 20.
Incumbent President Hamid Karzai’s shrewd maneuvering in the early stages of the campaign appears to have put him ahead in the race. Despite considerable voter disenchantment due to increasing violence, bad governance and inadequate reconstruction progress, the anti-incumbency vote is divided among as many as 41 challengers. Moreover, observers speculate that Afghanistan’s nascent democratic polity also tends to favor the likely winner, thus drawing votes even from those who would prefer to see him replaced. They suggest this tendency developed over 30 years of war when backing the most powerful figure was a survival mechanism.
To enhance his chances, Karzai and his supporters have sought to forge a series of truces with Taliban insurgents. The government reached the first such truce on July 25 in Badghis Province, situated near the border with Turkmenistan. The area is not considered a Taliban stronghold.
In recent days, what appeared to be a fait accompli is now seeing a subtle subterranean shift. The image that Karzai is vulnerable seems to be spreading. "Yes, it looks like Karzai has done all the right deals. But if the mood changes, this might even go against him. The powerful figures he has aligned with are themselves discredited. Can they even deliver the votes? They are no longer as powerful as they were four years ago," says Javid, who works with an international news agency and asked his last name not be printed.
Among those now on Karzai’s side are the northern strongman Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostum, who was earlier appointed to the mainly symbolic post of presidential chief of staff, was removed from that position following a series of embarrassing events that included the kidnapping of a rival in downtown Kabul. Evidence also came to light earlier in July that forces under Dostum’s control may have carried out war crimes, in particular the mass killing of prisoners.
Karzai also sought to bolster his base by reaching out to Northern Alliance commander Marshall Mohammed Qasim Fahim, who is currently campaigning as Karzai’s vice-presidential running mate. Some international observers have expressed reservations about Fahim, who was a leader of the anti-Taliban resistance in the late 1990s. Early on in Karzai’s presidential administration he served as defense minister and was for a brief period vice president. In a 2005 report, Human Rights Watch said Fahim was responsible for "systematic human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law." While campaigning in Kunduz Province on July 26, Fahim’s convoy experienced an ambush. The vice presidential candidate was not hurt in the episode.
As the attack underscored, increased violence has curtailed the ability of candidates to canvass for votes, not just for the presidential polls but also for the concurrently held provincial council elections. A joint monitoring project carried out by the UN’s Assistance mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission during the nomination and challenge period from April 25 to June 12 expressed concern that the period was characterized by deteriorating security in many parts of the country. Worryingly, the report described widespread intimidation throughout the country. "Insecurity will have an impact on the overall ability of candidates to actively campaign and by extension, on the ability of voters to make informed choices," the report stated.
Violence is a constant feature of the campaign as it enters the home stretch. On July 28, for example, a campaign manager for Abdullah Abdullah, one of Karzai’s leading challengers, was badly wounded and his driver killed in a July 28 attack in Laghman Province. In Helmand Province on the same day, a bomb killed eight private security guards.
The pool of possible winners appears to have narrowed to the incumbent Karzai and two former cabinet members: former Foreign Minister and Northern Alliance leader Abdullah Abdullah and former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani.
In recent weeks, speculation on the likely winner, which centered for weeks on Karzai, has shifted to a question on whether the elections will necessitate a second round of polling. Under Afghanistan’s electoral law, unless a candidate can secure more than 51 percent in the first round, there must be a runoff. In a runoff, the contest would likely narrow to a choice between Karzai and one other opposition candidate, thus making possible a consolidation of anti-incumbency votes. "A second round would at least be healthy, in terms of democracy. I think a Karzai win in the first round will disappoint Afghans and create greater resentment and instability," said a western aid worker who wished not to be identified.
The polls are also turning into a test of Afghanistan’s independence. Many Afghans suspect, perhaps unfairly, that the next president of the country will be picked in Washington. "Do you think we will be the ones to decide? It is America which picks our leader," says Naqib, an educated, middle-aged former civil servant who stayed in Afghanistan through all the years of war.
While the US did play a major role in selecting Karzai as the first president and backing him for his second term, relations between Karzai and the Obama Administration have been much cooler than during the Bush years. The US has kept a respectable distance from the contest, perhaps, some say, since there are no clear challengers to back.
Both the suspicion about a hidden foreign hand and the resignation about the reelection of the incumbent candidate reflect Afghan voters’ limited belief in their own ability to affect democratic change. However, there are signs that this is already changing with some questioning the qualification of candidates and the fairness of the process.
On a July 21 election-related visit to Afghanistan, EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana was repeatedly asked by the Afghan media why he had singled out three of the 41 challengers for meetings. Was this based on his presumption that no one else could win, journalists asked. While the repetitive questions annoyed EU officials, they perhaps denoted the Afghans’ increasing awareness about the importance of a transparent and credible electoral process.
AFGHANISTAN: FIRST LOCAL TEAM CONQUERS AFGHANISTAN’S HIGHEST PEAK
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar 7/21/09
It may not be a feat that matches walking on the moon, but a small group of Afghan villagers are nevertheless stoking national pride in their war-ravaged nation. The group has become the first local expedition to successfully scale Afghanistan’s tallest peak, the Noshaq, situated in the remote northeastern Badakhshan region.
Wakhis -- as the inhabitants of the valleys abutting Pakistan, Tajikistan and China are called -- had long dreamed of scaling the peak near their home villages. A group of local men finally planted the Afghan tricolor flag on the summit on July 19. With this feat, Malang, a cook by profession and Amruddin, a farmer, set an exciting example for others to emulate, as well as highlighted their country’s tourism and adventure travel potential.
Malang, speaking to EurasiaNet on a satellite phone from the base camp on the evening of July 20, said he was very happy to have made it to the top and "to become a part of the history of my country." The name of the expedition ’Afghans to the Top’ has exemplified not just this climb, but the lives of these ordinary Afghans who have achieved what was long thought impossible in a land which usually makes news only for its enduring conflict.
Noshaq is the second highest peak in the Hindu Kush range. At 7,492 meters (24,580 feet), it surpasses the highest mountains in both North America and Europe -- the 6,194-meter Mt. McKinley in Alaska (20,320 feet), and 5,642-meter Mt. Elbrus (18,510 feet) in the Caucasus range -- respectively. Even the third base camp, which two other Afghan team members -- Afiyat, a mason and Gurg Ali, a teacher -- also reached, sits at 6,902 meters.
The expedition began on July 2 in the village of Qazideh, close to the entrance of the Wakhan Corridor, a narrow finger of land that once provided a buffer zone between Tsarist Russia and British India. Its isolation made it a formidable boundary, surrounded as it was by the Hindu Kush, Pamir and Karakoram ranges.
Their journey began nearly two years ago. It was stoked by the Afghans’ hopes and the vision of a trio of young Frenchmen -- Louis Meunier, Jerome Veyret and Nicolas Fasquell -- living and working in Afghanistan.
The mountain ranges in the Wakhan Corridor have long been a draw for mountaineers. A Japanese team first reached the summit of the Noshaq in 1960. The relatively clear weather in the short summer season makes the area ideal for climbing, writes Italian mountaineer Carlo Alberto Pinelli in his book ’Peaks of Silver and Jade,’ which he authored in 2007 with a view to attracting climbers.
The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, starting in 1979, caused visitors to stay away. Few have ventured into the area since then. In the late 1990s, Badakhshan suffered during the Taliban era, as it was a stronghold of resistance to the rule of the militant Islamic movement.
Despite continuing conflict in other areas of post-Taliban Afghanistan, the Wakhan Corridor itself is considered stable and secure, and is easily accessible through Tajikistan.
But the area lacks infrastructure and suffers from widespread poverty. Its semiarid climate supports only subsistence agriculture and its topography makes access to health, education and markets difficult. For the four Wakhis on this expedition, mountaineering is not an indulgence. Their relationship with the mountains is much more elemental and they have not had the luxury of years of climbing or practice sessions with fancy equipment.
Over the past few years, the Wakhan has seen a steady stream of visitors, mainly internationals living and working in Afghanistan who have been lured by its beauty, its wilderness, and its virgin peaks. Wakhis hope more will come once this climbing achievement draws attention to the place.
Despite having been a part of the team that climbed Noshaq, Afiyat and Gurg Ali will not be taking part in the celebrations planned in Kabul. In early August they are scheduled to accompany a team of international climbers as guides, and, to them, such employment in the short summer season is impossible to pass up.
The Afghan members of the climbing team have known only hardship for most of their adult lives. Afiyat, for example, lost his father at a young age, forcing him to leave school and find work as a mason to support his mother and siblings. During the conflict against the Taliban, he joined the mujahideen, working for one of the commanders of the legendary Ahmed Shah Masood.
After 2001 and the removal of the Taliban, he trained and became a skilled master mason. What Afiyat dreamed of though, was his father’s tales of working with foreign visitors. When the Italian mountaineer and author Pinelli arrived in his village, looking to revive mountaineering among Afghans and train them as guides, Afiyat immediately signed up.
"When I first went climbing I had no idea that special shoes were needed, or how much mountaineering equipment cost," he said. His dream has always been to be among the first Afghans to scale the Noshaq and though he did not reach the summit, he is still part of the unique team.
Making the Afghan conquest of the Noshaq economically feasible were the Frenchmen, two of whom, Meunier and Veyret, joined the expedition. Before setting off, Meunier explained their rationale to EurasiaNet. "It is a symbolic expedition, to plant an Afghan flag as a symbol of hope and achievement for Afghanistan." The mission, he said, hopes to send a message of peace and illustrate "the determination of Afghans to overcome difficulties and bring peace and success to a country torn apart by 30 years of war."
From the base camp on July 20, Meunier said the expedition was getting ready for a party. "We feel Noshaq is the centre of the world. It feels like the first man on the moon."
Aunohita Mojumdar 7/21/09
It may not be a feat that matches walking on the moon, but a small group of Afghan villagers are nevertheless stoking national pride in their war-ravaged nation. The group has become the first local expedition to successfully scale Afghanistan’s tallest peak, the Noshaq, situated in the remote northeastern Badakhshan region.
Wakhis -- as the inhabitants of the valleys abutting Pakistan, Tajikistan and China are called -- had long dreamed of scaling the peak near their home villages. A group of local men finally planted the Afghan tricolor flag on the summit on July 19. With this feat, Malang, a cook by profession and Amruddin, a farmer, set an exciting example for others to emulate, as well as highlighted their country’s tourism and adventure travel potential.
Malang, speaking to EurasiaNet on a satellite phone from the base camp on the evening of July 20, said he was very happy to have made it to the top and "to become a part of the history of my country." The name of the expedition ’Afghans to the Top’ has exemplified not just this climb, but the lives of these ordinary Afghans who have achieved what was long thought impossible in a land which usually makes news only for its enduring conflict.
Noshaq is the second highest peak in the Hindu Kush range. At 7,492 meters (24,580 feet), it surpasses the highest mountains in both North America and Europe -- the 6,194-meter Mt. McKinley in Alaska (20,320 feet), and 5,642-meter Mt. Elbrus (18,510 feet) in the Caucasus range -- respectively. Even the third base camp, which two other Afghan team members -- Afiyat, a mason and Gurg Ali, a teacher -- also reached, sits at 6,902 meters.
The expedition began on July 2 in the village of Qazideh, close to the entrance of the Wakhan Corridor, a narrow finger of land that once provided a buffer zone between Tsarist Russia and British India. Its isolation made it a formidable boundary, surrounded as it was by the Hindu Kush, Pamir and Karakoram ranges.
Their journey began nearly two years ago. It was stoked by the Afghans’ hopes and the vision of a trio of young Frenchmen -- Louis Meunier, Jerome Veyret and Nicolas Fasquell -- living and working in Afghanistan.
The mountain ranges in the Wakhan Corridor have long been a draw for mountaineers. A Japanese team first reached the summit of the Noshaq in 1960. The relatively clear weather in the short summer season makes the area ideal for climbing, writes Italian mountaineer Carlo Alberto Pinelli in his book ’Peaks of Silver and Jade,’ which he authored in 2007 with a view to attracting climbers.
The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, starting in 1979, caused visitors to stay away. Few have ventured into the area since then. In the late 1990s, Badakhshan suffered during the Taliban era, as it was a stronghold of resistance to the rule of the militant Islamic movement.
Despite continuing conflict in other areas of post-Taliban Afghanistan, the Wakhan Corridor itself is considered stable and secure, and is easily accessible through Tajikistan.
But the area lacks infrastructure and suffers from widespread poverty. Its semiarid climate supports only subsistence agriculture and its topography makes access to health, education and markets difficult. For the four Wakhis on this expedition, mountaineering is not an indulgence. Their relationship with the mountains is much more elemental and they have not had the luxury of years of climbing or practice sessions with fancy equipment.
Over the past few years, the Wakhan has seen a steady stream of visitors, mainly internationals living and working in Afghanistan who have been lured by its beauty, its wilderness, and its virgin peaks. Wakhis hope more will come once this climbing achievement draws attention to the place.
Despite having been a part of the team that climbed Noshaq, Afiyat and Gurg Ali will not be taking part in the celebrations planned in Kabul. In early August they are scheduled to accompany a team of international climbers as guides, and, to them, such employment in the short summer season is impossible to pass up.
The Afghan members of the climbing team have known only hardship for most of their adult lives. Afiyat, for example, lost his father at a young age, forcing him to leave school and find work as a mason to support his mother and siblings. During the conflict against the Taliban, he joined the mujahideen, working for one of the commanders of the legendary Ahmed Shah Masood.
After 2001 and the removal of the Taliban, he trained and became a skilled master mason. What Afiyat dreamed of though, was his father’s tales of working with foreign visitors. When the Italian mountaineer and author Pinelli arrived in his village, looking to revive mountaineering among Afghans and train them as guides, Afiyat immediately signed up.
