با کرزی بودن نتوان، بی کرزی بودن نتوان

اگر چه رهبران کشورهای غربی اعلامیه کمیسیون انتخابات افغانستان مبنی بر انتصاب حامد کرزی بحیث ریس را با شتاب و عجولانه گی استقبال نمودند و آنرا یگانه حل معقول افتضاح انتخابات ریاست جمهوری نامیدند، بآنهم نگرانی ها در مورد فساد اداری، رهبری ضعیف و سوء مدیریت در حکومت آقای کرزی در رسانه های غرب بازتاب وسیعی داشته است

دموکراتان حاکم در کاخ سفید آقای کرزی را یک میراث ناکارا و فاسد ریس جمهور اسبق ایالات متحد امریکا، جورج بوش، میشمارند. آقای کرزی که زمانی در یکسال چندین بار در ضیافتهای کاخ سفید حضور میافت بعد از بقدرت رسیدن بارک اوباما یگانه چیزی را کز واشنگتن پیهم دریافت نموده است توبیخ، انتقاد و تهدید بوده است. برعکس انتخابات 2005 که در آن سفیر وقت امریکا در کابل، زلمی خلیلزاد، و موسسهء بنیاد آسیا بخاطر موفقیت آقای کرزی از دیپلماسی "دالر و ارعاب" وسیعا کار گرفتند در انتخابات امسال واشنگتن همواره بر عدم جانبداری خود تاکید ورزید تا حدی که دیدار سفیر کنونی امریکا با شماری از کاندیدان ارگ را به واکنش تند واداشت. آقای کرزی وقتی تصمیم تقلب در انتخابات را گرفت که اطمینان حاصل نمود واشنگتن باز برایش موفقیت را نخواهد خرید

لندن هم از آقای کرزی دل خوشی ندارد. کشمکش های ستراتیژیک در هلمند عامل اساسی بدگمانی ها میان انگلیسی ها و ارگ کابل بوده است. گمانه های وجود دارد که ادارات استخباراتی انگلیس بخاطر مصوونیت سربازان انگلیس با قومندانان طالب در کویته و هلمند مذاکرات سری انجام میدهند که دولت افغانستان از جزییات آن هیچ آگاهی ندارد. ارگ اینگونه مذاکرات را نقض حق حاکمیت افغانستان تلقی مینماید اما لندن بخود حق میدهد تا بخاطر حفظ منافع و جان سربازانش با طالبان گفتگو و مصالحه نماید

لندن و واشنگتن هر دو از تمدید زعامت حامدکرزی قلبا راضی نیستند چون فکر میکنند که پنجسال آینده هم تکرار ناکارایی های هشت سال گذشته خواهد بود. قبل از انتخابات وقتی از یکطرف شایعات پیرامون نزدیکی اشرف غنی احمدزی با شرکت های روابط عامهء دموکرات ها در واشنگتن ایجاد گردید و از جانبی دیگر اوباما سلسلهء ملاقات های تلفونی هفته وار کاخ سفید و ارگ را بطور یکجانبه فسخ نمود، ریس جمهور کرزی بسوی فدراتیف روسیه شتافت و در یک سخنرانی در ولسی جرگه تهدید نمود که اگر غرب وی را طرد نماید او تحت حمایت مسکو قرار خواهد گرفت. کرزی همچنان تلاش ورزیده است تا در پاسخ به انتقادات گسترده در مورد برادانش، فساد اداری و سوء مدیریتش کشورها و سازمانهای کمک دهنده را متهم به فساد نماید. جالب اینکه در یک مصاحبه با شبکهء PBS آقای کرزی گفت چون غرب او را مجبور نمود تا حکم آزادی پرویزکامبخش را امضا نمود او هم سه قاچاقبر مواد مخدر را از زندان رها ساخت: قانون شکنی یک بر یک

حالا صرفنظر از ملاحظات مشروعیت و عدم آن، بنابر مصلحت های سنتی افغانستان، آقای کرزی مجددا ریس جمهور اعلان گردیده است و غرب چارهء جز کار با وی را ندارد. زمزمهء "باتو بودن نتوان، بی تو بودن نتوان" در مورد وضعیت آقای کرزی و حامیان غربی اش صدق میکند

اما این ناچاری تماما بسود آقای کرزی نیست. کرزی بدون حمایت غرب نمیتواند حیات سیاسی حکومت اشرا ادامه دهد. واقعبینی و عملگرایی دو جز لاینفک سیاست خارجی ایالات متحده بوده است و روی همین دو اصل بوده که استدلال "او اگر حرامزاده است اما حرامزادهء ماست" مورد قبول سیاسیون واشنگتن بوده است

سخنرانی ترجمه شده؟

نطقی را که آقای کرزی بعد از اجرا مراسم تحلیف قرات نمود مملو از سکتگی های خوانشی و اغلاط مفهومی بود و این در بخش پشتو سخنرانی بیشتر قابل درک بود. آقای کرزی بویژه جملاتی که در مورد فساد اداری، نقش اییتلاف ناتو و گفتگو با مخالفین حکومت بودند را از روی کاغذ میخواند. گرامر، طرز نوشتار و ترتیب کلمات بکار رفته در این جملات بیشتر ترجمه شده از یک متن انگلیسی بودند تا تراوش یافته از افکار آقای کرزی و سخنرانی نویسان ارگ

