| With
Iraq an unmitigated disaster
and a U.S election approaching in November 2004, U.S President George
Bush desperately needs a success story in his foreign policy pursuits
to justify the unleashing of the U.S's gargantuan military might against
impoverished nations. What better way than to trumpet the triumph of ‘democracy’
– that sacrosanct term that opens the hearts of ordinary Americans
eager to believe that their government is doing ‘Right’ in
the world. With plans for Iraq’s installation of ‘democracy’
proving far too popular with the ‘wrong’ kind of people for
Washington’s tastes, Afghanistan seems to be once again cast to
serve the Bush administration’s needs, this time by being paraded
as the grateful - and successful - recipient of US-exported democracy.
Under the Constitution agreed upon in early January, Afghanistan is to
schedule both presidential and parliamentary elections in June 2004. Bush
and Afghanistan’s President Karzai have accepted a possible delay
of the parliamentary elections. However, they are determined to keep the
presidential elections on the June timetable. This - despite the fact
that similar ‘technical’ problems cited by chief US administrator
Paul Bremer in Iraq as reasons to delay the elections there - also exist
in Afghanistan,
Bush’s rosy rhetoric about Afghanistan has already been stepped
up. In his State of the Union address this year he said:
“As of this month, that country has a new constitution,
guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women… With
help from the new Afghan army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids
against the surviving members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The men and
women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free and proud and
fighting terror.”
Yet, as in the case of Iraq, it seems that the president is again suffering
from faulty intelligence. His remarks seem to bear little resemblance
to the reality that is Afghanistan today and certainly merit closer scrutiny.
True, Afghanistan does have a new constitution, ratified on January 4,
2004. However, it was a product of dubious means: The Loya Jirga, or Grand
Assembly, in which the constitution was meant to be debated was dominated
by fundamentalist mujahideen and warlords who did not inspire open discussion.
International human rights groups and local Afghan journalists reported
that decisions were ’agreed’ upon’ not through free
and equal participation but by physical intimidation of delegates, vote-buying,
death threats and backroom decisions between government officials and
influential militia leaders that excluded a majority of delegates. In
short the ‘ratification’ of the constitution was anything
but democratic.
The constitution itself is fraught with. While on paper it does make sweeping
enunciations of equality, democracy, economic, civil and political rights,
there is little about creating the institutions to uphold or implement
these provisions. Without the means to actually enforce laws, the constitution
carries little authority - perhaps none in the face of armed warlords.
How it can “guarantee free elections” is therefore something
of a mystery.
Meanwhile, the US claims it is supporting peace and democracy in Afghanistan.
For the last two years, the US has embarked on operation after operation
to ‘root out’ remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in its
“war on terror”. While this in itself may not be cause for
concern, what is alarming are the tactics employed by the US in doing
so. Indeed, far from creating the conditions for stability to evolve in
Afghanistan, US pursuits are having the opposite effect. Much of the violence
that is raging throughout the country is arguably a direct result of US
policies:
a) The US’s most egregious policy is the forging of unholy alliances
between the US military and known war criminals. Far from getting “help
from the new Afghan army,” (which consists of a paltry 7000 men,
rather short of it’s aim of 70,000, and already suffering hundreds
of desertions), the US is relying on regional warlords and their militia
for support in pursuing the Taliban. It seems not to matter to the US
that the differences in outlook between the Taliban and these warlords
is minimal: most are as dictatorial, fundamentalist and anti-modern as
the Taliban. They are also they same people who dominated Afghanistan
during its chaotic civil war era from 1992-96. The Taliban did succeed
in disarming these warlords and restoring some kind of order to the country
after they gained power in 1996.
Thus when Taliban rule ended, there was a real opportunity for the creation
of a strong government without the dominance of armed warlords to contest
its authority. However, the U.S chose to resurrect the warlords by supporting
them once again with cash and arms.
b) The U.S has until very recently opposed the expansion of international
peacekeepers to the rest of the country. The International Security Assistance
Forces (ISAF) is undoubtedly the reason for relative peace and stability
in Kabul. With their presence, the power of private armies loyal to highly
placed ministers, such as Defense Minister General Fahim, has been diffused;
commercial activity has been allowed to progress, aid workers can work
openly, women have been able to take part in public and civic life with
relative safety. NATO decided last October to expand their forces, although
so far significant numbers of troops have not been forthcoming. The U.S
is now pushing for NATO to deploy provincial reconstruction teams or PRT’s.