"When I first went climbing I had no idea that special shoes were needed, or how much mountaineering equipment cost," he said. His dream has always been to be among the first Afghans to scale the Noshaq and though he did not reach the summit, he is still part of the unique team.
Making the Afghan conquest of the Noshaq economically feasible were the Frenchmen, two of whom, Meunier and Veyret, joined the expedition. Before setting off, Meunier explained their rationale to EurasiaNet. "It is a symbolic expedition, to plant an Afghan flag as a symbol of hope and achievement for Afghanistan." The mission, he said, hopes to send a message of peace and illustrate "the determination of Afghans to overcome difficulties and bring peace and success to a country torn apart by 30 years of war."
From the base camp on July 20, Meunier said the expedition was getting ready for a party. "We feel Noshaq is the centre of the world. It feels like the first man on the moon."
AFGHANISTAN: UNITED NATIONS REPORT HIGHLIGHTS PROBLEM OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Eurasia Insight:
Aunohita Mojumdar: 7/15/09
One of the first women to be elected to a public post in conservative Afghanistan, Zarghuna Kakar serves as a member of the provincial council in Kandahar. Public service has come at a high price for her. She and her husband were attacked and her husband killed in a Kandahar market, and she now fears for her own life and wonders why she ever entered politics.
In the western province of Herat, Maria Bashir receives threats in connection with her official duties as the chief prosecutor, the sole female prosecutor in Afghanistan. In her job she has to witness terrible things. "I have seen women who immolated themselves out of despair. I cannot forget those images," she said, adding that peril is a constant part of her life. "If we women do not accept risks and work, no changes will happen," Bashir adds.
Contrary to perception that threats to women in Afghanistan originate primarily from the Taliban's restrictive interpretation of Islam, a new UN report shows that the risks to women in Afghanistan are growing under President Hamid Karzai's administration. It also shows that the perpetrators of the violence come from all sectors of society, not just from among Islamic militants. Aptly named 'Silence is Violence,' the report also documents how the lack of condemnation or action to counter this violence on the part of society at large -- and government institutions and leaders in particular -- is helping perpetuate and intensify it.
At considerable risk to themselves, both Bashir and Kakar were in Kabul on July 8 for the report's release. Yet they were the lucky ones. Women in public places are being increasingly targeted. And many women in high-profile positions have already perished as they tried to build civil society in Afghanistan. Among the most prominent women to have been assassinated are; Malali Kakar, a senior police officer in Kandahar; Sitara Achakzai, a provincial council member in Kandahar; Zakia Zaki who ran a radio station in Jabal-e Saraj, an hour north of Kabul; and Shakia Sanga Amaj, a newsreader at a Kabul TV station. Countless others have been silenced by threats and fear, opting to censor themselves rather than put their lives and families at risk.
The UN's Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in the joint report, acknowledge for the first time the real and growing threat to Afghan women. Norah Niland, the head of UNAMA's human rights unit told EurasiaNet that the report was "trying to shine a light on the problem." A past verbal commitment needs to be followed by "real investment [and] practical measures to improve the protection of women," she said.
The "Silence in Violence" report demonstrates that the problems faced by women in Afghanistan are not rooted in cultural nuances, but constitute basic breaches of the right to life, liberty and basic protection.
In an interview with EurasiaNet, Dr. Sima Samar, the chairperson of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, offered explanations as to why the violence-against-women issue has not received sufficient international attention. A major reason, she explained, was that the perception of cultural differences made Western experts and officials skittish about commenting on Afghan practices. Another reason, according to Samar, was the argument that it was more important to "have security rather than human rights. This is an absolutely wrong concept since you need human rights for sustainable peace."
Apart from the UN, there has also been some change in the perspective of other international actors, most notably the United States. While the Bush Administration seemed focused solely on promoting success stories, the Obama administration's approach has been more nuanced. Following a recent visit to Afghanistan, the US Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues, Melanne Verveer said, "there is progress in some areas, but not in others. Security remains a paramount challenge. Violence against women and girls is endemic and much remains to be done, including access to institutions of justice, civil education and prosecution of the crimes."
The new UN report states that the pattern of violence against women operating in the public sphere sends a strong message to all women to stay at home. The report states that sexual violence against Afghan women "is an everyday problem in all parts of the country" and a "human rights problem of profound proportions." Moreover, "women and girls are at risk of rape in their homes and in their communities, in detention facilities, and as a result of traditional harmful practices to resolve feuds within the family or community."
The report found that awareness of the criminal nature of the act of rape is very limited. In some areas, rapists are, or have links to, powerful individuals, and are thus protected from prosecution and arrest. Currently, Afghanistan's criminal justice system, based on the 1976 Afghan Penal Code does not have any specific provisions for the crime of rape. Rape is tried in the court under the provision of 'Zina,' defined as adultery or any sex outside marriage. It is up to the female victim to prove she did not consent. A new law is currently being drafted, but women's rights activists fear it may not reflect all their concerns, due to pressure from powerful conservative elements in society, the government, and the judiciary to limit the draft legislation's scope.
Aunohita Mojumdar: 7/15/09
One of the first women to be elected to a public post in conservative Afghanistan, Zarghuna Kakar serves as a member of the provincial council in Kandahar. Public service has come at a high price for her. She and her husband were attacked and her husband killed in a Kandahar market, and she now fears for her own life and wonders why she ever entered politics.
In the western province of Herat, Maria Bashir receives threats in connection with her official duties as the chief prosecutor, the sole female prosecutor in Afghanistan. In her job she has to witness terrible things. "I have seen women who immolated themselves out of despair. I cannot forget those images," she said, adding that peril is a constant part of her life. "If we women do not accept risks and work, no changes will happen," Bashir adds.
Contrary to perception that threats to women in Afghanistan originate primarily from the Taliban's restrictive interpretation of Islam, a new UN report shows that the risks to women in Afghanistan are growing under President Hamid Karzai's administration. It also shows that the perpetrators of the violence come from all sectors of society, not just from among Islamic militants. Aptly named 'Silence is Violence,' the report also documents how the lack of condemnation or action to counter this violence on the part of society at large -- and government institutions and leaders in particular -- is helping perpetuate and intensify it.
At considerable risk to themselves, both Bashir and Kakar were in Kabul on July 8 for the report's release. Yet they were the lucky ones. Women in public places are being increasingly targeted. And many women in high-profile positions have already perished as they tried to build civil society in Afghanistan. Among the most prominent women to have been assassinated are; Malali Kakar, a senior police officer in Kandahar; Sitara Achakzai, a provincial council member in Kandahar; Zakia Zaki who ran a radio station in Jabal-e Saraj, an hour north of Kabul; and Shakia Sanga Amaj, a newsreader at a Kabul TV station. Countless others have been silenced by threats and fear, opting to censor themselves rather than put their lives and families at risk.
The UN's Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in the joint report, acknowledge for the first time the real and growing threat to Afghan women. Norah Niland, the head of UNAMA's human rights unit told EurasiaNet that the report was "trying to shine a light on the problem." A past verbal commitment needs to be followed by "real investment [and] practical measures to improve the protection of women," she said.
The "Silence in Violence" report demonstrates that the problems faced by women in Afghanistan are not rooted in cultural nuances, but constitute basic breaches of the right to life, liberty and basic protection.
In an interview with EurasiaNet, Dr. Sima Samar, the chairperson of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, offered explanations as to why the violence-against-women issue has not received sufficient international attention. A major reason, she explained, was that the perception of cultural differences made Western experts and officials skittish about commenting on Afghan practices. Another reason, according to Samar, was the argument that it was more important to "have security rather than human rights. This is an absolutely wrong concept since you need human rights for sustainable peace."
Apart from the UN, there has also been some change in the perspective of other international actors, most notably the United States. While the Bush Administration seemed focused solely on promoting success stories, the Obama administration's approach has been more nuanced. Following a recent visit to Afghanistan, the US Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues, Melanne Verveer said, "there is progress in some areas, but not in others. Security remains a paramount challenge. Violence against women and girls is endemic and much remains to be done, including access to institutions of justice, civil education and prosecution of the crimes."
The new UN report states that the pattern of violence against women operating in the public sphere sends a strong message to all women to stay at home. The report states that sexual violence against Afghan women "is an everyday problem in all parts of the country" and a "human rights problem of profound proportions." Moreover, "women and girls are at risk of rape in their homes and in their communities, in detention facilities, and as a result of traditional harmful practices to resolve feuds within the family or community."
The report found that awareness of the criminal nature of the act of rape is very limited. In some areas, rapists are, or have links to, powerful individuals, and are thus protected from prosecution and arrest. Currently, Afghanistan's criminal justice system, based on the 1976 Afghan Penal Code does not have any specific provisions for the crime of rape. Rape is tried in the court under the provision of 'Zina,' defined as adultery or any sex outside marriage. It is up to the female victim to prove she did not consent. A new law is currently being drafted, but women's rights activists fear it may not reflect all their concerns, due to pressure from powerful conservative elements in society, the government, and the judiciary to limit the draft legislation's scope.
New UN report takes firm stand on women's rights in Afghanistan
The 'Silence is Violence' report documents the failure of state institutions to protect women from increasing violence in public spaces.
By Aunohita Mojumdar | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the July 8, 2009 edition
Kabul, Afghanistan - Widespread violence against women in Afghanistan is being ignored in a culture of impunity that neither challenges nor condemns this violence, says the United Nations in a new report calling for an end to the prevailing abuse.
Wednesday's report, titled "Silence is Violence," documents the increasingly insecure environment for women in public spaces and the failure of state institutions to deal with it.
Despite claims to the contrary, say advocates, women's rights have been viewed as a luxury by an international community reluctant to question those in power for fear of upsetting Afghanistan's fragile coalition government and delaying stability. But this document, which was co-written by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNHCR) and the UN's Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), treads new ground by directly confronting the issue.
The argument that it's more important to "have security rather than human rights ... is absolutely the wrong concept, since you need human rights for sustainable peace," says Dr. Sima Samar, the chairperson of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, explaining that the denial of women's rights is usually on the grounds of culture and tradition.
Perpetrators from all walks of life, says report
The report documents violence that inhibits participation of women in public life, identifying perpetrators as antigovernment elements, local traditional and religious power holders, women's own families and communities and, in some instances, government authorities. Sexual violence against women was found to be perpetrated by close family members, staff of prisons and rehabilitation centers, military commanders, and members of illegal armed groups and criminal gangs.
"The pattern of attacks against women operating in the public sphere sends a strong message to all women to stay at home," says the report. "This has obvious ramifications for the transformation of Afghanistan, the stated priority of Afghan authorities, and their international supporters."
Less talk, more action, say advocates
"Rhetoric [has not been] matched by reality," says the head of UNAMA's human rights unit, Norah Niland. "There has been a verbal commitment, and now we need real investment in practical measures. Unless the negative trends are challenged, they will get worse."
The UN report and its message were backed at the highest level of the UN's presence in Afghanistan. It was released in the residence of the UN secretary-general's special representative, Kai Eide, the top UN diplomat in Afghanistan.
In his remarks, Mr. Eide stopped short of blaming Afghan government institutions, but said the issue of violence against women in Afghanistan was not being faced and was holding the country back.
A little star power adds punch
Adding oomph to the report's release Wednesday was the presence of Indian actress Shabana Azmi, who spoke of the similarity of challenges in India and drew an appreciative response from Afghan women, many of whom have grown up watching her movies.
Officials within the large UN community deployed in Afghanistan, who have been advocating greater attention on the issue of women's rights, expressed cautious optimism about the UN's willingness to take a firm stand. Said one senior UN diplomat who declined to be named: "This is good, but let's see how far it goes."
By Aunohita Mojumdar | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the July 8, 2009 edition
Kabul, Afghanistan - Widespread violence against women in Afghanistan is being ignored in a culture of impunity that neither challenges nor condemns this violence, says the United Nations in a new report calling for an end to the prevailing abuse.
Wednesday's report, titled "Silence is Violence," documents the increasingly insecure environment for women in public spaces and the failure of state institutions to deal with it.
Despite claims to the contrary, say advocates, women's rights have been viewed as a luxury by an international community reluctant to question those in power for fear of upsetting Afghanistan's fragile coalition government and delaying stability. But this document, which was co-written by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNHCR) and the UN's Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), treads new ground by directly confronting the issue.
The argument that it's more important to "have security rather than human rights ... is absolutely the wrong concept, since you need human rights for sustainable peace," says Dr. Sima Samar, the chairperson of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, explaining that the denial of women's rights is usually on the grounds of culture and tradition.
Perpetrators from all walks of life, says report
The report documents violence that inhibits participation of women in public life, identifying perpetrators as antigovernment elements, local traditional and religious power holders, women's own families and communities and, in some instances, government authorities. Sexual violence against women was found to be perpetrated by close family members, staff of prisons and rehabilitation centers, military commanders, and members of illegal armed groups and criminal gangs.
"The pattern of attacks against women operating in the public sphere sends a strong message to all women to stay at home," says the report. "This has obvious ramifications for the transformation of Afghanistan, the stated priority of Afghan authorities, and their international supporters."
Less talk, more action, say advocates
"Rhetoric [has not been] matched by reality," says the head of UNAMA's human rights unit, Norah Niland. "There has been a verbal commitment, and now we need real investment in practical measures. Unless the negative trends are challenged, they will get worse."
The UN report and its message were backed at the highest level of the UN's presence in Afghanistan. It was released in the residence of the UN secretary-general's special representative, Kai Eide, the top UN diplomat in Afghanistan.
In his remarks, Mr. Eide stopped short of blaming Afghan government institutions, but said the issue of violence against women in Afghanistan was not being faced and was holding the country back.
A little star power adds punch
Adding oomph to the report's release Wednesday was the presence of Indian actress Shabana Azmi, who spoke of the similarity of challenges in India and drew an appreciative response from Afghan women, many of whom have grown up watching her movies.
