Article: Karzai Criticized Over Afghan poll watchdog move
President Hamid Karzai "won" last year's elections amidst wide spread allegations of vote fraud- many of which were documented by the country's Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). It ended up that about a third of Karzai's votes were illegal.
He managed to keep his job, but has now fired all the internationally appointed members of the EEC. Its likely that Karzai will continue to keep his job for quite some time, as long as he can continue to keep the international community engaged. Its a stupid move all around designed to "win" some elections for Karzai's allies.
This doesn't work well for the people of Afghanistan- who already have to deal with grinding poverty and chronic insecurity, and now have a leader that is transparently crooked. It doesn't work terribly well for the United States, whose troops are fighting the Taliban and whom has poured billions of dollars into the country to build something lasting. Its a serious step backwards for the country, and legitimatizes its fledgling institions.
Does it even really work well for Karzai? The timing is rather good for people in the international community not to notice- with much of the world's focus on the Olympic games. If last year's elections were not an Emperor has no clothes moment, then firing the truth tellers certainly is. In the short run it will probably help Karzai win elections. In the long run, it is self destructive. It undermines his international backers will to continue to supply money and troops.
One group it does work out rather well for the Taliban. Karzai really shouldn't be doing their propaganda work for them.
There needs to be accountability for this behavior. Otherwise the effort is little more than putting up a strawman (not even a strongman, as the government's influence is limited) and calling it a day. This will do nothing to make the country safer for anyone, will do nothing to make the country more just. It does nothing to save the lives of civilians or soldiers. All it serves to do is aggrandize Karzai and delegitimze his government. The Afghan people deserve better than this.
What about Afghan accountability for this? What about the country's civil society and the opposition parties? The future will tell if they will be able to use this power grab to hold the government to account. However with the election commission under the president's thumb, loudly boycotting the elections may be the best choice.
Its tragic that our country is supporting a vote rigging leader in Afghanistan while condemning one next door in Iran.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Trading Women's Rights for an Agreement in Afghanistan?
Article
What will deal with Taliban mean fo Afghan women?
An excellent article addressing some of the difficulties of potentially making peace with the Taliban.
The gist of the warning in this article is this.
That being said the effort to build strong institutions in Afghanistan has a long way to go before they'll be strong enough to remain intact after the departure of western troops. A good place to start would be getting the government to influence events outside of the capital.
What will deal with Taliban mean fo Afghan women?
An excellent article addressing some of the difficulties of potentially making peace with the Taliban.
The gist of the warning in this article is this.
This issue will become increasingly pressing as the discussion of exit strategies and end states come to mind. If Afghanistan is going to have any sort of peaceful future it will have to be one in which women can contribute to society. NATO and the United States will be working against themselves if they decide to sell out Afghanistan's women to save face.
"A recent law has undermined Shia women's rights, a warning to others that political expediency can trump their promised equality, and an unsettling hint for the future. Under international pressure, Karzai allowed the law to be amended. But doubts remain about how far the West would be prepared to support women's rights once its troops have departed."
That being said the effort to build strong institutions in Afghanistan has a long way to go before they'll be strong enough to remain intact after the departure of western troops. A good place to start would be getting the government to influence events outside of the capital.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A broadening of political debate in Bosnia?
Yesterday I attended this event hosted at the US Institute of Peace;
Bosnia Herzegovina: One Country or Not
The title of this event proved to be quite controversial. The Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a representative with a letter explaining their displeasure. Copies were available at the front desk, of which I have one. I don't really know much about this organization, but I could see their point: Bosnia suffered an extremely violent and bloody war from 1992-95. From a Bosniak perspective they lost many people to maintain a unified Bosnia.
So the event began with a brief mea culpa from the moderator about the title- the offense was quite unintentional. Moreover the speaker was more likely than not to agree with the BAACBH.
The panel only had one speaker, Fahrudin Radončić a Bosnian media magnate, critic of the country's current politicians and founder of a new political party called Union for a Better Future of BH. He and his party argue that the main reason for Bosnia's ongoing political crisis and tenacious nationalism is due to a lack of economic development.
He actually spent very little time talking about the subject in the title- only mentioning that he didn't belive that Milrad Dodik, (Prime Minister of one of the country's two major political entities) wasn't serious about joining his entity with Serbia. He rather snarkily stated that if he did that he did he could no longer be Prime Minister- and enjoy the legal and illicit benefits of that office.