یکی از خبرنگارانی که در معیت وزیرخارجهء امریکا، هیلاری کلینتون، به کابل آمده بود پوسخندانه بمن گفت که متن سخنرانی آقای کرزی را امریکای ها تهیه نموده بودند و حتا خانم کلینتون از قبل جزییات آنرا ملاحظه نموده بود. اگر چه سخنرانی آقای کرزی برای افغانها جذابیت و پیام خاصی نداشت، اما مورد استقبال گرم وزیر خارجه امریکا قرار گرفت

نوشتن سخنرانی آقای کرزی توسط امریکای ها، اگر واقعا درست باشد، شاید کدام امر خارق العادهء نباشد، اما عمل به تعهدات و وعده های داده شده چالش های بزرگی بوده اند که حکومت افغانستان از هشت سال گذشته در حل آن عاجز بوده است. دیده شود آنگونه که امریکای ها در تهیهء متن سخنرانی آقای کرزی را یاری رسانیدند در تحقق وعده های کاهش فساد، حکومتداری بهتر و رهبریت کارا هم او را راهنمایی خواهند کرد؟

Where Mr. Karzai should begin the clean up

While congratulating his appointment as the President of Afghanistan by the Elections Commission world leaders have unanimously called on Hamid Karzai to curb corruption and warlordism in his new administration. Some have rightly argued that the future of post-Taliban Afghanistan and Mr. Karzai hinges on the kind of government he will make and the kind of governance his officials will deliver in the country.

As time for his re-inauguration approaches Mr. Karzai has been increasingly called upon from inside and outside Afghanistan to sack inefficient and corrupt ministers and bring in new and competent figures into his cabinet.

Easy it is to demand uncorrupt and talented individuals to run Afghanistan’s predatory ministries and deliver swift, efficient and reliable services but extremely difficult it will be to find such individuals in Mr. Karzai’s notorious entourage.

In February 2007 when in a newspaper article I warned President Karzai about a dangerous mafia which had dominated his Arg and his decision-making environment, his immediate aides distortedly presented the newspaper to him as a proof of my personal vendetta against the President. By then the President had offered me a job in his office but some of the President’s senior staff – who had and still have a powerful network in the Arg – opposed me.

The power and influence of those aiding Mr. Karzai in the day-to-day presidency and decision-making has not been fully recognized widely. His Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor and a plethora of senior advisors and aides wield tremendous influence on Mr. Karzai’s decisions and his vision and outlook about domestic and international issues. Mr. Karzai has broken numerous personal promises and has drastically altered his position on many occasions because of the gossiping and misinformation he receives from his influential aides and senior staffers.

Historically the President/King’s court, the Arg, has been the ultimate source of hope for the Afghan people. When people face problems in the ministries in Kabul or in government departments in the provinces they knock the President’s door and expect justice and support.

However, over the past several years the distance and misunderstanding between the ordinary people and the Presidential Arg has increasingly expanded. Often only delegates that have links with the President’s senior staffers find their way to meet Mr. Karzai, and too often the President signs on petitions which are filtered in the Arg’s manipulated and corrupted administrative procedures.

Lacking a strong intellectual capacity and leadership experience Mr. Karzai has easily been manipulated by a group of inner officials who ostensibly serve the President but in reality maintain illicit personal, ideological and tribal gains.

As the Afghan people and the international community press Mr. Karzai to uproot corruption, sack incompetent officials, weaken warlords and improve governance there are strong risks he would let down all if he continues to be surrounded by the old circles in the Arg.

The clean up and a new beginning must start from the President’s office and must vigorously entail his close aides, advisers and staffers.

An immensely transparent and strategic vetting process should be set up through which the President could choose his immediate staff and advisers. The international community’s representatives in Kabul must also provide support in due process and make sure the President is served by the right caliber of individuals.

Unless the Arg is purged from the mafia the next Afghan government will be no better than what has already been experienced and Mr. Karzai will only promise again and fail again to deliver in deeds.

قبیلویت که قانونیت

د ټاكنو د كميسيون لخوا د حامد کرزی تر بيا ټاكل كيدو وروسته دوه ډول بحثونه په رسنيو او ټولنه كې اوريدل كيږي. يو شمير د ښاغلي كرزي د بياټاكنې ملاتړ پدې استدلال كوي چي ګواكي د ټاكنو د كميسيون پريكړه سمه او قانوني وه او لدې پرته د حل بله لاره نه وه. نور بيا د ښاغلي كرزي بياټاكنه غيرقانوني، حكومت يي نامشروع او د منتخبه ولسواكۍ پايله بولي.

په خصوصي او آزادو بحثونو كي بيا خبره د ( تاجك) او (پښتون) كيږي او همدغه قومي هويت د بحث كوونكو د استدلال او خبرو اساس جوړوي. د بيلګي په توګه ډيرو پښتنو، آن روڼ اندو، ماته ويلي چي د ټاكنو د كميسيون پريكړه دوي ته لدې كبله د منلو وړ ده چي (پښتون كرزي) پكښي ګټونكي دي. ګڼو نورو بيا راته ويلي چي د ټاكنو د كميسيون پريكړه يي لدي كبله نده خوښه چي د (پنجشيري عبداله) په زيان وه.

څرګنده خبره ده چي ډيرى شننونكي او څيړونكي د ځاني ګټو او قومي اړيكو پر بنسټ سياسي دريځ نيسي او بيا د نورو د خطاايستلو او يا لږ تر لږه په نورو د منلو په موخه يي د خپل خوښې قانوني او عقلاني تعريف وركوي.