Officials within the large UN community deployed in Afghanistan, who have been advocating greater attention on the issue of women's rights, expressed cautious optimism about the UN's willingness to take a firm stand. Said one senior UN diplomat who declined to be named: "This is good, but let's see how far it goes."
AFGHANISTAN: PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS BECOME A SOURCE OF PUBLIC SCORN
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar 7/08/09
A recent shootout in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar that left 10 people dead is helping to focus attention on the issue of private security companies, and the existing lack of accountability concerning their activities.
The June 29 incident in Kandahar involved security contractors employed by coalition military forces. A group of the contractors attacked a local police station apparently in an attempt to free a colleague who had been taken into custody for supposedly forging documents. In addition to two senior police officers, eight civilians died in the armed confrontation. Hours after the shootout, Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued a statement asking the US-led coalition forces to hand over the private security contractors suspected of involvement in the killings. Later, 41 Afghan security contractors were placed under arrest.
Representatives of coalition forces emphasized that no foreign troops and no "foreign nationals" were involved in the incident. A coalition spokesman went on to characterize the attack as "Afghan on Afghan."
Nevertheless, the attack is prompting heightened scrutiny of the coalition practice of employing de-mobilized local militiamen to provide security. Up to 3,000 former Afghan militia fighters are directly employed by the US military in Operation Enduring Freedom, according to an estimate prepared by Swisspeace, a research outfit focusing on conflict resolution.
In the absence of adequate troop levels and well-trained Afghan forces, international militaries and civilian agencies have used private security firms to protect their personnel and assets since 2001. Given the growing international presence and spiraling insecurity in recent years, the security sector has proven to be highly lucrative. Accordingly, the number of private security companies mushroomed.
Early this year, 39 companies -- 21 of them foreign-based -- were licensed under regulations issued in 2008. However, loopholes in criminal jurisdiction and accountability allow many security firms to operate in a gray area, seemingly beyond the reach of the Afghan justice system. Some companies, which did not, or could not obtain licenses, reportedly continue to operate with impunity. In some instances, private security contractors employed by foreign militaries or diplomatic missions enjoy immunity.
There are several instances in which security contractors have avoided facing Afghan justice in connection with deadly incidents. For example, on May 5, a shooting in Kabul left one civilian dead and injured two others. The four American Xe (formerly Blackwater) contractors involved left the country after an initial "detention" period, during which the US military carried out its own investigation. The findings of that investigation have not been made public.
Earlier, on an April visit to Afghanistan to gauge the impact of the private security companies on the Afghan population, the UN’s working group on the use of mercenaries, suggested contractors involved in such shootings should leave the country to placate critics. Group leader Alexander Nikitin said that “when foreign nationals working in these companies are involved in some problems with the local population” it was important that “the companies recognized that the Afghan authorities have the right to expel individuals from the country, individuals working for the companies, if these foreigners were involved in any violations on Afghan territory.” While not addressing the question of further criminal prosecution, Nikitin added that, “this should become a normal practice if the system of monitoring is to work more and more intensively over time.”
The expulsion or escape, as it may be seen locally, of these personnel however rankles an Afghan population with no means of pursuing justice. Anger among Afghans against private security firms has steadily escalated over the past few years, due to what is seen as unwarranted aggression and thuggish behavior. While incidents involving the use of lethal force usually manage to make their way into the public discourse, the routine harassment and bullying behavior of security contractors, involving contact with Afghan civilians, usually goes undocumented and unreported. For example, private security firms are widely loathed among Afghans for indiscriminately closing roads, setting up private checkpoints, commanding civilian vehicles off the road and frequently using the barrel of a gun to keep Afghans at bay.
While no representative of a private security company would publicly comment, some said privately that they would welcome tighter regulations. Several representatives complained that in the absence of such regulations, their firms end up being tarred with the same brush as the more brutish firms.
The absence of a comprehensive legislative framework is widely seen as one impediment to reform. A bill containing a new set of regulations for private contractors is currently stuck in parliament.
Incidents involving private contractors are expected to increase as more foreign troops arrive in Afghanistan, senior military and UN officials tell EurasiaNet. In his quarterly Afghanistan report issued on June 23, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon predicted an upsurge of violence. "The significant increase in Afghan and international troops fighting the insurgents could also result in an increase in security incidents," the secretary-general said.
With the increase in violence and the winding down of operations in Iraq, Afghans fear a surge of foreign security contractors will arrive in Afghanistan looking for work. That would be an unwelcome development to Interior Minister Muhammad Hanif Atmar. Following a visit to Kandahar after the June 29 incident, the minister declared that illegal militias were "intolerable" and should be disarmed immediately. This, however, seems easier said than done
Aunohita Mojumdar 7/08/09
A recent shootout in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar that left 10 people dead is helping to focus attention on the issue of private security companies, and the existing lack of accountability concerning their activities.
The June 29 incident in Kandahar involved security contractors employed by coalition military forces. A group of the contractors attacked a local police station apparently in an attempt to free a colleague who had been taken into custody for supposedly forging documents. In addition to two senior police officers, eight civilians died in the armed confrontation. Hours after the shootout, Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued a statement asking the US-led coalition forces to hand over the private security contractors suspected of involvement in the killings. Later, 41 Afghan security contractors were placed under arrest.
Representatives of coalition forces emphasized that no foreign troops and no "foreign nationals" were involved in the incident. A coalition spokesman went on to characterize the attack as "Afghan on Afghan."
Nevertheless, the attack is prompting heightened scrutiny of the coalition practice of employing de-mobilized local militiamen to provide security. Up to 3,000 former Afghan militia fighters are directly employed by the US military in Operation Enduring Freedom, according to an estimate prepared by Swisspeace, a research outfit focusing on conflict resolution.
In the absence of adequate troop levels and well-trained Afghan forces, international militaries and civilian agencies have used private security firms to protect their personnel and assets since 2001. Given the growing international presence and spiraling insecurity in recent years, the security sector has proven to be highly lucrative. Accordingly, the number of private security companies mushroomed.
Early this year, 39 companies -- 21 of them foreign-based -- were licensed under regulations issued in 2008. However, loopholes in criminal jurisdiction and accountability allow many security firms to operate in a gray area, seemingly beyond the reach of the Afghan justice system. Some companies, which did not, or could not obtain licenses, reportedly continue to operate with impunity. In some instances, private security contractors employed by foreign militaries or diplomatic missions enjoy immunity.
There are several instances in which security contractors have avoided facing Afghan justice in connection with deadly incidents. For example, on May 5, a shooting in Kabul left one civilian dead and injured two others. The four American Xe (formerly Blackwater) contractors involved left the country after an initial "detention" period, during which the US military carried out its own investigation. The findings of that investigation have not been made public.
Earlier, on an April visit to Afghanistan to gauge the impact of the private security companies on the Afghan population, the UN’s working group on the use of mercenaries, suggested contractors involved in such shootings should leave the country to placate critics. Group leader Alexander Nikitin said that “when foreign nationals working in these companies are involved in some problems with the local population” it was important that “the companies recognized that the Afghan authorities have the right to expel individuals from the country, individuals working for the companies, if these foreigners were involved in any violations on Afghan territory.” While not addressing the question of further criminal prosecution, Nikitin added that, “this should become a normal practice if the system of monitoring is to work more and more intensively over time.”
The expulsion or escape, as it may be seen locally, of these personnel however rankles an Afghan population with no means of pursuing justice. Anger among Afghans against private security firms has steadily escalated over the past few years, due to what is seen as unwarranted aggression and thuggish behavior. While incidents involving the use of lethal force usually manage to make their way into the public discourse, the routine harassment and bullying behavior of security contractors, involving contact with Afghan civilians, usually goes undocumented and unreported. For example, private security firms are widely loathed among Afghans for indiscriminately closing roads, setting up private checkpoints, commanding civilian vehicles off the road and frequently using the barrel of a gun to keep Afghans at bay.
While no representative of a private security company would publicly comment, some said privately that they would welcome tighter regulations. Several representatives complained that in the absence of such regulations, their firms end up being tarred with the same brush as the more brutish firms.
The absence of a comprehensive legislative framework is widely seen as one impediment to reform. A bill containing a new set of regulations for private contractors is currently stuck in parliament.
Incidents involving private contractors are expected to increase as more foreign troops arrive in Afghanistan, senior military and UN officials tell EurasiaNet. In his quarterly Afghanistan report issued on June 23, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon predicted an upsurge of violence. "The significant increase in Afghan and international troops fighting the insurgents could also result in an increase in security incidents," the secretary-general said.
With the increase in violence and the winding down of operations in Iraq, Afghans fear a surge of foreign security contractors will arrive in Afghanistan looking for work. That would be an unwelcome development to Interior Minister Muhammad Hanif Atmar. Following a visit to Kandahar after the June 29 incident, the minister declared that illegal militias were "intolerable" and should be disarmed immediately. This, however, seems easier said than done
Afghan climbers hope to make history
BBC News July 1
By Aunohita Mojumdar
BBC News, Kabul
It sounds like an old joke - a farmer, a cook, a mason and a schoolteacher go climbing together.
But this unlikely foursome from the Wakhi community in north-eastern Afghanistan hopes to make mountaineering history.
On Thursday, they aim to become the first ever Afghans to scale the country's highest mountain peak, Mount Noshaq, in a remote corner of Badakshan province.
At 7,492m (25,000 ft), Noshaq is the second-highest peak of the famous Hindu Kush range - only just topped by the tallest summit, Tirich Mir.
Mt Noshaq is located at the beginning of the Wakhan corridor, the tiny strip of land jutting out of Afghanistan, like a finger pointing towards China, a corridor that separated British Imperial India from Tsarist Russia.
From mujahideen to mountaineering
In the 1960s and 1970s the mountain peaks along the Wakhan were an international draw.
“ I didn't know we needed special equipment or special shoes - I just started climbing ”
Afiyat Khan Afghan mountaineer
Three decades of war, however, ended that.
International teams abandoned the area as many Afghans struggled for survival.
Among them was Afiyat Khan.
Losing his father at a young age, he dropped out of school and signed up with the mujahideen, joining Northern Alliance commanders in the only area of the country to keep the Taliban at bay.
He emerged from the war to become a skilled master mason.
But stories of his father, who worked with visiting tourists, stayed with him.
"I just had the idea that someday I wanted to climb the mountains," he recalled.
The opportunity came in 2002 when an accomplished Italian climber, Carlo Alberto Pinelli, came to revive mountaineering in Afghanistan, and train local Afghan youths.
Mr Khan joined immediately.
"At that time I didn't know we needed special equipment or special shoes. I just started climbing."
Since then he has been to the Alps on several professional training courses - the latest in April and May.
Mt Noshaq was first ascended in 1960 by a Japanese team and most recently tackled, by a European-led expedition, in 2003.
But the peak has never been conquered by Afghans before.
Making the July expedition possible is a young group of Frenchmen who have been living and working in Afghanistan for the past several years: Louis Meunier, Jerome Veyret and Nicolas Fasquelleis.
'Symbol of hope'
"This is a symbolic expedition," said Mr Meunier who was in Kabul last week to finish buying supplies and equipment.
"The idea is to plant an Afghan flag at the top, as a symbol of hope and achievement in Afghanistan."
“ There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain ”
Afghan proverb
The expedition is being launched under the aegis of the Rome-based organisation, Mountain Wilderness and the French national Alpine skiing school among others, but has been organised by the three Frenchmen.
The team comprises the four Afghan climbers and two experienced international guides as well as Mr Munier and Mr Veyret.
It aims to "send a message of peace and hope and to foster national pride and unity".
"This will be a strong positive message illustrating the determination of Afghans to overcome difficulties and bring peace and success to a country torn apart by 30 years of war," the expedition's mission statement says.
There is also a more concrete aim. They hope to pave the way for more high-altitude adventures and sustainable tourism in the area.
Despite the violence in other parts of the country, the Wakhan region has remained safe.
Tourism here has been growing steadily, with visitors lured by the area's spectacular beauty and its gentle inhabitants.
The area is surrounded by the Pamir, the Karakoram and the Hindu Kush mountain range, which lies between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and each valley is distinct.
'Luck and pluck'
Add to that the pristine peaks and beautiful rivers, and there is every reason for it to prove catnip to tourists and climbers in search of pastures new.
Increased tourism would give a welcome cash injection.
The inhabitants of the Wakhan corridor live off subsistence agriculture and herding, with the semi-arid zone yielding few crops.
No-one knows this better than the four Wakhis about to attempt the Noshaq.
Mr Khan himself has worked as a porter on previous expeditions.
Now their own mission will bring short-term employment to the 80 porters who will accompany them to base camp.
Training in the Alps, none of the four has climbed heights beyond 6,000m (20,000 ft).
Much of the success of the attempt will depend on good weather, luck and sheer pluck.
Despite a short warm season, the weather in the area is considered ideal for climbing, as is the short distance from the road to base camp.
Adopted as the motto of the expedition is an Afghan proverb that seems to echo not just the determination of the mission, but even the lives of the climbers.
It simply says: "There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain."
By Aunohita Mojumdar
BBC News, Kabul
It sounds like an old joke - a farmer, a cook, a mason and a schoolteacher go climbing together.
But this unlikely foursome from the Wakhi community in north-eastern Afghanistan hopes to make mountaineering history.
On Thursday, they aim to become the first ever Afghans to scale the country's highest mountain peak, Mount Noshaq, in a remote corner of Badakshan province.
At 7,492m (25,000 ft), Noshaq is the second-highest peak of the famous Hindu Kush range - only just topped by the tallest summit, Tirich Mir.
Mt Noshaq is located at the beginning of the Wakhan corridor, the tiny strip of land jutting out of Afghanistan, like a finger pointing towards China, a corridor that separated British Imperial India from Tsarist Russia.
