I will be writing shortly on the meeting between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Afghan President Hamid Karzai at USIP this week. In the mean time, I came across a slideshow on BBC on the state of physical rebuilding in Afghanistan's capital.
After:
Click here for the slideshow
Of course this got me thinking- if this is an after then we need a before.
Before:
Click here for the gallery
So I did a bit of digging and found the above gallery from 2002 on the website of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), an anti-fundamentalist, anti-war political organization in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The first thing one notices on comparing these two galleries is the sudden preponderance of glass and steel buildings. This begs the question of what is being "rebuilt"? These buildings really do look like examples of an economy focused on the money of Afghans employed by the international community. Afterall Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished nations in the world. The citizens are far more likely to patronize one of those Naan sellers than a place that looks like the guitar shop.
But these days Kabul is both, and a bit more for that matter. One of the things that struck me when I first looked at Kabul in Google Maps was that it really seemed to be three cities- there was the old Kabul: tightly clustered clay brick homes that ring the city.
View Larger Map
Then there is the Soviet style Kabul: A sea of regimented apartments that would look just as out of place in Moscow or Sofia.
View Larger Map
And last but not least, the shiniest of them all: The American style Kabul.
View Larger Map
In this case- these aren't brand new buildings (built in the 60's and early 70's) but are homes to many of the international community living in the city.
The buildings of Kabul are a metaphor for the country as a whole. Beyond the glitz of the steel and metal buildings Afghanistan remains deeply troubled place with a whole lot of history.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Upcoming Stories
Its going to be a rather exiting couple of weeks here in DC and I'm going to have quite a bit of writing to do.
In case someone in DC hasn't heard, we're having a big summit on Nuclear Weapons reduction and nonproliferation. Delegations from over 40 countries will be present.
American University is currently hosting an exhibit on Post Civil War Lebanese art. I'll be posting pictures when I get a chance to see it.
The Carnegie Endowment will be hosting an event on Armenian-Turkish rapprochement on Friday.
"Armenia and Turkey: Bridging the Gap
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010
Time: 12:15 to 2:00 p.m.
Location: Carnegie Endowment for International
Speakers: Henri Barkey, Tom de Waal, David L. Phillips, Amb. James F. Collins"
Apparently Carnegie does these things by invitation? AU's PCR list serve got an invitation so I'm going!
On Monday Dr. Abdul Aziz Said is speaking on the continuing mismatch in American and Muslim perceptions on global issues and conflict. I look forward to hearing him speak, as I've had too few opportunities to do so.
Moreover the Afghan-Karzai-election row continues to get even more heated, and I daresay quite personal.
In case someone in DC hasn't heard, we're having a big summit on Nuclear Weapons reduction and nonproliferation. Delegations from over 40 countries will be present.
American University is currently hosting an exhibit on Post Civil War Lebanese art. I'll be posting pictures when I get a chance to see it.
The Carnegie Endowment will be hosting an event on Armenian-Turkish rapprochement on Friday.
"Armenia and Turkey: Bridging the Gap
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010
Time: 12:15 to 2:00 p.m.
Location: Carnegie Endowment for International
Speakers: Henri Barkey, Tom de Waal, David L. Phillips, Amb. James F. Collins"
Apparently Carnegie does these things by invitation? AU's PCR list serve got an invitation so I'm going!
On Monday Dr. Abdul Aziz Said is speaking on the continuing mismatch in American and Muslim perceptions on global issues and conflict. I look forward to hearing him speak, as I've had too few opportunities to do so.
Moreover the Afghan-Karzai-election row continues to get even more heated, and I daresay quite personal.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
President Karzai Points His Finger
Afghan President Karzai accuses UN over election Fraud
President Hamid Karzai is pointing his finger at the west today, accusing them of attempting to push him out of office. During President Karzai's statement he singled out American Ambassador Peter Galbraith. Incidentally I had planned on writing on the Ambassador before I read this story.
Last week I attended a presentation given by Ambassador Galbraith on this very subject, called Afghanistan: War of Necessity or Quagmire. A web search reveals that he's been traveling to quite a few places to give this presentation. Something he hinted at during his speech. Here's a link to a similar speech given to the Vermont Council on World Affairs.