دغو دوو حاكمو ډلو ته په كورنيو او نړيوالو رسنيو كي دومره ډير ځاي وركړل شوي چي له دوۍ دواړو جلاتوب او ناپيليتوب ته اصلا پاملرنه نه كيږي. له ټاكنو سره يو بل ناسم رامنځته شوې ذهنيت دا دي چي كه چا پر ښاغلي كرزي د نه قانونيت او ناسم مشرتوب نيوكه وكړه نو سملاسي د ښاغلي عبداله پورې تړل كيږي. دغه ډول يو تور، په ځانګړي توګه پر يوه پښتون، د قومي خيانت په څير ګڼل كيږي – هغه څه چي هيڅوك يي نشي زغملاي.

زما له انده كه څوك د ټاكنو بهير ناكامه او يا بريالي بولي د دواړو مسووليت او يا لاسته راونه د دريو غاړو تر منځ ويشل كيږي: د ټاكنو كميسيون، حكومت او ډاكټر عبداله.

خو هغې درې غاړې چي په ټاكنو كي پاتي راغلي څرګنديږي هغه د افغانستان ولس، قانونيت او ولسواكي ده.

موږ د يوه څرګند دليل له كبله له قبيلوي تړاو پرته د ټاكنو د كړكيچ ارزونه په ناپيلي او قانوني توګه نشو كولې او يا يي نه غواړو. دا دليل زموږ په ټولنه كي حاكم قبيليويت دي چي موږ اړ باسي هر قانون او هره پريكړه د خپلو قبيلوي هويتونو په رڼا كي ومنو.

د انديښنې خبره خو دا ده چې د قبيليويت ګټه ولس او آن قبيلو ته نه رسيږي بلكه اصلې ګټه تر ينه ښاغلي كرزي، ښاغلي عبداله او د نورو قبيلو معامله گر يي اخلي.

د افغانستان په قومونو كي سياسي شعور تر هغه پوړه ندې پوخ شوې چې يو پښتون د يوه ناوړه، فاسد او قانون-ماتوونكي پښتون ولسمشر اوږد-مهالي زيانونه وپيژني او په اړه يي سم قضاوت وكړي، ازبكان او هزاره ګان د څو جنايتكارو مشرانو ړوند ملاتړ ونكړي، او تاجكان د خپلو قومي معامله ګرو له دام څخه ووځي.

كله چي قانون، ولسواكي او عقلانيت خپل ارزښت او واكمني قبيلويت ته وبايلي هلته بيله د ګوتو په شمار قومي دلالانو نور ټول خلك بايلونكي وي.

The End of Democracy in Afghanistan

Barely touching the lives of Afghans over the past several years, the Western-promoted democracy in Afghanistan effectively came to an end on 2 November after the Elections Commission (IEC) formally announced the reelection of Hamid Karzai as the elected President.

In vivid contradiction to the Constitution which stipulates 50+1 percent of the votes as an unreserved prerequisite for a winner of the presidential election, Mr. Karzai has been declared the winner with less than 50 percent of the votes which were marred by state-engineered fraud largely in favour of the incumbent.

The announcement of Karzai’s reelection by the elections commission was in fact the obituary of a nascent Afghan democracy which ironically started with the same man in 2002.

Undoubtedly Mr. Karzai could easily beat Dr Abdullah in a genuinely transparent and clean run-off but his hasty decision to declare himself the winner has seriously damaged his legitimacy in the eyes of many Afghans.

Karzai’s reelection was preplanned as one day ahead of the IEC’s announcement the government declared a state of health emergency and ordered all schools and universities to shut down in order to prevent students’ mass rioting.

Unlike his much-praised willingness to go for a run-off after the fraudulent first round of the elections, Mr. Karzai’s premature decision to declare himself as the elected President is both undemocratic and un-statesmanlike.

Electing the President or Prime Minister through free, fair and transparent electoral process is the soul of any truly democratic political system. Democracy is not a rocket science; it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

In desperate need of a “partner” in Kabul for their strategies Western leaders may take a deep sigh and congratulate Mr. Karzai.

However, both as an Afghan who will be the subject of an undemocratically-declared President and as a supporter of democracy, from now on I will be against democracy if I call Mr. Karzai the democratically-elected President of Afghanistan.

The Afghan people, the candidates, the UN, the elections commission, the US and its allies have all been the losers of the presidential elections. Those whose lives will be adversely impacted by the death of democracy in Afghanistan will only be the ordinary Afghan people.

GOODBYE DEMOCRACY!

What is Khalilzad up to in Kabul?

Washington’s main Afghan troubleshooter, Zalmai Khalilzad, has come to Kabul to help end the political chaos stemming from the fraudulent elections process. On Wednesday Khalilzad briefly appeared on a local TV with a blunt warning: “Afghanistan is at a very dangerous juncture and everyone must help to take it out of the peril.”

Mr. Khalilzad has low-profile style, does not confide at journalists and prefers to talk vaguely about Afghan politics.

After George W. Bush the second American who wields extensive influence over Hamid Karzai is Mr. Khalilzad. He used to mentor Karzai in 2002-2005 on day-to-day governance but relations between the two have cooled over the past two years due to a lot of misinformation and gossiping Mr. Karzai regularly receives in his Arg. Moreover the opportunist Karzai no more needs Khalilzad to guide and back him through Washington corridors.