From mujahideen to mountaineering
In the 1960s and 1970s the mountain peaks along the Wakhan were an international draw.
“ I didn't know we needed special equipment or special shoes - I just started climbing ”
Afiyat Khan Afghan mountaineer
Three decades of war, however, ended that.
International teams abandoned the area as many Afghans struggled for survival.
Among them was Afiyat Khan.
Losing his father at a young age, he dropped out of school and signed up with the mujahideen, joining Northern Alliance commanders in the only area of the country to keep the Taliban at bay.
He emerged from the war to become a skilled master mason.
But stories of his father, who worked with visiting tourists, stayed with him.
"I just had the idea that someday I wanted to climb the mountains," he recalled.
The opportunity came in 2002 when an accomplished Italian climber, Carlo Alberto Pinelli, came to revive mountaineering in Afghanistan, and train local Afghan youths.
Mr Khan joined immediately.
"At that time I didn't know we needed special equipment or special shoes. I just started climbing."
Since then he has been to the Alps on several professional training courses - the latest in April and May.
Mt Noshaq was first ascended in 1960 by a Japanese team and most recently tackled, by a European-led expedition, in 2003.
But the peak has never been conquered by Afghans before.
Making the July expedition possible is a young group of Frenchmen who have been living and working in Afghanistan for the past several years: Louis Meunier, Jerome Veyret and Nicolas Fasquelleis.
'Symbol of hope'
"This is a symbolic expedition," said Mr Meunier who was in Kabul last week to finish buying supplies and equipment.
"The idea is to plant an Afghan flag at the top, as a symbol of hope and achievement in Afghanistan."
“ There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain ”
Afghan proverb
The expedition is being launched under the aegis of the Rome-based organisation, Mountain Wilderness and the French national Alpine skiing school among others, but has been organised by the three Frenchmen.
The team comprises the four Afghan climbers and two experienced international guides as well as Mr Munier and Mr Veyret.
It aims to "send a message of peace and hope and to foster national pride and unity".
"This will be a strong positive message illustrating the determination of Afghans to overcome difficulties and bring peace and success to a country torn apart by 30 years of war," the expedition's mission statement says.
There is also a more concrete aim. They hope to pave the way for more high-altitude adventures and sustainable tourism in the area.
Despite the violence in other parts of the country, the Wakhan region has remained safe.
Tourism here has been growing steadily, with visitors lured by the area's spectacular beauty and its gentle inhabitants.
The area is surrounded by the Pamir, the Karakoram and the Hindu Kush mountain range, which lies between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and each valley is distinct.
'Luck and pluck'
Add to that the pristine peaks and beautiful rivers, and there is every reason for it to prove catnip to tourists and climbers in search of pastures new.
Increased tourism would give a welcome cash injection.
The inhabitants of the Wakhan corridor live off subsistence agriculture and herding, with the semi-arid zone yielding few crops.
No-one knows this better than the four Wakhis about to attempt the Noshaq.
Mr Khan himself has worked as a porter on previous expeditions.
Now their own mission will bring short-term employment to the 80 porters who will accompany them to base camp.
Training in the Alps, none of the four has climbed heights beyond 6,000m (20,000 ft).
Much of the success of the attempt will depend on good weather, luck and sheer pluck.
Despite a short warm season, the weather in the area is considered ideal for climbing, as is the short distance from the road to base camp.
Adopted as the motto of the expedition is an Afghan proverb that seems to echo not just the determination of the mission, but even the lives of the climbers.
It simply says: "There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain."
Fighting season
Himal July 2009
By: Aunohita Mojumdar
As everyone braces for a bloody summer, the new US administration has shaken up its top military command in Afghanistan. But is the continued focus on the military intervention still too predominant?
The commemoration of World Refugee Day, on 20 June, was marked in Afghanistan by an announcement by the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, that the movement of people across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border had changed in character for the first time since the beginning of the conflict, when Russia imposed a government in 1978. Instead of the ‘classical’ movement of Afghan refugees crossing into Pakistan, a recent study by the agency suggested, this movement was now becoming increasingly ‘normalised’, with most of the crossborder movement that of economic migrants rather than those fleeing war. Yet while the agency’s country office touted this as a positive trend, behind the numbers is another story.
An understanding of the complexity of the situation seems to be tacit within UNHCR, as well. As the agency’s Afghanistan director, Ewen Macleod, pointed out, “People are moving increasingly for social and economic purposes to and from Afghanistan. But this does not mean that the factors that can give rise to refugee flight or internal displacement have been fully overcome.” The findings of the study, which mapped the border crossings at Torkham and Spin Boldak, could largely be a result of the fact that Pakistan is not only unwilling to continue to host Afghan refugees, but is also pressuring the remaining refugees to leave the country. With camps forcibly shut down, harassment from the authorities and the deteriorating economic and security situation within Pakistan, Afghans have little option but to head back to their own country.
Those who were forced to flee within Afghanistan are now forced to take shelter in another part of the country, thus becoming what the jargon would describe as ‘internally displaced persons’. According to UNHCR, precise figures about the number of such IDPs within Afghanistan are hard to come by, as access to insecure areas is limited and many ‘displacements’ last for only a short period. However, the estimates of those displaced internally during the last three decades of conflict by violence, drought and poverty, and those recently displaced by fighting in the southern provinces, is conservatively estimated to be 235,000.
Such numbers have, unsurprisingly, caught the attention of the very top levels of the international community. The situation has been so acute that it prompted the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, to warn in mid-June that the refugee situations around the world “do not include the millions more uprooted people who are displaced within their own countries and who far outnumber the world’s refugees. Many of them have also been unable to return home, sometimes for decades.” Guterres continued: “Although international law distinguishes between refugees and the internally displaced, such distinctions are absurd to those who have been forced from their homes and who have lost everything. Uprooted people are equally deserving of help whether they have crossed an international border or not.”
US military dominance
Many within Afghanistan humanitarian agencies expect that the increased fighting following the influx of some 20,000 additional US troops in recent months will result in greater displacement. In a joint report issued in early April, a number of reputed international humanitarian agencies warned that social protection and access to basic services were being adversely affected by the widening conflict, “with significant levels of displacement and severe disruption of health and education services”. The report, released by agencies such as Oxfam, Care International, ActionAid and DACAAR, continued: “Planned increases in troops and military operations during 2009 are likely to lead to higher levels of displacement, further restrictions on social services and greater impediments for aid agencies to reach civilians in need of protection and assistance.” Yet, such considerations were not being adequately factored into international security strategies, the agencies warned.
There is one thing that the various aid agencies and military actors agree upon, however. There is common expectation of increased violence and of still-bloodier fighting over the summer of 2009. Still, there is almost no agreement on the assumed impact of this fighting, nor how to deal with it. While the military forces expect that civilian aid will be used in support of military operations, both to mitigate the losses incurred during fighting and development work in the areas ‘cleared’ by the military, civilian aid agencies, especially humanitarian organisations, would like to distance themselves further from the military as the fighting intensifies.
Much of the unfolding scenario will depend on the US and the strategy adopted by the Barack Obama administration, the impact of which is yet to be felt. In recent weeks, the only significant change has been on the military front, with an abrupt replacement of the US commander in Afghanistan. On 11 May, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates fired General David McKiernan unceremoniously, appointing Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal in his place. While the need for fresh thinking was officially touted as the reason for the change, (Gen McKiernan is considered an expert in ‘conventional’ warfare, and thus was seen as unfit for the types of battles being waged in Afghanistan), many see this as indicating a shift in US military strategy. Until his new charge, Gen McChrystal was commanding the US military’s Joint Special Operations Command. He is credited both with the capture of Saddam Hussein and the operation that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.
While this would appear to dovetail into the professed aims of the US to go after al-Qaeda and high-value Taliban targets, Gen McChrystal has been at pains to signal a change in operating tactics with greater emphasis on civilian safety. Soon after taking command in mid-June, he began by emphasising the need to avoid civilian casualties, saying protection of civilians – rather than body counts – would be his yardstick of success. While some have welcomed this as a departure from the recent trend of military operations and the use of air power that were resulting in an increasing number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan (and frontier areas in Pakistan), there is a fair degree of scepticism about the oft-repeated rhetoric, which many criticise as not addressing the situation on the ground.
The changeover has allowed the new command to be at least partially critical of last month’s US air strikes in the western province of Farah. Afghan government authorities have claimed this to be the highest civilian death toll ever by international air strikes – forcing the payment of compensation to over 140 families. While the US military command has suggested that civilian casualties were much lower, it has admitted that ‘standard operating procedures’ may have been violated.
Less visible has been the restructuring of the command structure of the international troops operating in Afghanistan, backed by a NATO meeting in Brussels on 11-12 June. Under it, Gen McChrystal will focus on strategy while an intermediate headquarters responsible to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander will be established to take care of the day-to-day operations. This plan reportedly draws heavily on the US experience in Iraq. Along with the increase in American troops, expected to double to 68,000 by the end of the year, this new structure will represent a greater US domination over the military strategy in Afghanistan. Currently non-US troops constitute over half of the roughly 61,000 troops on the ground.
Quiet on the political front
Over the past few weeks, levels of violence have refused to dip in Afghanistan, and Gen McChrystal has termed the next 18 months as a decisive period. That upcoming year and a half will also be politically decisive for Afghanistan in more ways than one, as presidential and provincial-council elections, scheduled for August, will be followed by parliamentary elections next year. But the initial flurry of excitement over candidates has now subsided somewhat into a resignation that suggests that the incumbent president, Hamid Karzai, has stitched up the elections through a series of shrewd deals – not just with his supporters, but also with potential spoilers. While President Karzai’s unpopularity has been on the increase over the past two years, many Afghans seem resigned to what appears to be an inevitable outcome. Until the announcement of Mohammed Fahim as his running mate, President Karzai and Fahim, a former defence minister and vice-president, were thought to be at odds.
While the possibility of former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad (appointed by George W Bush), emerging as a presidential candidate has receded, his larger-than-life apparition still looms, with rumours of an appointment of a super chief executive to ‘assist’ the president. The Karzai administration has been careful neither to accept nor deny the possibility, while emphasising that any appointment would be within the bounds of the Afghan Constitution. But the possibility of a Bush administration official emerging as a key official within the Afghan administration is not the only unique feature of the upcoming Afghan elections. According to the Election Complaints Commission, “Fifty-five candidates didn’t meet Article 15.3 of the Electoral Law for having links to or commanding unofficial military forces; plus one candidate had both criminal conviction as well as [being] found not comply[ing] under Article 15.3. And, one candidate was found to have [a] second nationality.”
The end of the candidate-vetting procedure saw over 40 contenders for the post of president. But only two of them – former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah – are popularly accepted as serious challengers. Abdullah, a former Northern Alliance leader, received a fresh shot in the arm on 20 June, when the governor of the northern province of Balkh, Atta Mohammed, extended his support. Atta, as he is commonly known, was also a former Northern Alliance leader, and is considered to be an efficient if somewhat autocratic governor.
While a fragmented opposition puts President Karzai far ahead two months before the polls, it is not yet clear whether he will be able to secure 51 percent of the votes in the first round of polling, particularly if multiple opposition candidates split the vote share. If he gets less than that number, Afghanistan’s electoral law would require a second round of polling. It is then that the contest could see a polarisation between two candidates – a potent chance for the opposition, or a simple anti-Karzai vote, to unite behind a single candidate.
By: Aunohita Mojumdar
As everyone braces for a bloody summer, the new US administration has shaken up its top military command in Afghanistan. But is the continued focus on the military intervention still too predominant?
The commemoration of World Refugee Day, on 20 June, was marked in Afghanistan by an announcement by the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, that the movement of people across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border had changed in character for the first time since the beginning of the conflict, when Russia imposed a government in 1978. Instead of the ‘classical’ movement of Afghan refugees crossing into Pakistan, a recent study by the agency suggested, this movement was now becoming increasingly ‘normalised’, with most of the crossborder movement that of economic migrants rather than those fleeing war. Yet while the agency’s country office touted this as a positive trend, behind the numbers is another story.
An understanding of the complexity of the situation seems to be tacit within UNHCR, as well. As the agency’s Afghanistan director, Ewen Macleod, pointed out, “People are moving increasingly for social and economic purposes to and from Afghanistan. But this does not mean that the factors that can give rise to refugee flight or internal displacement have been fully overcome.” The findings of the study, which mapped the border crossings at Torkham and Spin Boldak, could largely be a result of the fact that Pakistan is not only unwilling to continue to host Afghan refugees, but is also pressuring the remaining refugees to leave the country. With camps forcibly shut down, harassment from the authorities and the deteriorating economic and security situation within Pakistan, Afghans have little option but to head back to their own country.
Those who were forced to flee within Afghanistan are now forced to take shelter in another part of the country, thus becoming what the jargon would describe as ‘internally displaced persons’. According to UNHCR, precise figures about the number of such IDPs within Afghanistan are hard to come by, as access to insecure areas is limited and many ‘displacements’ last for only a short period. However, the estimates of those displaced internally during the last three decades of conflict by violence, drought and poverty, and those recently displaced by fighting in the southern provinces, is conservatively estimated to be 235,000.
Such numbers have, unsurprisingly, caught the attention of the very top levels of the international community. The situation has been so acute that it prompted the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, to warn in mid-June that the refugee situations around the world “do not include the millions more uprooted people who are displaced within their own countries and who far outnumber the world’s refugees. Many of them have also been unable to return home, sometimes for decades.” Guterres continued: “Although international law distinguishes between refugees and the internally displaced, such distinctions are absurd to those who have been forced from their homes and who have lost everything. Uprooted people are equally deserving of help whether they have crossed an international border or not.”