PRT's are not designated peacekeepers but do humanitarian work, such as
build schools here and there. They have little impact on security, and
have no power to intervene in factional fighting or in human rights abuses
perpetrated by militia. |
c) Disarmament of the estimated 100,000-500,000 armed men in Afghanistan
has also been moving at an extremely slow pace even though it is considered
by most Afghans to be the first and most vital step toward the rule of
law and away from the gun. Indeed the US is further undermining disarmament
by re-arming regional warlords in the name of fighting terror.
Taken together, these
policies have allowed the warlords to once again consolidate their regional
domination which they are using it to terrorize their citizenry with extortion,
rape and killings. There is no talk of their being held accountable for
their past and present crimes.
The re-emergence of warlords has also resulted in another fateful development:
Afghanistan is again the foremost opium producer in the world, producing
an estimated nine times the amount of opium now than it did under Taliban
rule. Recently, the U.N warned that Afghanistan is on the brink of becoming
a narco-state where drug barons will be more powerful than the government.
With the breakdown of security, most independent political organizers
are too afraid to organize. Additionally, no political parties have been
officially recognized, and no electoral law has been enacted. The U.N
is registering voters but the dangerous conditions have slowed the process
tremendously. So far only about 10% of an eligible 10 million voters have
registered, and most of those are in urban centers although approximately
70% of Afghans are rurally based.
The south and east of the country are especially unsafe for registrars
and would-be voters who face potential attacks. Yet it is vital that people
in these areas are represented if election results are to be accepted.
If large parts of the population were excluded from voting, the legitimacy
of the vote would certainly be jeopardized. Already, many Afghans do not
take this sudden appearance of ‘democracy’ all too seriously,
believing that it is the product of self-serving interests of the powers
that be. Real democracy, they say, is impossible until the powerful warlords
have been disarmed. Exclusion would also exacerbate ethnic tensions, further
destabilizing the country.
Various world bodies, including the U.N and the European Union (EU), recommend
that elections be postponed until mid-2005 at the earliest, unless safety
conditions are drastically improved. Many groups also state that even
if registration is sufficient, in areas of warlord influence, voters and
candidates may well be intimidated and pressured not to participate or
to vote a certain way.
Women are especially at a disadvantage in voting ‘freely’.
Although UNAMA is admirably making a concerted effort to register more
women, they are unlikely to make significant impact in this regard. So
far only 2% of eligible female voters have been registered, primarily
in urban areas.
Only a handful of women have benefited from increased opportunities in
vocations and education and they are largely restricted to Kabul. The
ratification of The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW) in March 2003 has had no effect on the well-being
of Afghan women, and there is little reason to expect that their stated
‘equality’ in the Constitution will have any positive effect
either. The vast majority of Afghan women remain illiterate and uneducated
and live under oppressive traditions. Militiamen target them for rape,
torture and kidnapping. Girls’ schools are being set on fire. Laws
are being upheld that restrict women’s education and public appearances.
Many women cannot receive health care either because clinics are too dangerous
to get to, or because male doctors can’t treat them. Though illegal,
forced and under-age marriages are still common. In Herat, a new phenomenon
has emerged over the last two years, that of self-immolation: women are
so desperate and fearful of men that they actually set themselves on fire.
Under these circumstances it is wholly disingenuous of Bush to claim “free
elections and the full participation by women”, especially in the
face of the insecurity that his administration has helped to promote.
The Bush administration has done very little to ensure better conditions
for women. If anything, it has done more to ensure their continued enslavement
by supporting fundamentalists within and outside of government who are
notorious for their brutal treatment of women and flagrant human rights
violations.
In sticking to the June 2004 schedule against recommendations from a variety
of sources, George W. Bush is confirming his own penchant for the appearance
of democracy rather than wanting real participation in the political process
by a majority of citizenry. But then, what kind of ‘democracy’
can we expect when it is exported by a President who himself was installed
by a backroom decision that overrode the popular vote? |