The electoral crisis has already created a lot of frustrations everywhere in the world. Karzai’s credibility and legitimacy have been irretrievably damaged by his rigging and abusing of the electoral process.

A Karzai winning in the run-off would have been much liked inside and outside Afghanistan than a Karzai who has teamed with notorious warlords and is winning in an extremely fraudulent first round.

The electoral crisis has spilled out of control because of mistakes made by Karzai, by UNAMA and by the man President Obama has appointed for Afghanistan-Pakistan.

I have two speculations about Khalilzad’s mission to Kabul.

A) Khalilzad will try to convince Karzai to go for a run-off in order to appease widespread criticisms. The run-off scenario is favored by an increasingly skeptic Obama who desperately seeks an acceptable level of legitimacy in his Afghan partner. The run-off diplomacy was first tried by Richard Holbrooke in August but was rebuffed by an antagonized Karzai.

B) Khalilzad will forge power-sharing between Karzai and Abdullah in which Karzai will win in the first round and Abdullah will have several ministries. Khalilzad has talked about a “new, strong government”.

The first scenario is good and will be more salable to Afghans. But if Washington has commissioned Khalilzad to make another compromised-based Afghan government it will only replicate the mistakes made at the Transitional Arrangements made in Bonn in December 2001.

آیا قتل افغانها جرم است؟

تصور کنید یک واحد ویژه ی اردوی ملی افغان در شهر مانچستر بریتانیا طی یک عملیات نظامی خودسر یک خبرنگار و دو شهروند انگلیس را بقتل برساند و بدون کوچکترین ارزش، حتا به کرامت انسانی آنها، اجساد آنها را بحال خود گذاشته بروند. تصور کنید حامدکرزی این حادثه را بخاطر آزادی یک خبرنگار اختتاف شده ی افغان توجیه نموده حمایت نماید

بنظر شما نخست وزیر و وزارت خارجه انگلیس در مورد این حادثه چگونه واکنش خواهد کرد؟

حالا به عکس این فرضیه، یعنی قضیه ی حقیقی قتل سلطان احمد منادی، فکر کنید.

نیروهای انگلیس چندین تخطی را مرتکب شدند:

الف: راه اندازی عملیات خودسر در قلمرو افغانستان
ب: نقض قانون اساسی مبنی بر مصونیت حریم زیست یک خانواده ( خانه)، آنهم با منفجر ساختن در و دیوار
ج: فرار از محل بدون اندکترین توجه به حالت قربانیان حادثه
د: عدم ارایه هرگونه حسابدهی به مراجع قانونی و عدلی افغان

سوءظن و گمانه های منطقی هم وجود دارند که سربازان انگلیسی جنایات ذیل را هم در عین حادثه مرتکب گردیده اند:

الف: قتل یک خبرنگار افغان
ب: قتل یک خانم خانه
ج: قتل یک فرد ملکی

خب، برای سربازان انگلیسی رهایی یک شهروند انگلیس اولویت داشت و نمیشود از آنها توقع نمود که قوانین افغانستان را مراعت و حاکمیت آنرا احترام نمایند.

اما آزاردهنده ترین بخش این فاجعه سکوت و بی توجهی ارگ ریاست جمهوری و وزارت امور خارجه افغانستان میباشد. چنان بنظر میرسد که ریس جمهور و وزیر خارجه فرزانهء ما تا حال از وقوع این حادثه آگاه نیستند، و یا شاید آنرا یک واقعه معمولی پنداشته اند. حادثه قتل منادی خاطرات تلخ معاوضه ی ننگین چند جنگجوی طالب با خبرنگار اختتاف شده ایتالیایی و شهادت مظلومانه اجمل نقشبندی را تازه میکند.

وقتی حرف از مصالحه با مخالفین مسلح مطرح میشود مقامات حکومت یکصدا قانون اساسی را اصل هر چیز قرار میدهند و هر عمل مغایر با قانون را ناممکن میشمارند. اما وقتی خارجی ها این قانون را زیرپا میکنند مقامات مظلومانه خموشی اختیار میکنند و یا از ناتوانی های عمومی کشور شکایت میکنند.

کشتار افغانها بضرب گلوله های پولیس ایران و دیگر کشورها بدلیل آنچه مهاجرتهای غیرقانونی گفته میشود مورد بازخواست و پیگرد قرار نمیگیرد، اما آیا در داخل کشور ضامن و حامی سر و مال ما وجود دارد؟ ظاهرا قانون اساسی مسوولیت حفظ حیات، عزت و مال ما را به حکومت واگذاشته است، اما آیا بطور نمونه کدام خارجی یی به جرم کشتن یک افغان مورد پیگرد قرار گرفته است؟

هنگامیکه قضای سکاتلند یک شهروند لیبی (عبدالباسط علی المگراهی) را، که متهم به دست داشتن در حادثهء سقوط یک هواپیمای امریکای در سال ۱۹۸۸ بود ، بنابر دلایل انسانی آزاد ساخت هیاهوی در انگلیس بوجود آمد که چرا یک "متهم" آزاد گردید، متهمی که ۸ سال در زندان بود و توقع میرود در سه ماه بعد از آزادی از سرطان تلف گردد.

آیا ما لااقل میدانیم که سلطان منادی و دو هموطن بیگناه دیگر ما را کی ها و به چه گناه کشتند؟

A Question of Legitimacy

The less than 40 percent turnout of registered voters will undoubtedly shadow the legitimacy of the future administration.