US military dominance
Many within Afghanistan humanitarian agencies expect that the increased fighting following the influx of some 20,000 additional US troops in recent months will result in greater displacement. In a joint report issued in early April, a number of reputed international humanitarian agencies warned that social protection and access to basic services were being adversely affected by the widening conflict, “with significant levels of displacement and severe disruption of health and education services”. The report, released by agencies such as Oxfam, Care International, ActionAid and DACAAR, continued: “Planned increases in troops and military operations during 2009 are likely to lead to higher levels of displacement, further restrictions on social services and greater impediments for aid agencies to reach civilians in need of protection and assistance.” Yet, such considerations were not being adequately factored into international security strategies, the agencies warned.
There is one thing that the various aid agencies and military actors agree upon, however. There is common expectation of increased violence and of still-bloodier fighting over the summer of 2009. Still, there is almost no agreement on the assumed impact of this fighting, nor how to deal with it. While the military forces expect that civilian aid will be used in support of military operations, both to mitigate the losses incurred during fighting and development work in the areas ‘cleared’ by the military, civilian aid agencies, especially humanitarian organisations, would like to distance themselves further from the military as the fighting intensifies.
Much of the unfolding scenario will depend on the US and the strategy adopted by the Barack Obama administration, the impact of which is yet to be felt. In recent weeks, the only significant change has been on the military front, with an abrupt replacement of the US commander in Afghanistan. On 11 May, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates fired General David McKiernan unceremoniously, appointing Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal in his place. While the need for fresh thinking was officially touted as the reason for the change, (Gen McKiernan is considered an expert in ‘conventional’ warfare, and thus was seen as unfit for the types of battles being waged in Afghanistan), many see this as indicating a shift in US military strategy. Until his new charge, Gen McChrystal was commanding the US military’s Joint Special Operations Command. He is credited both with the capture of Saddam Hussein and the operation that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.
While this would appear to dovetail into the professed aims of the US to go after al-Qaeda and high-value Taliban targets, Gen McChrystal has been at pains to signal a change in operating tactics with greater emphasis on civilian safety. Soon after taking command in mid-June, he began by emphasising the need to avoid civilian casualties, saying protection of civilians – rather than body counts – would be his yardstick of success. While some have welcomed this as a departure from the recent trend of military operations and the use of air power that were resulting in an increasing number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan (and frontier areas in Pakistan), there is a fair degree of scepticism about the oft-repeated rhetoric, which many criticise as not addressing the situation on the ground.
The changeover has allowed the new command to be at least partially critical of last month’s US air strikes in the western province of Farah. Afghan government authorities have claimed this to be the highest civilian death toll ever by international air strikes – forcing the payment of compensation to over 140 families. While the US military command has suggested that civilian casualties were much lower, it has admitted that ‘standard operating procedures’ may have been violated.
Less visible has been the restructuring of the command structure of the international troops operating in Afghanistan, backed by a NATO meeting in Brussels on 11-12 June. Under it, Gen McChrystal will focus on strategy while an intermediate headquarters responsible to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander will be established to take care of the day-to-day operations. This plan reportedly draws heavily on the US experience in Iraq. Along with the increase in American troops, expected to double to 68,000 by the end of the year, this new structure will represent a greater US domination over the military strategy in Afghanistan. Currently non-US troops constitute over half of the roughly 61,000 troops on the ground.
Quiet on the political front
Over the past few weeks, levels of violence have refused to dip in Afghanistan, and Gen McChrystal has termed the next 18 months as a decisive period. That upcoming year and a half will also be politically decisive for Afghanistan in more ways than one, as presidential and provincial-council elections, scheduled for August, will be followed by parliamentary elections next year. But the initial flurry of excitement over candidates has now subsided somewhat into a resignation that suggests that the incumbent president, Hamid Karzai, has stitched up the elections through a series of shrewd deals – not just with his supporters, but also with potential spoilers. While President Karzai’s unpopularity has been on the increase over the past two years, many Afghans seem resigned to what appears to be an inevitable outcome. Until the announcement of Mohammed Fahim as his running mate, President Karzai and Fahim, a former defence minister and vice-president, were thought to be at odds.
While the possibility of former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad (appointed by George W Bush), emerging as a presidential candidate has receded, his larger-than-life apparition still looms, with rumours of an appointment of a super chief executive to ‘assist’ the president. The Karzai administration has been careful neither to accept nor deny the possibility, while emphasising that any appointment would be within the bounds of the Afghan Constitution. But the possibility of a Bush administration official emerging as a key official within the Afghan administration is not the only unique feature of the upcoming Afghan elections. According to the Election Complaints Commission, “Fifty-five candidates didn’t meet Article 15.3 of the Electoral Law for having links to or commanding unofficial military forces; plus one candidate had both criminal conviction as well as [being] found not comply[ing] under Article 15.3. And, one candidate was found to have [a] second nationality.”
The end of the candidate-vetting procedure saw over 40 contenders for the post of president. But only two of them – former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah – are popularly accepted as serious challengers. Abdullah, a former Northern Alliance leader, received a fresh shot in the arm on 20 June, when the governor of the northern province of Balkh, Atta Mohammed, extended his support. Atta, as he is commonly known, was also a former Northern Alliance leader, and is considered to be an efficient if somewhat autocratic governor.
While a fragmented opposition puts President Karzai far ahead two months before the polls, it is not yet clear whether he will be able to secure 51 percent of the votes in the first round of polling, particularly if multiple opposition candidates split the vote share. If he gets less than that number, Afghanistan’s electoral law would require a second round of polling. It is then that the contest could see a polarisation between two candidates – a potent chance for the opposition, or a simple anti-Karzai vote, to unite behind a single candidate.
AFGHANISTAN: KABUL COURT RULING COULD FREE AFGHAN TERRORISM SUSPECTS HELD AT
EURASIA INSIGHT
GUANTANAMO
Aunohita Mojumdar 6/23/09
A short message on the back of Maj. Eric Montalvo’s business card reads: "My lawyer has told me not to talk to anyone about my case, not to answer any questions and not to reply to any accusations." The message is intended for those who try to approach his clients. Montalvo has one of the most difficult jobs anywhere. As a soldier and prosecutor for the US military, he is tasked with defending those suspected by the US government of committing acts of terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world. Some of his clients have not even been charged.
Now, Montalvo is fighting in Afghanistan’s Supreme Court to represent an Afghan national in a legal case that could have far-reaching implications for the US government’s attempts to relocate Guantanamo Bay prisoners to third countries, or detain them indefinitely in the United States.
At the heart of his petition is the case of Mohammed Jawad, a minor when he was arrested in December 2002 for his alleged involvement in a hand grenade attack on a US military vehicle. Jawad was reportedly 12 at the time he was sent to Guantanamo. While Jawad’s exact age is difficult to determine because of an absence of official records, military prosecutors have accepted that he was a juvenile at the beginning of his incarceration.
Montalvo’s petition argues that Jawad was not involved in the attack and that his confession was obtained under torture and duress, perpetrated both by Afghan police officers who initially arrested him and by interrogators at US detention facilities at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, where he is still held.
In a boon to the defense, Montalvo’s plea to suppress Jawad’s statements under interrogation has been accepted by a US military judge in the Guantanamo Military Commission. Moreover, in September 2008, Lt. Col. Darryl Vandeveld, the lead prosecutor in the case against Jawad, left the commission because, he said, he could not ethically continue to prosecute the case. "I personally do not believe there is any lawful basis for continuing to detain Mr. Jawad," Vandeveld wrote in his resignation letter. "There is no reliable evidence of any voluntary involvement with any terrorist group."
Vandeveld added that he did not believe Jawad to be a threat. Describing himself as a "former prosecutor and now repentant persecutor," Vandeveld wrote that "six years is long enough for a boy of 16 to serve in virtual solitary confinement, in a distant land, for reasons he may never fully understand."
The petition argues that Jawad was not extended any of the privileges and rights of a juvenile during the years of his incarceration, and that he endured torture in various forms, including blindfolding and hooding, ’shock techniques,’ stress positions, physical and linguistic isolation, being pushed down stairs and chained to a wall, beating, threats of death and physical violence, and was subjected to the ’frequent flyer’ program (in Jawad’s case this involved forcibly moving him from cell to cell 112 times in a period of 14 days to cause sleep deprivation). Jawad, according to official prison logs cited in the petition, tried to commit suicide by repeatedly banging his head against the cell walls.
It is however not the torture, or even the innocence of Jawad, as has been well documented in a large number of other Guantanamo cases, and not even his status as a juvenile, that has immediate repercussions for America’s new administration. Montalvo and his colleague, Capt. Christopher L. Kannady, challenge Jawad’s detention and his continuing incarceration on the grounds that in the absence of an extradition treaty between the United States and Afghanistan, the arrest and detention of Jawad was illegal and must be overturned.
"Clear violations of foreign sovereignty in the extradition process deprive US criminal courts of jurisdiction over foreign nationals," the petition states. "There has and is currently no formal extradition treaty between the United States and Afghanistan. In fact, the Afghan Constitution of 1964 expressly prohibits the extradition of Afghan citizens to a foreign state." The 1964 constitution was in effect at the time Jawad was transferred by Afghan authorities to the United States on December 17, 2002, and on February 6, 2003, when Mr. Jawad was forcibly removed from Afghanistan.
Not only did the 1964 Constitution prevent extradition, but also there is no evidence the United States even bothered to ask the Afghan government for permission, the petition argues. While the new constitution, adopted in January 2004, does make provisions for the Afghan government to enter into extradition treaties with other states, to date no such pact exists between Afghanistan and the United States. Currently, the extradition bill has been referred to an Afghan parliamentary committee. In its present version, the draft requires the requesting state to submit evidence including witness testimony in support of the extradition request.
In May, Montalvo and Kannady filed the petition challenging Jawad’s ongoing Guantanamo incarceration in the Afghan Supreme Court. It calls on the Afghan government "to pursue by all means necessary the immediate release and repatriation of Jawad." During their visit to file the petition, Montalvo and Kannady said that not only had the US government made it difficult to obtain the information they needed, but that the US Marine Corps had so far refused to respond to their request to practice law before the Supreme Court of Afghanistan. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Afghanistan Independent Bar Association have supported the two US military lawyers.
Afghanistan’s Supreme Court has directed the office of the Attorney General to look into the case. "Under international law and the Afghan Constitution, Jawad should be released," Montalvo told EurasiaNet. "Afghanistan has shown hope and promise that they will follow the law."
If Afghanistan’s Supreme Court does indeed accept the petition on grounds that the extradition was invalid, it will lay the groundwork for not just Jawad, but for all Afghan prisoners in Guantanamo to be returned to Afghanistan -- even those whom the Obama Administration believes should continue to be held in custody.
GUANTANAMO
Aunohita Mojumdar 6/23/09
A short message on the back of Maj. Eric Montalvo’s business card reads: "My lawyer has told me not to talk to anyone about my case, not to answer any questions and not to reply to any accusations." The message is intended for those who try to approach his clients. Montalvo has one of the most difficult jobs anywhere. As a soldier and prosecutor for the US military, he is tasked with defending those suspected by the US government of committing acts of terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world. Some of his clients have not even been charged.
Now, Montalvo is fighting in Afghanistan’s Supreme Court to represent an Afghan national in a legal case that could have far-reaching implications for the US government’s attempts to relocate Guantanamo Bay prisoners to third countries, or detain them indefinitely in the United States.
At the heart of his petition is the case of Mohammed Jawad, a minor when he was arrested in December 2002 for his alleged involvement in a hand grenade attack on a US military vehicle. Jawad was reportedly 12 at the time he was sent to Guantanamo. While Jawad’s exact age is difficult to determine because of an absence of official records, military prosecutors have accepted that he was a juvenile at the beginning of his incarceration.
Montalvo’s petition argues that Jawad was not involved in the attack and that his confession was obtained under torture and duress, perpetrated both by Afghan police officers who initially arrested him and by interrogators at US detention facilities at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, where he is still held.
In a boon to the defense, Montalvo’s plea to suppress Jawad’s statements under interrogation has been accepted by a US military judge in the Guantanamo Military Commission. Moreover, in September 2008, Lt. Col. Darryl Vandeveld, the lead prosecutor in the case against Jawad, left the commission because, he said, he could not ethically continue to prosecute the case. "I personally do not believe there is any lawful basis for continuing to detain Mr. Jawad," Vandeveld wrote in his resignation letter. "There is no reliable evidence of any voluntary involvement with any terrorist group."
Vandeveld added that he did not believe Jawad to be a threat. Describing himself as a "former prosecutor and now repentant persecutor," Vandeveld wrote that "six years is long enough for a boy of 16 to serve in virtual solitary confinement, in a distant land, for reasons he may never fully understand."
The petition argues that Jawad was not extended any of the privileges and rights of a juvenile during the years of his incarceration, and that he endured torture in various forms, including blindfolding and hooding, ’shock techniques,’ stress positions, physical and linguistic isolation, being pushed down stairs and chained to a wall, beating, threats of death and physical violence, and was subjected to the ’frequent flyer’ program (in Jawad’s case this involved forcibly moving him from cell to cell 112 times in a period of 14 days to cause sleep deprivation). Jawad, according to official prison logs cited in the petition, tried to commit suicide by repeatedly banging his head against the cell walls.
It is however not the torture, or even the innocence of Jawad, as has been well documented in a large number of other Guantanamo cases, and not even his status as a juvenile, that has immediate repercussions for America’s new administration. Montalvo and his colleague, Capt. Christopher L. Kannady, challenge Jawad’s detention and his continuing incarceration on the grounds that in the absence of an extradition treaty between the United States and Afghanistan, the arrest and detention of Jawad was illegal and must be overturned.
"Clear violations of foreign sovereignty in the extradition process deprive US criminal courts of jurisdiction over foreign nationals," the petition states. "There has and is currently no formal extradition treaty between the United States and Afghanistan. In fact, the Afghan Constitution of 1964 expressly prohibits the extradition of Afghan citizens to a foreign state." The 1964 constitution was in effect at the time Jawad was transferred by Afghan authorities to the United States on December 17, 2002, and on February 6, 2003, when Mr. Jawad was forcibly removed from Afghanistan.