Many of the problems he identified weren't new to me- the need to combat corruption for example. Other ones were specific and were new. For example, he had some specific examples of corruption that he would address. The most prominent of these was prosecuting war profiteers who had used the war in the 1990s to privatize Bosnia's government owned enterprises. They used their political connections to take over said businesses. Although he didn't use names- he knew, and I suspect other people in the room knew as well exactly who he was talking about. The result of all this corruption he argued was that the country was unable to spend its reconstruction funds and most were sitting in the bank.
Mr. Radončić gave his perspective on political participation in Bosnian politics. Bosnians had to contend with heavily entrenched interests if they wanted to participate in politics. He argued that he was justified in using his media empire as a base of power politically because Bosnia's current leaders use their influence to freeze most citizens out of political discussion. There is a bit of a "can't make omelets without breaking eggs" mentality here. It is notable that he looks up to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi.
In many ways he talked the talk. He was a moderate and spoke of the value of including all Bosnians, and even working closely with Croatia and Serbia.
My impression was that he had picked up the politician thing rather well-- he was very good at using the questions to explain his message (and avoiding their uncomfortable aspects) and he stuck with his message. I'm not so certain that his fusion of politics and media is really a great direction for Bosnia's still emerging institutions. Sure, the goals seem good enough- put people to work on public works projects (Bosnia has an excessively high unemployment rate and needs work on its physical infrastructure) but in a sense he is proposing the exchange of one type of elite for another.
Most importantly he didn't address the social trust issue, which is a huge obstacle to broadening the inclusivity of the country's social and political institutions.
Bosnia Herzegovina: One Country or Not
The title of this event proved to be quite controversial. The Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a representative with a letter explaining their displeasure. Copies were available at the front desk, of which I have one. I don't really know much about this organization, but I could see their point: Bosnia suffered an extremely violent and bloody war from 1992-95. From a Bosniak perspective they lost many people to maintain a unified Bosnia.
So the event began with a brief mea culpa from the moderator about the title- the offense was quite unintentional. Moreover the speaker was more likely than not to agree with the BAACBH.
The panel only had one speaker, Fahrudin Radončić a Bosnian media magnate, critic of the country's current politicians and founder of a new political party called Union for a Better Future of BH. He and his party argue that the main reason for Bosnia's ongoing political crisis and tenacious nationalism is due to a lack of economic development.
He actually spent very little time talking about the subject in the title- only mentioning that he didn't belive that Milrad Dodik, (Prime Minister of one of the country's two major political entities) wasn't serious about joining his entity with Serbia. He rather snarkily stated that if he did that he did he could no longer be Prime Minister- and enjoy the legal and illicit benefits of that office.
Many of the problems he identified weren't new to me- the need to combat corruption for example. Other ones were specific and were new. For example, he had some specific examples of corruption that he would address. The most prominent of these was prosecuting war profiteers who had used the war in the 1990s to privatize Bosnia's government owned enterprises. They used their political connections to take over said businesses. Although he didn't use names- he knew, and I suspect other people in the room knew as well exactly who he was talking about. The result of all this corruption he argued was that the country was unable to spend its reconstruction funds and most were sitting in the bank.
Mr. Radončić gave his perspective on political participation in Bosnian politics. Bosnians had to contend with heavily entrenched interests if they wanted to participate in politics. He argued that he was justified in using his media empire as a base of power politically because Bosnia's current leaders use their influence to freeze most citizens out of political discussion. There is a bit of a "can't make omelets without breaking eggs" mentality here. It is notable that he looks up to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi.
In many ways he talked the talk. He was a moderate and spoke of the value of including all Bosnians, and even working closely with Croatia and Serbia.
My impression was that he had picked up the politician thing rather well-- he was very good at using the questions to explain his message (and avoiding their uncomfortable aspects) and he stuck with his message. I'm not so certain that his fusion of politics and media is really a great direction for Bosnia's still emerging institutions. Sure, the goals seem good enough- put people to work on public works projects (Bosnia has an excessively high unemployment rate and needs work on its physical infrastructure) but in a sense he is proposing the exchange of one type of elite for another.
Most importantly he didn't address the social trust issue, which is a huge obstacle to broadening the inclusivity of the country's social and political institutions.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Importance of the Haitian Children.