Out of the 17 million registered voters in the country only about five million cast ballots on 20 August, according to the IEC.

Regardless of the mounting allegations about widespread and systematic fraud, rigging and abuse in the elections process the very low turnout of voters seriously threatens the legitimacy of the future government.

A majority of the registered voters did not turn up for polling because of prevalent insecurity, intimidations from the Taliban and other constrains. The turnout was particularly low in the insecure south, east and central provinces where Taliban insurgents are most influential.

Disenchantment with the existing political process, a lack of trust in the elections, poor awareness and a number of other factors also compounded the problem.

It is a pity to have an election mired in fraud, ambiguity and less than 40 percent of turnout after over seven years of internationalized state-building and democratization.

The elections were bankrolled by over US$220 million funding from donors and were technically administered by the UN. Although UNAMA has said that the elections process has been led by Afghans it cannot camouflage its crucial role in the overall management of the process.

The lack of an appropriate quorum on voters’ participation in the polling originates from a major flaw in Afghanistan’s Electoral Law which stipulates the winner of an election the winner of 50+1 percent of ballots.

Under the current law a president can be the winner of 51 votes if 100 people cast votes.

“Whatever Gen. Dostum orders!”


The warlord’s return is apparently in defiance to Washington's policy but Kabul has imported the burly commander to stop Uzbek’s switching from the incumbent to Dr Abdullah. Junbish was increasingly divided in the absence of its brutal leader.

Upon his arrival the alleged war-criminal declared unreserved support to Mr. Karzai and brought warm regards from his Turkish patron, Abdullah Gul, to his fellow commanders.

Dostum’s return to Afghanistan has been celebrated as the return of a national hero.

The first call the Gen. received upon his arrival at the Kabul airport was from Mr. Karzai who asked if the Gen. needed anything. “Thanks Mr. President! I am grateful to your kindness,” Dostum replied.

The second call was from the much-praised Hanif Atmar, the Interior Minister, who assured the Gen. that the Afghan National Police are at his disposal.

“Thanks to Mr. Atmar…he has instructed the police commanders to do as General Dostum orders,” Dostum proudly told a crowd in the north on 17 August.

Kai Eide and many other diplomats strongly back Mr. Atmar as a “reformist and a technocrat” but in reality Mr. Atmar is no good than his boss who knows no ethical boundaries in sticking to power.

The US Embassy has expressed dissatisfaction with the dignified return of Gen. Dostum. A US national security team is currently looking into details of a massacre of over 2,000 Taliban prisoners in late 2001 by Dostum’s militias.

Who can dare talk to the team investigators and present evidence while the alleged criminal is commanding the police and is treated as the president’s reelection ticket?

The over US$200 million the U.S., the EU and other donors spend for the holding of “democratic elections” are unwittingly used to re-legitimize, re-strengthen and return notorious warlords in order to re-elect corrupt and inept officials.

And as for the national police, they are abused as political tools to protect warlords and criminals than the Afghan public.

The Most Likely Scenario of the Presidential Election

The traditional King-Makers – the Pashtuns – are unlikely to give Hamid Karzai an easy victory in the first round because they are divided, disappointed and intimidated: Some dislike Karzai and may vote to Ashraf Ghani and/or other Pashtun candidates; some may not vote for personal reasons (disenchantment and political inertia); and some will not take part in the polling because of the Taliban’s threat.

Despite heavy pay-offs to the minority warlords – Muhaqiq and Dostum - the incumbent would not harvest millions of easy votes from the Hazaras and the Uzbeks.

The North cannot bless Abdullah with a definite victory. A “run-off” is therefore most likely unless Mr. Karzai would act irrationally and rig the results.

Dr Ghani is unlikely to make it to the second round but the race will be between Karzai and Abdullah.

The post-results period will be extremely crucial for the two run-off contenders.

Karzai will use all his compromising tools – including the infamous Chief Executive post - to entice Ghani who would most probably choose to support Karzai than Abdullah.

Karzai will win but he will end up in a self-made Pandora of an already bartered government where he will be hammered by his rival warlords and the Obama administration.

In order to shut Abdullah’s Panjshiri thugs several ministries, governorships and embassies will be offered to Mr. Abdullah albeit in addition to the showing of some teeth from the US.

In the coming five years Ghani will be helped to win the 2014 election and replace Karzai in future.

A president who pays to be shown on TV

As if people have not seen and heard him enough over the past seven-plus years in TV, radio, online, newspapers etc Hamid Karzai’s electoral team have been pasting his posters on electricity poles, on bus stations and elsewhere in Kabul and other cities across the country. Compared to other less privileged candidates, the president has also been spending lavishly on massive billboards showing him either smiling or talking.

Interestingly the president has recently out paced other less wealthy candidates through commercial slots at almost all major private TV stations. Apparently Mr. President does not have the free time or is unwilling to record an electoral message for publicity. Instead his rich and weighty campaign office has been relaying cuts from his previous speeches.

So the president has been telling people what he has already told in the past.

Unsurprisingly the president’s campaign office is entirely comprised of former and current senior and junior government employees such as the governor of Kabul and the director of government’s media center. A friend of mine who works in a government office told me how he was instructed by his boss to work in the media section of the president’s campaign office. A well-known state broadcaster, Neyazai Sangar, has recorded all the president’s electoral audio messages apparently in state studios.

