25 1391
by Becky Anderson Democracy without Justice
President Karzai and his top aides have blocked the release of
an important report: Conflict Mapping In Afghanistan Since 1978,
prepared recently by the Afghan Independent Human Rights
Commission. The report mentions hundreds of the current power
holders atrocities committed during the countrys devastating civil
war in the 1990s.
Titled "Conflict Mapping In Afghanistan Since 1978," the damning
report accuses up to 500 members and leaders of rival ethnic and
political groups, some of whom currently hold prominent government
positions, of being involved in widespread human rights abuses from
the communist coup and subsequent Soviet invasion of the late 1970s
to the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Some of the accused are former
Mujahideen who fought the Soviet Union in 1980s. They were popular
and considered as heroes defending the country. But, they became
hated warlords when they turned against each other after the
Pro-Soviet Communist Government of Dr Najibullah collapsed in 1992.
These warlords committed unprecedented atrocities and human rights
abuses that the history of Afghanistan has ever recorded. In Kabul
alone tens of thousands of civilians were dead; thousands of women
and children were raped and the countrys infrastructure was left in
tatters. The nation took refuge in the Taliban to save them from
the warlords. The Taliban crashed them from power and forced
them
to flee to the neighbouring Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran,
Turkey, Pakistan, India, etc. When the US decided to attack
Afghanistan and to topple the Taliban regime, it needed foot
soldiers deployed from among the Afghans. These very warlords were
approached and put in power after the Taliban collapsed and since
then are still in power. Probably the initial intention of the US
was to change these warlords from warriors to political activists,
but they had to be disarmed first. This did not happen. They were
brought to politics with more weapons and hate against the Taliban
and all those who were not happy with their rule in the 1990s. The
warlords are now stronger than ever as the International Community
is backing them with souls and treasure. They have been in power
over a decade and the nation is looking with tied hands at how
democracy functions and is flourished by warlords, human rights
abusers, drug businessmen and corrupt expatriates. Some details of
the report, which is the result of six years intensive research,
were recently released by "The New York Times". It provides an
authoritative list of the principal players in the wars of the last
three decades, as well as insight into specific incidents, through
evidence collected from more than 180 mass graves and the
testimonies of thousands of survivors and witnesses. "This report
has mapped the atrocities and human rights violations in
Afghanistan and highlights the main incidents of the past three
decades. When the human rights commission was documenting the
cases, people came up with names and they were identifying the
perpetrators and saying whom did what to them. This is how the
report is identifying hundreds of those perpetrators," says Horia
Mosadiq, Amnesty Internationals Afghanistan researcher. She was
part of the 40-member team of Afghan researchers (Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty 25 July 2012). Mosadiq adds that those accused
of atrocities in the report - including the massacring of civilians
or prisoners and the indiscriminate destruction of towns and
villages - include some of the most prominent members of the
current Afghan government. Ostensibly, for the sake of
reconciliation and justice, President Hamid Karzai ordered the
preparation of such a report in 2005. The report was completed and
submitted in December 2011, but is unlikely to be released anytime
soon, according to Mosadiq. Karzai stopped its release and kept it
as a hanging sword over the heads of his rival warlords. Mosadiq
adds that the decision to suppress the document coincided with the
removal of several members of the Afghan Independent Human Rights
Commission. "If we want to give people some level of accountability
and justice," Mosadiq says, "it's important for people to know what
happened to them, who did it, why they did
it, and to pressure the Afghan government to deliver this
justice and accountability to the people of Afghanistan." Abdul
Jabar Thabit, former Attorney General, spoke to the media (01 Oct
2007) saying: only low profile people can be brought to justice;
the corrupt powerful government officials are walking free; I have
no dare even to name them. I gave to President (Karzai) the names
of the 20 most corrupt government officials who are also involved
in illicit drug business, but the president ordered me not to
prosecute them. Zia Masoud claimed, when he was Vice-President,
that some high ranking government officials were involved in drug
business. When Karzai was asked to comment on his Vice-Presidents
remarks, he replied: He wished he dared to name them. Ali Ahmad
Jalali claimed at the time when he was Minister of Interior that 4
ministers and 13 governors were involved in drug trafficking, but
could not dare to name them. Imagine how the state machinery and
democracy function when the Attorney General, Minister of Interior,
Vice-President and President of the country dont dare to name those
corrupt officials and drug traffickers who hold high ranking
government offices. The report "Conflict Mapping In Afghanistan
Since 1978" may be kept hidden for some time, but not forever. We
urge the pressure groups and civil societies to make the release of
the report soon possible.
by Dr Afghan
LEAVING THE MESS BEHIND were malfunctioned by corruption of
different kinds. It is most dangerous than any other weakness on
the ground
Afghanistan will pass through two important stages in the coming
two and a half years that will determine its future and will affect
the future of the region and NATO as well. During this period, the
US and NATO will hand over most of the security responsibilities to
the Afghan Army - military transition - and Hamid Karzai may leave
the presidential palace to another actor political transition.