Not only did the 1964 Constitution prevent extradition, but also there is no evidence the United States even bothered to ask the Afghan government for permission, the petition argues. While the new constitution, adopted in January 2004, does make provisions for the Afghan government to enter into extradition treaties with other states, to date no such pact exists between Afghanistan and the United States. Currently, the extradition bill has been referred to an Afghan parliamentary committee. In its present version, the draft requires the requesting state to submit evidence including witness testimony in support of the extradition request.
In May, Montalvo and Kannady filed the petition challenging Jawad’s ongoing Guantanamo incarceration in the Afghan Supreme Court. It calls on the Afghan government "to pursue by all means necessary the immediate release and repatriation of Jawad." During their visit to file the petition, Montalvo and Kannady said that not only had the US government made it difficult to obtain the information they needed, but that the US Marine Corps had so far refused to respond to their request to practice law before the Supreme Court of Afghanistan. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Afghanistan Independent Bar Association have supported the two US military lawyers.
Afghanistan’s Supreme Court has directed the office of the Attorney General to look into the case. "Under international law and the Afghan Constitution, Jawad should be released," Montalvo told EurasiaNet. "Afghanistan has shown hope and promise that they will follow the law."
If Afghanistan’s Supreme Court does indeed accept the petition on grounds that the extradition was invalid, it will lay the groundwork for not just Jawad, but for all Afghan prisoners in Guantanamo to be returned to Afghanistan -- even those whom the Obama Administration believes should continue to be held in custody.
AFGHANISTAN: AFGHANS TRACKING TEHRAN POWER STRUGGLE
CIVIL SOCIETY
Aunohita Mojumdar 6/24/09
During Afghanistan’s nearly 30 years of civil strife, over 2 million Afghans found refuge in neighboring Iran. Most Afghan refugees have returned in recent years, and now, with Iran gripped by political turmoil, some in Kabul and elsewhere are waiting and watching anxiously to see what happens in their former country of residence. The outcome, the Afghans say, will exert considerable influence over Afghanistan’s own development.
Fauzia is among the Afghans who have strong connections to Iran. She was born and lived in Iran until she was 18, returning to Afghanistan with her parents shortly after the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001. Since then, she followed developments in Iran as closely as possible. As a young woman who yearns for expanded civil rights, Fauzia expressed a clear preference to see Iran’s aggrieved presidential challenger, Mir Hussein Mousavi, emerge as the winner of the power struggle playing out in Tehran. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
"Whatever happens there will affect Afghanistan," said Fauzia, who asked to use a pseudonym to protect her identity. If Mousavi were to become president in Iran, she believes, it would lead to expanded opportunities in Kabul, especially for women. "Mousavi can have a good relationship with Western countries and that would be good for Afghanistan," Fauzia explained.
Fauzia feels that while social pressures on women are possibly greater in Afghanistan, she believes she enjoys more personal freedom in Kabul than she did in Iran. "Here [in Afghanistan], I can work, study, do what I want and there is no one to point a finger and tell me what I can do or not do."
There are a significant number of former Afghan refugees who share Fauzia’s views. But among Afghanistan’s overall population, events in Iran are not so preoccupying. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Afghans have mixed views and varying levels of interest in the ongoing situation there. Even those who claim to be carefully monitoring the news don’t seem to be glued to their radios and televisions. While events in Iran are recognized as being intrinsically important to Afghanistan, it is Pakistan that has for decades consistently foisted a more immediate visible impact on Afghanistan, many Afghans tell EurasiaNet.
In the aftermath of the controversial Iranian presidential vote on June 12, what has been perhaps most interesting for Afghans has been the Western reaction, especially comments coming out of Washington. While most viewed the departure of former US President George W. Bush as a positive development, they still reserved judgment on whether Obama’s administration would be able to improve America’s image in the Muslim world. In that context, Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo, followed by his restrained and carefully calibrated response to the Iranian turmoil, is being viewed as evidence of some real progress in relations between the West and the Muslim world.
Najib Manalai, a political analyst who until recently was a senior adviser in the Ministry of Information and Culture, echoes Fauzia’s views. "What happens in Iran affects Afghan politics. Mousavi would try to create an understanding between the United States and Iran. He is less of an extremist [than current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]. Iran would continue to play a role and fund different groups here, but their intervention would be less violent than now," he told EurasiaNet. While acknowledging that the Iranian government may not have a direct hand in supplying weapons, Manalai believes Tehran is tacitly encouraging weapons shipments into Afghanistan.
Of course, not everyone is an enthusiastic observer. Waheed, a Kabul resident who lived for several years in Iran, greets radio broadcasts of violent demonstrations in Tehran with apathy. Voicing little concern for Iranian politics, he says he is more concerned with the here and now, such as the slow pace of development, rising prices and the lack of jobs in Afghanistan.
His lack of interest resonates with Ahmed Khalid, a Kabul University student. Self-described as politically aware, Khalid feels Afghans suffered a great deal of humiliation as refugees in Iran and Pakistan. "Afghans were treated badly. We don’t care what happens there." Yet, further questioning elicits the view that a stable Iran is important to Afghanistan.
Like others following the Iranian situation, Khalid paid close attention to the Western response. He made a careful distinction between the ’West’ in general and the United States in particular. "In general, Obama has shown a soft policy towards Muslim countries. Look at his speech in Egypt. This is more normal than under Bush. It is very good."
Aunohita Mojumdar 6/24/09
During Afghanistan’s nearly 30 years of civil strife, over 2 million Afghans found refuge in neighboring Iran. Most Afghan refugees have returned in recent years, and now, with Iran gripped by political turmoil, some in Kabul and elsewhere are waiting and watching anxiously to see what happens in their former country of residence. The outcome, the Afghans say, will exert considerable influence over Afghanistan’s own development.
Fauzia is among the Afghans who have strong connections to Iran. She was born and lived in Iran until she was 18, returning to Afghanistan with her parents shortly after the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001. Since then, she followed developments in Iran as closely as possible. As a young woman who yearns for expanded civil rights, Fauzia expressed a clear preference to see Iran’s aggrieved presidential challenger, Mir Hussein Mousavi, emerge as the winner of the power struggle playing out in Tehran. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
"Whatever happens there will affect Afghanistan," said Fauzia, who asked to use a pseudonym to protect her identity. If Mousavi were to become president in Iran, she believes, it would lead to expanded opportunities in Kabul, especially for women. "Mousavi can have a good relationship with Western countries and that would be good for Afghanistan," Fauzia explained.
Fauzia feels that while social pressures on women are possibly greater in Afghanistan, she believes she enjoys more personal freedom in Kabul than she did in Iran. "Here [in Afghanistan], I can work, study, do what I want and there is no one to point a finger and tell me what I can do or not do."
There are a significant number of former Afghan refugees who share Fauzia’s views. But among Afghanistan’s overall population, events in Iran are not so preoccupying. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Afghans have mixed views and varying levels of interest in the ongoing situation there. Even those who claim to be carefully monitoring the news don’t seem to be glued to their radios and televisions. While events in Iran are recognized as being intrinsically important to Afghanistan, it is Pakistan that has for decades consistently foisted a more immediate visible impact on Afghanistan, many Afghans tell EurasiaNet.
In the aftermath of the controversial Iranian presidential vote on June 12, what has been perhaps most interesting for Afghans has been the Western reaction, especially comments coming out of Washington. While most viewed the departure of former US President George W. Bush as a positive development, they still reserved judgment on whether Obama’s administration would be able to improve America’s image in the Muslim world. In that context, Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo, followed by his restrained and carefully calibrated response to the Iranian turmoil, is being viewed as evidence of some real progress in relations between the West and the Muslim world.
Najib Manalai, a political analyst who until recently was a senior adviser in the Ministry of Information and Culture, echoes Fauzia’s views. "What happens in Iran affects Afghan politics. Mousavi would try to create an understanding between the United States and Iran. He is less of an extremist [than current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]. Iran would continue to play a role and fund different groups here, but their intervention would be less violent than now," he told EurasiaNet. While acknowledging that the Iranian government may not have a direct hand in supplying weapons, Manalai believes Tehran is tacitly encouraging weapons shipments into Afghanistan.
Of course, not everyone is an enthusiastic observer. Waheed, a Kabul resident who lived for several years in Iran, greets radio broadcasts of violent demonstrations in Tehran with apathy. Voicing little concern for Iranian politics, he says he is more concerned with the here and now, such as the slow pace of development, rising prices and the lack of jobs in Afghanistan.
His lack of interest resonates with Ahmed Khalid, a Kabul University student. Self-described as politically aware, Khalid feels Afghans suffered a great deal of humiliation as refugees in Iran and Pakistan. "Afghans were treated badly. We don’t care what happens there." Yet, further questioning elicits the view that a stable Iran is important to Afghanistan.
Like others following the Iranian situation, Khalid paid close attention to the Western response. He made a careful distinction between the ’West’ in general and the United States in particular. "In general, Obama has shown a soft policy towards Muslim countries. Look at his speech in Egypt. This is more normal than under Bush. It is very good."
AFGHANISTAN: CIVIL CASUALTIES REMAINS A DIVISIVE ISSUE FOR KABUL AND WASHINGTON
Eurasia Insight:
Aunohita Mojumdar: 5/28/09
Despite US efforts to minimize accidents, the issue of civilian deaths remains a source of tension between American forces and the Afghan government, and it appears to be eroding popular support for coalition forces fighting Islamic militants. Afghan officials contend that US commanders need to shift their combat priorities to ensure civilian safety. US military representatives counter that it is the Taliban that does not value life, adding that the insurgents are using civilians as "human sacrifice."
The controversy of civilian casualties boiled over yet again following an early May incident in the Bala Baluk district, a Taliban stronghold in southwestern Afghanistan. Preliminary findings released by Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) on May 26 show US air strikes in and around Bala Baluk may have caused the single largest civilian toll caused by NATO air power since 2001.
While the Commission has not confirmed its estimate of 97 civilians killed, AIHRC officials stated categorically that at least 52 females, including 31 girls, had been killed in Bala Baluk. The number is expected to rise as investigators verify how many of the remaining deaths are of non-combatants -- including male children -- commission spokesman Nader Nadery told EurasiaNet.
The findings dispute the accounts released by both the US forces on May 21 and the Afghan government. While US forces have said that between 20 and 30 civilians were killed, the Afghan government paid compensation for 140 deaths on May 12.
Presidential spokesman Humayun Hamidzada told EurasiaNet that "there are some disagreements on the number of people, but that is not important. The important thing is that defenseless people, women and children, amongst others, were killed. This could have been avoided. We are working closely with our partners in the international community, including the US forces, so that we should find ways to bring to an absolute minimum the civilian casualties. So far we have not succeeded."
Disputing the AIHRC and government numbers, US military spokesman Colonel Greg Julian told EurasiaNet on May 26, that the Pentagon would be issuing its own report "soon." While admitting that the military's initial figures may be revised upward, Julian claimed that the physical evidence on the ground showed that AIHRC and government numbers were "exaggerated." "They don't have the evidence we have from the footage of the site and the intelligence we have that reveals the Taliban telling its people to gather and regroup in the compounds," he said.
The dispute over the numbers suggests that despite several tactical directives issued by the former American commander, Gen. David McKiernan, to minimize civilian casualties, the implementation of the directives will be largely left to commanders on the ground. This would seem to leave lots of leeway in how heavy weapons are employed in the Afghan conflict.
While human rights groups and NGOs have called for making the safety of Afghan civilians central to all operations, US President Barack Obama's administration is advancing a strategy that clearly states the "core goal of the United States must be to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan, and to prevent their return to Pakistan or Afghanistan." In pursuit of this goal, US commanders' interpretation of acceptable levels of collateral damage appears to differ significantly from that of human rights organizations.
New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), which carried out a rigorous documentation of the rules of engagement last September, pointed out that defensive operating procedures followed by US forces were substantively different from those used by other coalition partners. US forces seemed to have a much lower threshold on the need for air strikes. According to the United Nations, 68 percent of civilian casualties caused by pro-government forces in 2008 resulted from air strikes. Pro-government forces caused 39 percent of the 2,118 civilian casualties documented that year.
While disputing the AIHRC's findings on the use of disproportionate force in Bala Baluk, Julian alleged that the Taliban was deliberately using tactics that produced higher civilian deaths. "Civilians were used not just as human shields, but as human sacrifice," he said.
HRW has called for specific changes in operational tactics including avoiding air strikes on populated areas, urging use of precision guided low-collateral-damage munitions rather than howitzers and heavy artillery, and calling on the military to develop better intelligence on the ground.
Afghans, international monitors and international forces have all cited a lack of intelligence as a cause of civilian casualties. Feuding Afghan groups have been known to call in air strikes against rivals. Several times, the AIHRC says, international forces have acted on such information without cross verification.
"Afghans manipulate the international forces to get at their enemies," said analyst Haroun Mir, Co-Founder and Deputy Director of Afghanistan's Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS). Mir called for better intelligence gathering, but conceded there is no way of fighting the war with the given troop numbers without using air strikes.
President Hamid Karzai had called for an end to air strikes following the Bala Baluk incident, an appeal rejected by US officials. Karzai spokesman Hamidzada said the president had ordered a commission that included ministers and experts to come up with a draft strategy that could become the basis for the new Status of Forces Agreement, currently in the process of revision.
The Afghan government's investigations into Bala Baluk -- which the AIHRC, citing concerns about accuracy, described as "hasty" -- appears to have been prompted by a desire to contain the political damage to Karzai's reelection campaign.