Does Karzai really needs these garish and unappealing posters and billboards hanging – lots of them already torn and/or devil-horned – on every corner of the street in Kabul in order to attract voters? He could distribute the funds to miserable families instead – as he did with funds from a ceremony of the Mujahideen’s victory day in April.

Meanwhile other prominent candidates namely Dr Abdullah, Dr Ashraf Ghani and Mirwais Yasini are only chanting a dozen of idealistic and dogmatic slogans to win over the president.

“A servant government,” is Dr Abdullah’s electoral motto. “A new beginning,” is Dr. Ghani’s.

Even these appealing and beautiful mottos seem soulless and sometimes meaningless as hardly anyone can believe that only these can replace the incumbent Karzai.

It is true Afghans will cast votes to elect their president for the second time in their history, but Afghans are yet to vote to someone other than an incumbent.

A Pashtoon’s other problems in Kabul

As if the bloody insurgency, bombing and widespread violence are not enough, people from Helmand, Kandahar, Urozgan and Zabul are now subject to institutional discrimination and sometimes even official hatred in government offices in Kabul.

Young men from the south often prefer to visit Quetta and Karachi cities in the neighbouring Pakistan than their national capital Kabul. Reasons for this common unease and feeling of alienation lay not only in the post-Taliban security arrangements in Kabul in which southern Pashtoon are widely regarded and vexed as the Taliban because of their language and clothing style, but also because they’re institutionally discriminated.

In the aftermath of the Taliban’s demise state apparatuses and bureaucracy have been predominantly occupied by the victorious anti-Taliban forces and collaborators. Hamid Karzai, who considers himself an undisputable and patriarchic Pashtoon representative, has been reluctant to ensure Pashtoons’ meaningful presence in the government in Kabul because he is afraid doing so could stint his political career and would endanger his dreams to be a “national leader”.

It is now a modus operandi for bribers inside the Kabul passport department to demand extra 2,000 Afghanis (US$40) for those that hold Tazkira (identity card) from Helmand, Urozgan, Kandahar and Zabul provinces. I asked one of these bribers (who actually help a lot of people to bypass wasteful bureaucratic ramblings by the virtue of their money) why the price tag is higher for the southern Pashtoons, the reply was: “because these people are problematic and disliked by officials”.

In the ministry of higher education, lists are often screened and filtered internally before students are delegated to different faculties after every matriculation exam in order to drop as much Pashtoon students from entry into popular faculties (medicine, law, economics, engineering etc) as possible.

And of course the situation gets worse in the notoriously corrupt judicial and security institutions (police and intelligence in particular).

It is true Mr. Karzai has been backed by his own tribe (Popalzai) and a few other chieftains who have manipulated power and governance in some provinces and have continuously extorted and scored personal and ethnic vendettas. However, for many young peasants in the south Kabul has turned into a nightmare and a place full of risks, hatred and discriminations.

CORRUPTION HURTS WHEN IT BITES

Kabul, 24 May 2009 - Why should Mr. Karzai take corruption in his government as a serious problem? He and his family members never encounter a greedy government employee to handle a personal or official work in a government office. So in the eyes of the president, corruption is a far-off priority compared to other competing political agendas.

However, corruption is too painful to the ordinary people who as citizens of one of the most centralised states in the world have to appear at government offices for all kinds of work i.e. from registering a marriage certificate to paying an electricity bill etc.

We might have heard stories about endemic corruption in Mr. Karzai’s government which some Afghans consider unprecedented in the country’s political history.

I am writing about a personal experience here.

An apartment was inherited to my family after the death of my father some 25 years ago, thanks to the then so called “communist regime” in Kabul.

In 2004 in line with the new “democratic” government’s privatisation policies, we were issued the ownership documents (the deed) for the apartment after we paid a subsidised price to the government (we paid to the US-backed democratic government for the service we were provided by the old USSR-backed communist regime.)

In May 2009, I decided to sell my apartment as it no longer met the needs of our extended family.

A good citizen offered me a price and we struck a mutually beneficial deal.

In order to legally transfer the ownership of the apartment, I have to take all necessary documents to a properties court and undertake a lot of bureaucratic rambling.

On my first encounter, a judge in the properties court brazenly told me to pay US$2,500 and rid myself of unnecessary and painful bureaucratic dribbling!

As I tried to lecture him that corruption is bad and illegal, the judged got upset and shouted: “Go f… yourself and let any one know that I am asking for bribe, but I guarantee you will not get your work done here unless you pay the amount.”

Sadly, he is absolutely right.

There is no one who can change this informal but strong law, which people call “corruption”.

Mr. Karzai has been living and working in an impervious and fabled fort, obviously for his personal security, and thus it is inconceivable for him to be available for public contact.

And as you go down the hierarchy of authority and power in Karzai’s government, you need two things to get your work done: A) Benjamin Franklin (100 dollar notes); B) strong links with Karzai and/or his ministers.

I cannot and do not want to pay the $2,500 bribe, at least for the time being.