Military transition. NATO is committed to support the Afghan Army
by required training, increasing its number to 350,000 and
equipping it with modern weaponry. However, the Afghans are
sceptical. The Afghan National Army (ANA) continues to be a
factional army, loyal to patron warlords rather than being loyal to
the country, the Afghan Constitution, and the president of
Afghanistan. The Afghan army lacks a purpose or ideology to fight
for. It fights for money and the money comes from foreigners. The
increase in numbers and equipment will not make the ANA a more
competent army, fully capable of shouldering the responsibility of
security in Afghanistan beyond 2014. It is a huge financial burden
- $4.1 billion a year and not is practical the NATO will be in a
position to carry on such a huge financial burden for long. There
is little prospect for the ANA being able to successfully defend
the government against the Taliban without the US physical military
support. It will critically need US intelligence and air support
for so
long that this will question the independence of the army and
legitimacy of the Afghan Government. The Afghan Army and police are
not reliable: it is estimated that over 17 % of the NATO trained
Afghan soldiers joined the insurgency and 6 % of the NATO
casualties have come from the Afghan soldiers and police. This
danger will increase significantly when transition is completed by
the end of 2014. Corruption at all levels in the Afghan Government
has fed warlords and insurgency alike. The army is part of the
government, not the opposite. If the government is corrupt, the
army will not be the exception. According to the plan, NATO will
continue to assist the Afghan army and police after 2014, while
cutting down its assistance significantly to other sectors. Without
a good government in place, such support will make the army and
police the most corrupt attractive institutions in the country as
the huge foreign money will be available only in the army and
police. Political transition. The security transition hinges on an
effective political transition from President Karzai to a new
leadership. The Afghans inside and outside of the government say
Mr. Karzai did little to set up a political system that will
support a new president. Karzai neither has a clear vision and
political agenda for the country nor did he make a coherent and
strong working team. Also, he did not give an opportunity to others
to emerge as political leaders. It is believed
Karzai likes a weak and corrupt government system and a fragile
state in the country to ensure that he will retainpower for years
to come in one form or another. The Afghans did not ask for an
election in 2004; they were asking for a good government. This was
the International Community seeking legitimacy through election for
its installed regime in Kabul. Most Afghans believed what was
promised by the International Community and went to the polls in
large numbers in spite of tangible threats and hoped the situation
would change for the better: a functional government. The election
was conducted and Karzai was stamped as the elected president. The
International Community flooded the Afghans with promises but few
were fulfilled and the hopes of the Afghans for a good government
were dashed. Karzai without any tangible accomplishments stood
again for presidential election in 2009. The International
Community again encouraged the Afghans to vote and promised
Afghanistan will certainly change this time for better. The Afghans
with no better alternative went again to polling stations under
more odd security conditions: some of them lost their coloured
fingers, ears and noses as a price for taking part in the election.
But, we all saw what happened to the election process; it was name
and shame. As a result the legitimacy of the Afghan Government
came
under more serious questions. The European Union and the UN
monitors turnout estimates suggested as many as a third of the 54.6
% of ballots for Karzai were fraud. Kai Edie, the UN Special Envoy
to Afghanistan at the time, accused the Americans of rigging the
election and thus sacked his deputy, Peter Gailbraith, for
interfering in the election. Here, everyone knew the future of the
Afghan government would be in more disarray and the little trust
that existed within the government apparatus would vanish. NATO
accused the Afghan Government for its failures and the Afghan
Government blamed NATO for hypocrisy. To escape blame the
governments media were sharply criticising NATO for destabilising
the government, fuelling insecurity, exaggerating and exploiting
ethnic differences, flourishing illicit drug business and scammed
the elections. The Afghan Government preached against the NATO
presence and agenda in Afghanistan. The Afghan Government claimed
its failure was mainly due to the wrong doing of NATO. Whats been
accomplished is a shared accomplishment, and whats been a failure
is a shared failure, said Said Jawad, the former Afghan ambassador
to Washington. As a result the credibility and popularity of NATO
not only declined among ordinary Afghans but also among governments
high rank officials that were fed by world assistance. NATO, in its
part, criticised the Afghan Government and claimed it is a
narco-state plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption.
Thus, for over ten years, the Afghan Government not only did not
improve but instead deteriorated and
that the Afghans have neither a trusted government nor that the
International Community has a credible partner in Afghanistan.
Thus, all has failed to have a good government. The Northern
Alliance, while being in the important government positions and
sharing responsibility for the current chaos, is clapping for
Karzai and that finally came under the rain of critics from the
International Community. With no better image among people, the
Northern Alliance tries to encourage NATO to pave the way for this
sectarian group to rule Afghanistan directly after the term of
Karzai is over in 2014. There is urgent need for a change, and good
government, before the troops withdrawal in 2014. It is the US and
NATOs prime responsibility to pave the way for the emergence of a
good government in Afghanistan, a political transition, before the
military transition is completed. It can be in two ways:
reconciliation with the Taliban and/or paving the way for a fair
and free election to result in the emergence of a competent leader.
Otherwise, military transition without political transition (to
have a reliable, trusted and viable government in Afghanistan that
will pave a way for a comprehensive internal settlement) is a step
in the wrong direction. Similarly, supporting a factional army
without a good, trusted and accountable government is another step
in the wrong direction. These are the messes created by the
International Community and it is its duty to fix them. It is
believed there is still the opportunity to fix these messes,
otherwise, the situation will get out of control and will indeed
lead to another kind of insurgency.