Altogether I found him to be rather interesting, covering topic areas such as the country's need for decentralization and Afghanistan's recent history with Pakistan and the election:
The long and the short of it is that both Ambassador Galbraith and President Karzai have a lot of bad blood over last year's election fraud. According to Ambassador Galbraith the election was plauged with "wholesale" election fraud perpetrated by members of the election commission appointed by Karzai.
Karzai did manage to eke out a reelection- basically by getting his opponent to decline to stand for the runoff. Galbraith was dismissed from his role in the United Nations mission for criticizing events. Since then he has made it a point to speak out against Karzai's ongoing attempts to steal power in Afghanistan.
Galbraith is rightly angry- it it is NATO soldiers that protect his regime and Western dollars that fund his government and pay for elections. Karzai's vote rigging has made Afghanistan more dangerous and more expensive for its western allies. Karzai has since attempted to change election laws to remove international oversight of elections and replace them with his political allies. He did this over the objections of Afghanistan's parliament, and less than a year before this year's parliamentary elections.
Ambassador Galbraith had a couple suggestions for fixing Afghanistan's election system; first, truly remove the election officials appointed by Karzai and actually fire those found with their hands stuffing the ballot box. And in the long run constitutional reform designed to decentralize the country's governance structure- something that the Ambassador doesn't suspect is very high on the country's agenda. Galbraith also states an alternative "If Afghans want to have a fraudulent election, they should pay for it themselves."
This is the heart of the issue. The international community is not in Afghanistan because they want to be. It is an expensive intervention in a remote region. There is little to no economic gain out of being there. The country is a source of drugs and is a potential threat to international security. These issues are important, but the international community's patience is very limited and there are other countries that have the same problems and are easier to get to. What does President Karzai think he'll be the president of without his allies? Does he think his government will last long when he can't exercise its authority outside of Kabul? Or does he think that Afghanistan is so indispensable to the international community that they will stay there forever no matter what? Members of the Dutch government recently thought otherwise.
President Hamid Karzai is pointing his finger at the west today, accusing them of attempting to push him out of office. During President Karzai's statement he singled out American Ambassador Peter Galbraith. Incidentally I had planned on writing on the Ambassador before I read this story.
Last week I attended a presentation given by Ambassador Galbraith on this very subject, called Afghanistan: War of Necessity or Quagmire. A web search reveals that he's been traveling to quite a few places to give this presentation. Something he hinted at during his speech. Here's a link to a similar speech given to the Vermont Council on World Affairs.
Altogether I found him to be rather interesting, covering topic areas such as the country's need for decentralization and Afghanistan's recent history with Pakistan and the election:
The long and the short of it is that both Ambassador Galbraith and President Karzai have a lot of bad blood over last year's election fraud. According to Ambassador Galbraith the election was plauged with "wholesale" election fraud perpetrated by members of the election commission appointed by Karzai.
Karzai did manage to eke out a reelection- basically by getting his opponent to decline to stand for the runoff. Galbraith was dismissed from his role in the United Nations mission for criticizing events. Since then he has made it a point to speak out against Karzai's ongoing attempts to steal power in Afghanistan.
Galbraith is rightly angry- it it is NATO soldiers that protect his regime and Western dollars that fund his government and pay for elections. Karzai's vote rigging has made Afghanistan more dangerous and more expensive for its western allies. Karzai has since attempted to change election laws to remove international oversight of elections and replace them with his political allies. He did this over the objections of Afghanistan's parliament, and less than a year before this year's parliamentary elections.
Ambassador Galbraith had a couple suggestions for fixing Afghanistan's election system; first, truly remove the election officials appointed by Karzai and actually fire those found with their hands stuffing the ballot box. And in the long run constitutional reform designed to decentralize the country's governance structure- something that the Ambassador doesn't suspect is very high on the country's agenda. Galbraith also states an alternative "If Afghans want to have a fraudulent election, they should pay for it themselves."
This is the heart of the issue. The international community is not in Afghanistan because they want to be. It is an expensive intervention in a remote region. There is little to no economic gain out of being there. The country is a source of drugs and is a potential threat to international security. These issues are important, but the international community's patience is very limited and there are other countries that have the same problems and are easier to get to. What does President Karzai think he'll be the president of without his allies? Does he think his government will last long when he can't exercise its authority outside of Kabul? Or does he think that Afghanistan is so indispensable to the international community that they will stay there forever no matter what? Members of the Dutch government recently thought otherwise.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Afghanistan gets murkier
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)