Let’s see how long one can resist the corruption…

که لوي څارنوال قانون مات کړي، نو بیا؟

»»»»»»»

»»»»»»»

د بې پولو خبریالانو سازمان په کابل کي د ایران د سفیر هغه لیک خپور کړي چي پکښي نوموړي د افغانستان لوي څارنوال ته ويلي د امروز تلویزون يو خبريال توقیف کړي او سزا ورکړي. خبریال فهیم کوهدامني د ایراني سفیر لخوا پدې ګرم بلل شوي چي ګواکي د ایران د انقلاب بنسټ ایښودونکي، خمیني، ته یي سپکاوې کړي دي. د لیک د لوستلو څرک

د دغه لیک لحن نه یوازي آمرانه دي بلکه پکښي ګواښ شوي چي که افغان خبریال ته سزا ورنکړل شي نو د ايران او افغانستان د ورورګلوي اړیکي به اغیزمنې شي

د بې پولو خبریالانو سازمان په حواله، لوي څارنوالي د همدغه لیک پر بنسټ ښاغلی کوهدامني زندان ته واچوه او مستنطقینو ورڅخه د ح”حضرت“ خمیني په اړه ګڼې پوښتنې-ګرویږنې وکړي

د افغانستان حکومت چي په تیرو څو کلونو کي د بیان آزادی، د خبریالانو د ملاتړ او دموکراسۍ شعارونه ورکوي بیله دې چي د ایران سفیر ته لارښونه وکړي چي د رسنیو د سرغړوني کمیسیون ته شکایت وکړي تر څو د قانوني او اصولي لارو دغې موضوع ته کتنه وشي – افغان خبریال یي سملاسي زنداني کړ. داسي ښکاري چي د ایران سفیر د خبریالانو د بندي کولو او قانون ماتولو کړنلاره له ولسمشر حامدکرزي څخه زده کړي، ځکه ښاغلي کرزي هم د ملي امنیت له لارې څو خبریالان زندان ته واچول چي ښه بیلګه یي د آریاناټلویزون خبريال نصیر فایض وو

د همدغه خبر د خپریدو په مهال، په تهران کي د افغانستان د سفارت یوه چارواکي اعلان وکړ چي دوې له افغان کډوالو سره د ایراني چارواکو د بد او غیرانساني چلند په درولو کي بې وسه شوي دي

زموږ لوي څارنوال د ایراني سفیر د خوشحالولو لپاره د خپل هیواد قانون ماتوي او خپل يو هیوادوال په هيڅ جرم زندان ته اچوي، خو ولي ایراني چارواکي د افغان کډوالو په اړه زموږ د ولسمشر پله-پسې غوښتنو ته هیڅ پاملرنه نه کوي؟

آیا دې ته اړتیا نده چي له لوي څارنوال څخه وپوښتل شي چي د کوم قانون پر بنسټ او ولي یي فهیم کوهدامني بندي کړ؟

ولسي جرګه چي پخوا يي د پوهنتون-دانشګاه د لانجې پر سر څو ځلي د اطلاعاتو کلتور وزير وپوښته، اوس باید لوي څارنوال وپوښتي چي ولي يي قانون مات کړي؟

Time for a new “Afghan Strategy” to succeed Afghanistan

“Made-in-Washington strategy will not reverse Afghanistan’s downward spiral unless it is complemented by a new, meaningful and pragmatic Afghan strategy.”

Washington’s new Afghan strategy – also called as “Af-Pak” – has made headlines in almost every international media outlet over the past week. From Washington to Kabul and many other capitals politicians have been digesting President Barrack Obama’s remarks of 27th March.

I see in Kabul people and officials are chanting and reiterating the motto of “new US strategy”.

The predominant fallacy has been the new strategy will heal all Afghanistan’s pains and fix all its wrongs.

In the coming months more US soldiers and civilians will land in Afghanistan to curb the Taliban and remedy other problems. But who will they work with in Afghanistan?

A government mired in corruption, incompetence and failure, and a bunch of warlords, power-brokers and criminals?

Made-in-Washington strategy will not reverse our downward spiral, our history has proven repeatedly.

What is our new strategy for success? Do we have any roadmap/strategy or even a vision how to tackle our own problems?

We have learned to boast about our “sovereignty, independence…” but on whose terms and on which guidance do we want to build our country?

Most of our problems have Afghan nature and need Afghan wisdom to solve them.

The new US strategy will inevitably fail unless it is complemented by a new, meaningful and pragmatic Afghan strategy.

The world needs to press Afghan leaders (particularly Hamid Karzai) to layout his plans to rid Afghanistan from corruption, inefficiency, warlordism and many other indigenous diseases.

Evolving politics of presidential elections

Ladies and Gentlemen: Please welcome Zalmay Khalilzad, the president/ president-maker of Afghanistan!

Ashraf Ghani, Ali Ahmad Jalali and Dr. Abdullah are negotiating a unified electoral team to contest Hamid Karzai in the August presidential elections. Anwar-ul-Haq Ahadi and Gol Agha Sherzai have talked on how to work together and mobilize Pashtuns.. The grand coalition of warlords and power-brokers – the so called United Front – has been disintegrating as almost all individual members have been seeking the presidency but none has proved his leadership. Iranian agents and diplomats have been doing their best to strike a deal among key figures of the Front but the flooding Iranian Riyals are yet to win reliable loyalty and consent. Several fortune-and-fame seekers have also prematurely announced their candidacy hoping they will secure cash and other privileges in return for their backing of another candidate at the eve of pooling.