Aunohita Mojumdar: 5/28/09
Despite US efforts to minimize accidents, the issue of civilian deaths remains a source of tension between American forces and the Afghan government, and it appears to be eroding popular support for coalition forces fighting Islamic militants. Afghan officials contend that US commanders need to shift their combat priorities to ensure civilian safety. US military representatives counter that it is the Taliban that does not value life, adding that the insurgents are using civilians as "human sacrifice."
The controversy of civilian casualties boiled over yet again following an early May incident in the Bala Baluk district, a Taliban stronghold in southwestern Afghanistan. Preliminary findings released by Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) on May 26 show US air strikes in and around Bala Baluk may have caused the single largest civilian toll caused by NATO air power since 2001.
While the Commission has not confirmed its estimate of 97 civilians killed, AIHRC officials stated categorically that at least 52 females, including 31 girls, had been killed in Bala Baluk. The number is expected to rise as investigators verify how many of the remaining deaths are of non-combatants -- including male children -- commission spokesman Nader Nadery told EurasiaNet.
The findings dispute the accounts released by both the US forces on May 21 and the Afghan government. While US forces have said that between 20 and 30 civilians were killed, the Afghan government paid compensation for 140 deaths on May 12.
Presidential spokesman Humayun Hamidzada told EurasiaNet that "there are some disagreements on the number of people, but that is not important. The important thing is that defenseless people, women and children, amongst others, were killed. This could have been avoided. We are working closely with our partners in the international community, including the US forces, so that we should find ways to bring to an absolute minimum the civilian casualties. So far we have not succeeded."
Disputing the AIHRC and government numbers, US military spokesman Colonel Greg Julian told EurasiaNet on May 26, that the Pentagon would be issuing its own report "soon." While admitting that the military's initial figures may be revised upward, Julian claimed that the physical evidence on the ground showed that AIHRC and government numbers were "exaggerated." "They don't have the evidence we have from the footage of the site and the intelligence we have that reveals the Taliban telling its people to gather and regroup in the compounds," he said.
The dispute over the numbers suggests that despite several tactical directives issued by the former American commander, Gen. David McKiernan, to minimize civilian casualties, the implementation of the directives will be largely left to commanders on the ground. This would seem to leave lots of leeway in how heavy weapons are employed in the Afghan conflict.
While human rights groups and NGOs have called for making the safety of Afghan civilians central to all operations, US President Barack Obama's administration is advancing a strategy that clearly states the "core goal of the United States must be to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan, and to prevent their return to Pakistan or Afghanistan." In pursuit of this goal, US commanders' interpretation of acceptable levels of collateral damage appears to differ significantly from that of human rights organizations.
New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), which carried out a rigorous documentation of the rules of engagement last September, pointed out that defensive operating procedures followed by US forces were substantively different from those used by other coalition partners. US forces seemed to have a much lower threshold on the need for air strikes. According to the United Nations, 68 percent of civilian casualties caused by pro-government forces in 2008 resulted from air strikes. Pro-government forces caused 39 percent of the 2,118 civilian casualties documented that year.
While disputing the AIHRC's findings on the use of disproportionate force in Bala Baluk, Julian alleged that the Taliban was deliberately using tactics that produced higher civilian deaths. "Civilians were used not just as human shields, but as human sacrifice," he said.
HRW has called for specific changes in operational tactics including avoiding air strikes on populated areas, urging use of precision guided low-collateral-damage munitions rather than howitzers and heavy artillery, and calling on the military to develop better intelligence on the ground.
Afghans, international monitors and international forces have all cited a lack of intelligence as a cause of civilian casualties. Feuding Afghan groups have been known to call in air strikes against rivals. Several times, the AIHRC says, international forces have acted on such information without cross verification.
"Afghans manipulate the international forces to get at their enemies," said analyst Haroun Mir, Co-Founder and Deputy Director of Afghanistan's Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS). Mir called for better intelligence gathering, but conceded there is no way of fighting the war with the given troop numbers without using air strikes.
President Hamid Karzai had called for an end to air strikes following the Bala Baluk incident, an appeal rejected by US officials. Karzai spokesman Hamidzada said the president had ordered a commission that included ministers and experts to come up with a draft strategy that could become the basis for the new Status of Forces Agreement, currently in the process of revision.
The Afghan government's investigations into Bala Baluk -- which the AIHRC, citing concerns about accuracy, described as "hasty" -- appears to have been prompted by a desire to contain the political damage to Karzai's reelection campaign.
AFGHANISTAN: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INITIATIVE A SIGN OF HOPE FOR RECONSTRUCTION
EURASIA INSIGHT
Aunohita Mojumdar 5/04/09
When Mustafa Zahir was growing up, he recalls meeting people who had traveled thousands of kilometers out of a desire to breathe Kabul’s invigorating air. Back then, Afghanistan was a tourist destination that enjoyed renown for its crystalline lakes, spectacular mountains, flowering gardens and fruit-laden orchards. Both affluent families and backpacking hippies visited. "Now," says Zahir, the grandson of Zahir Shah, the last king of Afghanistan, "if you breathe in the Kabul air, your lungs fill with poison."
Zahir has channeled his frustration into hope. On April 22, in his capacity as the head of the country’s National Environment Protection Agency, he proclaimed Afghanistan’s first national park in an area encompassing the spectacular Band-i Amir lakes in the country’s central highlands.
Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict, urgent humanitarian needs and chronic poverty make it difficult to focus attention on long-term requirements like environmental protection. However, efforts over the past several years appear to be finally paying off, laying the foundation for a broad-based conservation effort to preserve and regenerate a quickly disappearing national resource. Unlike many other countries that have tried and failed to enact a conservation program by relying on a top-down approach, Afghan officials have embraced a bottom-up strategy, in which local residents have a stake in the success of environmental protection endeavors.
Band-i Amir is arguably not the most logical spot for the inaugural biodiversity conservation project, given the fact that much of the area’s wildlife has suffered from acute depletion during the past three decades of tumult, points out Peter Smallwood, Afghanistan Country Director for the US-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). What led to the choice of the site as Afghanistan’s first national park was its popularity, he says.
Belinda Bowling, program manager with the United Nations Environmental Program, who was central in helping push through environmental legislation, agrees. "There are few places in the world that have this visual natural beauty. It is a unique geologically aesthetic site. In terms of its biodiversity, it is not particularly important, but it is by far the most visited site in Afghanistan," she told EurasiaNet.
Legend holds that the succession of pristine blue and green lakes and giant travertine dams of the area were created by Hazrat Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed. That folklore, combined with the location’s stunning natural beauty and relative safety make Band-i Amir attractive to visitors both local and international. Despite the ongoing violence in other parts of the country, the Band-i Amir area is relatively secure, and already possesses some tourism infrastructure. This makes it possible to visibly demonstrate the linkage between preservation and income generation.
The people of the Ajar valley - a thickly forested area north of Band-i Amir and the former hunting ground of the king - who were openly hostile to the idea of a protected area at first, have now asked for help after seeing the benefits accruing to the people of Band-i Amir, says Smallwood. Ajar may become the country’s second national park.
Mohammad Ayub Alavi, who works with the WCS as a conservation specialist, exemplifies the community-based approach. With a masters degree in geology, Alavi is among the small and privileged group of Afghans who learned English while studying abroad. He possesses the skills to find far more lucrative employment in Kabul, or even abroad, but he chose to remain in Band-i Amir in large measure because his work produces an abundance of satisfaction. "I hope making this a national park will mean there will be job opportunities for others as well," he said.
During the past decades of strife and deprivation, economic factors have fueled the depletion of Afghanistan’s natural resources. The giant old walnut trees of the richly forested Nuristan area date back two or three centuries. "Those trees end up being sent to Pakistan and being trimmed into beautiful furniture and sent to the Gulf states," says Smallwood.
In the Wakhan corridor, an area rich in biodiversity in northeastern Afghanistan, the subsistence-level pastoral economy has led to over-grazing. There, a dead Marco Polo sheep, an endangered species, is worth more than a live one, laments Smallwood. "It is free meat that if it had lived would have eaten the grass that could be fed to livestock," he points out. The challenge is to make that sheep valuable while alive, by linking its presence to the idea of attracting tourists to the area.
In Band-i Amir, relocating the small shops polluting the lakeside was not easy. Here the sheer force of will of Bamiyan’s leader, Afghanistan’s only female governor, Habiba Sarobi, prevailed. To provide an incentive, those who shifted quickly were provided with bricks and roof beams. Small gestures can often make the difference between community acceptance and hostility. "We need a community based approach," says Alavi. "The major hope for us is the ecotourism project. Without it, this project will fail."
The country has a long way to go before it has a fully fledge environmental protection framework; even the declaration of the first national park still requires parliamentary approval. But its initial efforts have already been noticed in an important way. For the first time since the years of conflict began, says Smallwood, flamingoes have been returning to Afghanistan. Even Siberian cranes, an endangered species worldwide, have been sighted. For Afghanistan, still facing political and economic uncertainty, the reappearance of such species serves as a powerful expression of faith in the country’s future.
Aunohita Mojumdar 5/04/09
When Mustafa Zahir was growing up, he recalls meeting people who had traveled thousands of kilometers out of a desire to breathe Kabul’s invigorating air. Back then, Afghanistan was a tourist destination that enjoyed renown for its crystalline lakes, spectacular mountains, flowering gardens and fruit-laden orchards. Both affluent families and backpacking hippies visited. "Now," says Zahir, the grandson of Zahir Shah, the last king of Afghanistan, "if you breathe in the Kabul air, your lungs fill with poison."
Zahir has channeled his frustration into hope. On April 22, in his capacity as the head of the country’s National Environment Protection Agency, he proclaimed Afghanistan’s first national park in an area encompassing the spectacular Band-i Amir lakes in the country’s central highlands.
Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict, urgent humanitarian needs and chronic poverty make it difficult to focus attention on long-term requirements like environmental protection. However, efforts over the past several years appear to be finally paying off, laying the foundation for a broad-based conservation effort to preserve and regenerate a quickly disappearing national resource. Unlike many other countries that have tried and failed to enact a conservation program by relying on a top-down approach, Afghan officials have embraced a bottom-up strategy, in which local residents have a stake in the success of environmental protection endeavors.
Band-i Amir is arguably not the most logical spot for the inaugural biodiversity conservation project, given the fact that much of the area’s wildlife has suffered from acute depletion during the past three decades of tumult, points out Peter Smallwood, Afghanistan Country Director for the US-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). What led to the choice of the site as Afghanistan’s first national park was its popularity, he says.
Belinda Bowling, program manager with the United Nations Environmental Program, who was central in helping push through environmental legislation, agrees. "There are few places in the world that have this visual natural beauty. It is a unique geologically aesthetic site. In terms of its biodiversity, it is not particularly important, but it is by far the most visited site in Afghanistan," she told EurasiaNet.
Legend holds that the succession of pristine blue and green lakes and giant travertine dams of the area were created by Hazrat Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed. That folklore, combined with the location’s stunning natural beauty and relative safety make Band-i Amir attractive to visitors both local and international. Despite the ongoing violence in other parts of the country, the Band-i Amir area is relatively secure, and already possesses some tourism infrastructure. This makes it possible to visibly demonstrate the linkage between preservation and income generation.
The people of the Ajar valley - a thickly forested area north of Band-i Amir and the former hunting ground of the king - who were openly hostile to the idea of a protected area at first, have now asked for help after seeing the benefits accruing to the people of Band-i Amir, says Smallwood. Ajar may become the country’s second national park.
Mohammad Ayub Alavi, who works with the WCS as a conservation specialist, exemplifies the community-based approach. With a masters degree in geology, Alavi is among the small and privileged group of Afghans who learned English while studying abroad. He possesses the skills to find far more lucrative employment in Kabul, or even abroad, but he chose to remain in Band-i Amir in large measure because his work produces an abundance of satisfaction. "I hope making this a national park will mean there will be job opportunities for others as well," he said.
During the past decades of strife and deprivation, economic factors have fueled the depletion of Afghanistan’s natural resources. The giant old walnut trees of the richly forested Nuristan area date back two or three centuries. "Those trees end up being sent to Pakistan and being trimmed into beautiful furniture and sent to the Gulf states," says Smallwood.
In the Wakhan corridor, an area rich in biodiversity in northeastern Afghanistan, the subsistence-level pastoral economy has led to over-grazing. There, a dead Marco Polo sheep, an endangered species, is worth more than a live one, laments Smallwood. "It is free meat that if it had lived would have eaten the grass that could be fed to livestock," he points out. The challenge is to make that sheep valuable while alive, by linking its presence to the idea of attracting tourists to the area.
In Band-i Amir, relocating the small shops polluting the lakeside was not easy. Here the sheer force of will of Bamiyan’s leader, Afghanistan’s only female governor, Habiba Sarobi, prevailed. To provide an incentive, those who shifted quickly were provided with bricks and roof beams. Small gestures can often make the difference between community acceptance and hostility. "We need a community based approach," says Alavi. "The major hope for us is the ecotourism project. Without it, this project will fail."
The country has a long way to go before it has a fully fledge environmental protection framework; even the declaration of the first national park still requires parliamentary approval. But its initial efforts have already been noticed in an important way. For the first time since the years of conflict began, says Smallwood, flamingoes have been returning to Afghanistan. Even Siberian cranes, an endangered species worldwide, have been sighted. For Afghanistan, still facing political and economic uncertainty, the reappearance of such species serves as a powerful expression of faith in the country’s future.
A Thousand Terrible Twilights
Hard News May 2009
Seven-and-a-half years after the removal of the Taliban, the feeling is of a city increasingly under siege
Aunohita Mojumdar Kabul
In capital Kabul, every week sees new cement bollards in front of buildings, fresh barbed wire concertinas strung across roads, new check points and road blocks. Each successive bomb blast in front of an important building, that is, buildings housing important people, sees yet another road being blocked to the Afghan public. The international community and elite Afghans barricade themselves behind more sandbags as ordinary Afghans get squeezed more and more into the remaining open areas of the capital.