Story: Case Stokes Haiti’s Fear for Children, and Itself
On the surface this story is about some Americans who ran off with Haitian children and tried to take them across a border in a bus. While they claimed that the children were orphans, this was not the case for all of the them. Regardless, it is bizarre that they expected to (as complete strangers and English speaking foreigners) just drive into a French-speaking country, round up a hundred children and then call it a day.
It's a bit surreal to read their plan for finding the children:
I'm not quite sure what the thought process was there. Between this agenda item and some of their quotes they really thought it was just that simple. In reality things weren't quite that simple.
Here is where things get relevant to the subject matter of this blog. Regardless of their intentions these outsiders (blancs in Haitian parlance) they were tone-deaf culturally and politically. These people unknowingly played into many of Haiti's well-founded fears about outsiders meddling in its affairs- and at a time when its especially vulnerable.
While most of us don't know it in the United States we have a long and checkered history in Haiti . The point here is not to point fingers, but to highlight that this regrettable history still shapes Haitian perceptions of the United States. When Haiti rarely emerges in the American consciousness it is seen through the lens of our own race relations. Mostly Haiti emerges as an issue once every decade (usually as a problem to be bandaged) or so and then falls back out of its perception. Indeed; the United States' last dealings in Haiti were hardly noticed here. For Haiti, the effect of previous US actions weighs heavily.
In responding to this orphan incident Haitian officials have to navigate this legacy. They are not simply responding to a specific incident but they are responding to the history between our countries. They have to do something- especially since there are few things they can do about it.
The challenge is to do justice for everyone involved while navigating the difficulties posed by this history. It will be extremely difficult to try this case in Haiti- given the state of the country's courts. Officially at least the US government has deferred to Haiti on the matter- which is the right thing to do in the meantime. The Haitian government does have the right to prosecute.
The underlying difficulty exposed by this problem will not go away. Americans have the luxury of forgetting the past, Haitians do not. Thus Americans will likely continue to do things that evoke its past in Haiti- regardless of their intentions. Navigating these difficulties is crucial if the United States wishes to play any sort a positive role in Haiti.
It would also help to come to terms with this history as well-- but that may be a bit overly optimistic.
On the surface this story is about some Americans who ran off with Haitian children and tried to take them across a border in a bus. While they claimed that the children were orphans, this was not the case for all of the them. Regardless, it is bizarre that they expected to (as complete strangers and English speaking foreigners) just drive into a French-speaking country, round up a hundred children and then call it a day.
It's a bit surreal to read their plan for finding the children:
"Sun Jan 23rd: Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port au Prince, Haiti and gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the DR [Dominican Republic]"
I'm not quite sure what the thought process was there. Between this agenda item and some of their quotes they really thought it was just that simple. In reality things weren't quite that simple.
Here is where things get relevant to the subject matter of this blog. Regardless of their intentions these outsiders (blancs in Haitian parlance) they were tone-deaf culturally and politically. These people unknowingly played into many of Haiti's well-founded fears about outsiders meddling in its affairs- and at a time when its especially vulnerable.
While most of us don't know it in the United States we have a long and checkered history in Haiti . The point here is not to point fingers, but to highlight that this regrettable history still shapes Haitian perceptions of the United States. When Haiti rarely emerges in the American consciousness it is seen through the lens of our own race relations. Mostly Haiti emerges as an issue once every decade (usually as a problem to be bandaged) or so and then falls back out of its perception. Indeed; the United States' last dealings in Haiti were hardly noticed here. For Haiti, the effect of previous US actions weighs heavily.
In responding to this orphan incident Haitian officials have to navigate this legacy. They are not simply responding to a specific incident but they are responding to the history between our countries. They have to do something- especially since there are few things they can do about it.
The challenge is to do justice for everyone involved while navigating the difficulties posed by this history. It will be extremely difficult to try this case in Haiti- given the state of the country's courts. Officially at least the US government has deferred to Haiti on the matter- which is the right thing to do in the meantime. The Haitian government does have the right to prosecute.
The underlying difficulty exposed by this problem will not go away. Americans have the luxury of forgetting the past, Haitians do not. Thus Americans will likely continue to do things that evoke its past in Haiti- regardless of their intentions. Navigating these difficulties is crucial if the United States wishes to play any sort a positive role in Haiti.
It would also help to come to terms with this history as well-- but that may be a bit overly optimistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)