Seven-and-a-half years after the removal of the Taliban, the feeling is of a city increasingly under siege. This fact made it all the more curious when the Director General of Afghanistan's National Security Directorate, Amrullah Saleh, claimed this week. "We are victorious." Making a speech at a security seminar, he asked: "What more victory do you want?"
Saleh explained his contention: the world had finally come around to accepting the Afghan government's claim that the source of insecurity lay beyond Afghanistan's borders. Finally, he said, the battle had been taken to the place where those centres existed.Saleh was referring to the recent formulation of an 'Af-Pak' policy by the Barack Obama administration and its attention on Pakistan as a source of terror.
It is an approach that has gone down well with the governments of both Afghanistan as well as India, both of whom view it as a triumph of their diplomatic efforts. Officials of both countries are, however, less clear on how the Obama administration intends to act upon this understanding and how this will play into their strategies.
Within Afghanistan the mood is a somber one - of waiting. Opinion across the spectrum is agreed only on one thing: that the fresh influx of US troops will mean intensified fighting as the winter snows melt allowing for easier access across the rugged terrain.
For Afghan citizens the war against terror being waged in their territory in their name is not the only source of violence. While there is intense fighting between pro and anti-government elements in many of the southern and south eastern provinces, violence against citizens comes from multiple sources.
In Balkh province, governor Mohammad Atta, a former northern alliance commander, overlooks a province that has eradicated poppy and has been free of insurgency. However, he knows he sits on a powder keg. Balkh was hit by a severe drought last year and its dry brown fields point to the failure of crop. Economic deprivation could upset the fragile balance pushing people to re-enter poppy cultivation and destabilise the modicum of law and order that has been achieved.
In capital Kabul, its elite live in fear of kidnappings. While kidnappings in the city are usually followed by reports of the approaching spectre of the Taliban, the reality is that they are carried out by criminal networks looking for ransom - a get rich quick scheme that is made lucrative by the absence of an effective law and order machinery. Part of the problem of policing Afghanistan has been the use of police in counter insurgency duties for which they are ill-equipped. Between 2007 and 2009, 568 Afghan National Army soliders were killed compared to 1,504 policemen in the same period.
In the central province of Bamiyan, one of the most peaceful areas of the country, a hotelier explains why they never advertise widely. "It is better to get to know by word of mouth. Going to public could invite the wrong kind of attention." There are many armed militia or even gunmen who have no compunction shaking down businessmen and rich Afghans knowing that in all likelihood they will escape the criminal justice system.
In the Shind and district of the western province of Herat, an estimated 90 civilians were killed in bombing by international military forces. The international forces initially claimed they had bombed a Taliban camp but later conceded they had been misled by misinformation. Warring groups or tribes see the use of US air power as an easy and cost effective way to settle feuds.
The combination of poor intelligence on the ground, and heavy reliance on air strikes, has caused an escalation in civilian casualties. In the year 2008, the use of aerial munitions went up by 40 per cent. In the same period the number of civilian deaths from air strikes shot up by 72 per cent. Almost 60 per cent of the deaths were attributable to the approximately 10-20,000 (numbers are constantly changing) US- Operation Enduring Freedom (number of American forces stationed in Afghanistan under the command of the US Operation Enduring Freedom); rather than the 50-62,000 by International Security Assistance Force (number of forces stationed in Afghanistan under NATO command and control).
In the southern provinces where heavy fighting and civilian casualties are frequent, villagers in many areas no longer care who is in charge, just wanting peace at any cost. While outside Afghanistan the battle is seen as one between Al Qaeda and Taliban and the government and international forces, the character of the anti government armed battle is more complex. While there is a core of the Taliban regime which remains under the command and control of Mullah Omar, the homogeneous picture of the 'enemy' is more of a convenient construct of the war against terror.
The anti-government fighters comprise a mix of ideologically motivated Taliban, the Taliban merely fighting for a share of the pie, small time commanders who have been divested of their 'territory', criminals and drug traders. Their links with each other and with the Al Qaeda are fluid and changing, making this nexus much more dangerous than it would have been had it been a clear-cut homogeneous group with a clear command and control structure.
Parallel movements such as that led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are also active and coordinate with the Taliban on a needs-based basis. Each of these groups has been able to hold small areas for short bursts of time but do not have staying power. Rather, their real impact lies in their ability to disrupt governance, instill fear and erode public trust in the mechanisms of governance both in terms of security forces and administration.
Popular perception outside Afghanistan puts the Taliban at the doorstep of Kabul. Indeed, the Taliban has been able to carry out some audacious strikes inside the capital with increasing degrees of coordination. However, their support base within the capital remains extremely limited, restricting their ability to plan and coordinate operations.
While it is more convenient to countries like the US to project the perception of an 'evil' movement that can be annihilated, neither the numbers nor the ideology can be eliminated quite so easily. While the body count has been replaced with growing numbers, the intolerant ideology is not limited to those who call themselves the Taliban. Within Afghanistan's 'legitimate' polity, there are politicians, commanders and power brokers who are much more comfortable with the social and cultural practices of the Taliban than they are with the more modern political paradigm Afghanistan is currently under.
For Afghanistan's single biggest minority, its women, the greatest threat comes from the growing power of cultural conservatives and the rising intolerance. Though its Constitution promises equality, and initial steps with the urging of the international community reserved more than 20 per cent of seats in Afghanistan's Parliament for women, women in public space face increasing threats, and Constitutional guarantees appear to be only as good as its implementers want it to be.
The recent controversy over the Shia personal family law, portions of which are discriminatory towards women, brought this into sharp focus. While this particular law received considerable international focus, in part because of the sensationalised reporting on complex issues of conjugal rights, there has been far less attention on the increasing intolerance for women's participation in public space and the general growth of violence against women.
While several women have been killed by Taliban in the southern provinces such as the killings of Malalai Kakar, a senior and well- known policewoman, and recently Sitara Achakzai, a woman activist (both were killed in Kandahar), there have been several murders in non-Taliban areas as well, such as that of Zakia Zaki who ran a radio station in Jabbal Seraj in Parwan province close to Kabul. In Kabul city, the head of a woman's organisation says the staff, mainly women, have become more nervous about their role as advocate of women's rights, preferring to stay low key.
The increasing violence against women is taking place in a milieu where aspects of human rights, media freedoms and democratic principles are increasingly being attacked from powerful sections of Afghanistan's polity as being 'alien' to Afghanistan. Many women fear that it is their rights which may be the first to be sacrificed. They point out that in the 'negotiations' with the Taliban, half of Afghanistan's population remains unrepresented. Women's groups feel that their rights may be the easiest compromise their leaders and the international community may be willing to make, pushing them into a renewed cycle of violence and oppressions.
MAY 2009
Seven-and-a-half years after the removal of the Taliban, the feeling is of a city increasingly under siege
Aunohita Mojumdar Kabul
In capital Kabul, every week sees new cement bollards in front of buildings, fresh barbed wire concertinas strung across roads, new check points and road blocks. Each successive bomb blast in front of an important building, that is, buildings housing important people, sees yet another road being blocked to the Afghan public. The international community and elite Afghans barricade themselves behind more sandbags as ordinary Afghans get squeezed more and more into the remaining open areas of the capital.
Seven-and-a-half years after the removal of the Taliban, the feeling is of a city increasingly under siege. This fact made it all the more curious when the Director General of Afghanistan's National Security Directorate, Amrullah Saleh, claimed this week. "We are victorious." Making a speech at a security seminar, he asked: "What more victory do you want?"
Saleh explained his contention: the world had finally come around to accepting the Afghan government's claim that the source of insecurity lay beyond Afghanistan's borders. Finally, he said, the battle had been taken to the place where those centres existed.Saleh was referring to the recent formulation of an 'Af-Pak' policy by the Barack Obama administration and its attention on Pakistan as a source of terror.
It is an approach that has gone down well with the governments of both Afghanistan as well as India, both of whom view it as a triumph of their diplomatic efforts. Officials of both countries are, however, less clear on how the Obama administration intends to act upon this understanding and how this will play into their strategies.
Within Afghanistan the mood is a somber one - of waiting. Opinion across the spectrum is agreed only on one thing: that the fresh influx of US troops will mean intensified fighting as the winter snows melt allowing for easier access across the rugged terrain.
For Afghan citizens the war against terror being waged in their territory in their name is not the only source of violence. While there is intense fighting between pro and anti-government elements in many of the southern and south eastern provinces, violence against citizens comes from multiple sources.
In Balkh province, governor Mohammad Atta, a former northern alliance commander, overlooks a province that has eradicated poppy and has been free of insurgency. However, he knows he sits on a powder keg. Balkh was hit by a severe drought last year and its dry brown fields point to the failure of crop. Economic deprivation could upset the fragile balance pushing people to re-enter poppy cultivation and destabilise the modicum of law and order that has been achieved.
In capital Kabul, its elite live in fear of kidnappings. While kidnappings in the city are usually followed by reports of the approaching spectre of the Taliban, the reality is that they are carried out by criminal networks looking for ransom - a get rich quick scheme that is made lucrative by the absence of an effective law and order machinery. Part of the problem of policing Afghanistan has been the use of police in counter insurgency duties for which they are ill-equipped. Between 2007 and 2009, 568 Afghan National Army soliders were killed compared to 1,504 policemen in the same period.
In the central province of Bamiyan, one of the most peaceful areas of the country, a hotelier explains why they never advertise widely. "It is better to get to know by word of mouth. Going to public could invite the wrong kind of attention." There are many armed militia or even gunmen who have no compunction shaking down businessmen and rich Afghans knowing that in all likelihood they will escape the criminal justice system.
In the Shind and district of the western province of Herat, an estimated 90 civilians were killed in bombing by international military forces. The international forces initially claimed they had bombed a Taliban camp but later conceded they had been misled by misinformation. Warring groups or tribes see the use of US air power as an easy and cost effective way to settle feuds.
The combination of poor intelligence on the ground, and heavy reliance on air strikes, has caused an escalation in civilian casualties. In the year 2008, the use of aerial munitions went up by 40 per cent. In the same period the number of civilian deaths from air strikes shot up by 72 per cent. Almost 60 per cent of the deaths were attributable to the approximately 10-20,000 (numbers are constantly changing) US- Operation Enduring Freedom (number of American forces stationed in Afghanistan under the command of the US Operation Enduring Freedom); rather than the 50-62,000 by International Security Assistance Force (number of forces stationed in Afghanistan under NATO command and control).
In the southern provinces where heavy fighting and civilian casualties are frequent, villagers in many areas no longer care who is in charge, just wanting peace at any cost. While outside Afghanistan the battle is seen as one between Al Qaeda and Taliban and the government and international forces, the character of the anti government armed battle is more complex. While there is a core of the Taliban regime which remains under the command and control of Mullah Omar, the homogeneous picture of the 'enemy' is more of a convenient construct of the war against terror.
The anti-government fighters comprise a mix of ideologically motivated Taliban, the Taliban merely fighting for a share of the pie, small time commanders who have been divested of their 'territory', criminals and drug traders. Their links with each other and with the Al Qaeda are fluid and changing, making this nexus much more dangerous than it would have been had it been a clear-cut homogeneous group with a clear command and control structure.
Parallel movements such as that led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are also active and coordinate with the Taliban on a needs-based basis. Each of these groups has been able to hold small areas for short bursts of time but do not have staying power. Rather, their real impact lies in their ability to disrupt governance, instill fear and erode public trust in the mechanisms of governance both in terms of security forces and administration.
Popular perception outside Afghanistan puts the Taliban at the doorstep of Kabul. Indeed, the Taliban has been able to carry out some audacious strikes inside the capital with increasing degrees of coordination. However, their support base within the capital remains extremely limited, restricting their ability to plan and coordinate operations.
While it is more convenient to countries like the US to project the perception of an 'evil' movement that can be annihilated, neither the numbers nor the ideology can be eliminated quite so easily. While the body count has been replaced with growing numbers, the intolerant ideology is not limited to those who call themselves the Taliban. Within Afghanistan's 'legitimate' polity, there are politicians, commanders and power brokers who are much more comfortable with the social and cultural practices of the Taliban than they are with the more modern political paradigm Afghanistan is currently under.
For Afghanistan's single biggest minority, its women, the greatest threat comes from the growing power of cultural conservatives and the rising intolerance. Though its Constitution promises equality, and initial steps with the urging of the international community reserved more than 20 per cent of seats in Afghanistan's Parliament for women, women in public space face increasing threats, and Constitutional guarantees appear to be only as good as its implementers want it to be.
The recent controversy over the Shia personal family law, portions of which are discriminatory towards women, brought this into sharp focus. While this particular law received considerable international focus, in part because of the sensationalised reporting on complex issues of conjugal rights, there has been far less attention on the increasing intolerance for women's participation in public space and the general growth of violence against women.
While several women have been killed by Taliban in the southern provinces such as the killings of Malalai Kakar, a senior and well- known policewoman, and recently Sitara Achakzai, a woman activist (both were killed in Kandahar), there have been several murders in non-Taliban areas as well, such as that of Zakia Zaki who ran a radio station in Jabbal Seraj in Parwan province close to Kabul. In Kabul city, the head of a woman's organisation says the staff, mainly women, have become more nervous about their role as advocate of women's rights, preferring to stay low key.
The increasing violence against women is taking place in a milieu where aspects of human rights, media freedoms and democratic principles are increasingly being attacked from powerful sections of Afghanistan's polity as being 'alien' to Afghanistan. Many women fear that it is their rights which may be the first to be sacrificed. They point out that in the 'negotiations' with the Taliban, half of Afghanistan's population remains unrepresented. Women's groups feel that their rights may be the easiest compromise their leaders and the international community may be willing to make, pushing them into a renewed cycle of violence and oppressions.
MAY 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)