Most of Karzai’s formidable rivals in the August elections will be men who were his former underlings and who have accused the incumbent of ineptitude, corruption and lack of vision. The increasingly isolated Hamid Karzai, whose mental fitness has been gossipingly and rather sarcastically disputed in diplomatic circles, has accused even his deputies of laying conspiracies to strip him of power. Karzai has never felt so forlorn, ostracized and weak. His hope to quell his contenders through a snap election ended in smoke and he has been facing a crisis of legitimacy beyond May when his reign must end according to the constitution.

His rivals and opposition are calling for a caretaker administration to transit the government from May until an elected president will assume the power. This is a bad choice for an already fragile state which has been facing security and political crises.

The call that Karzai should step down as the president but continue to lead the government with limited and supervised terms of reference has strong merits but the country lacks institutional mechanisms to effectively translate that into action. Who will supervise Mr. Karzai, how and what could be done if he is found guilty of any transgression? Who will manage the government’s apparatuses?

Karzai has no doubt that his losing possibility will double if he leaves the presidential Arg in the transitional period (May-August), so he has fiercely insisted on staying the course. Undoubtedly he will use every privilege of the incumbency – and will most probably abuse his powers – to ensure his victory in the next election.

“I’ve only now tasted the flavor of power and am not going to abandon it soon,” Karzai brazenly told students of the Kabul Medical University in 2008.

Mr. Karzai knows well that Afghanistan and the US do not have an immediate substitution for him and despite all the fuss on his weakness, corruption and inefficiency he has better chances of winning the election in August 2009.

Here are the six main reasons why Karzai will be reelected:

1) He enjoys numerous privileges of incumbency including the power to hire and fire officials
2) His opposition is disorganized, weak and lack unity
3) He does not run on a single ethnicity ticket, he appeals to Tajiks, Hazaras and other minorities as much as he tries to have Pashtuns
4) He is good in breaking opposition coalition by choosing one or two as his election mates (he may pick Qasim Fahim – the Panjshiry warlord – as his 1st mate)
5) Despite strong criticisms, he is still favored by the US and other major players
6) He is an intelligent orator, has the skills to appease critics and is extraordinary good in justifying his failures

Despite these strong points, Karzai’s reelection will hinge on what Zalmay Khalilzad (former US ambassador to Afghanistan and the UN) will do in the months ahead.

After completing his retirement package with the State Department, Mr Khalilzad rushed into Kabul, met Hamid Karzai and several other key figures and organized a high profile conference in Dubai in March.

Khalilzad is not only Karzai’s strong mentor he also wields extensive influence in the US foreign policy apparatus. Karzai will not dare contest Khalilzad, if the later will decide to challenge the first. He is also Washington’s troubleshooter in Afghanistan and therefore has many tools to help any candidate become the next president.

Let’s see what will be Khalilzad’s post-Dubai move. Will he run for the Afghan presidency or will he help Karzai’s reelection?

کم و بیش دو سال قبل از امروز این نوشته ام در یکی از روزنامه های کابل بنشر رسید که بعدش یک سخنگوی فاروق وردگ (آصف ننگ) یک دشنامنامه ی در جواب ام نوشت و منتشر ساخت

نه بدلیل آنکه این نوشته از افکار من تراوش نموده، بحران موجود بمن جرعت میدهد که بر درستی این نوشته بیشتر از دو سال قبل باور داشته باشم

مافیای ارگ ریس جمهور را بکجا میکشاند

دیوارهای بلند و محافظین خشن حامد کرزی را از انظار عامه دور نهگداشته است، اما شماری هستند که همه روزانه بیشتر از دوازده ساعت ریس جمهور را بگونه نامری نظارت مینمایند. ریس دولت هر صبح 8:30 بدفتر کارش، قصر گلخانه، مِیآید و به روال معمول تا ساعات 8 و 9 شام افرادی را که قبلا وقت ملاقات شان از طرف ریاست دفتر تنظیم میگردد به حضور میپذیرد. باآنهم اندک بزرگانی چون صبغت الله مجددی میتوانند بدون ترتیبات قبلی وارد دفترکار ریس جمهور گردند.

ویژه گی بارز شخصیت حامد کرزی اینست که قلب مهربان دارد و بیشتر در پای عواطف و احساسات تصمیم میگیرد، و این به آنهای که از نزدیک با وی کار مینمایند بخوبی آشکار است. نظریه دانشمند شهیر ایتالیای، نکول ماکیاولی، که گفته بود "شهریار مستبد موفق است" شاید در مورد کرزی 49 ساله خوبتر صدق کند. کرزی، حداقل در وضعیت موجود، برای افغانستان اضافه از حد لازم دموکرات، آرمانگرا و مهربان است و این بزرگترین نکته ضعف اوست. بی کفایت ترین و فاسدترین مقامات ارشد دولت از عواطف حامد کرزی بمثابه کارا ترین ابزار بقا در قدرت استفاده مینمایند.

کرزی با آنکه باعقلانیت فلسفه لیبرال و سیکولار آشنای فکری دارد، اما همواره سعی میورزد نقش یک رهبر سنتی افغان را ایفا کند و بعضا در این عملکرد تقلبی افراط مینماید. مشکل است باورهای فکری این مرد را که هم در جهاد نقش داشته و هم با واشنگتن روابط عمیق دارد تشریح و تحلیل نمود. شماری کرزی را در مرز دموکراسی لیبرال و محافظه کاری دینی میپندارند – چه او گاهی با روشنفکران سر میجنباند و زمانی با داعیان جهاد و دین همصدا بوده است. اما در حقیقت حامد کرزی نه دموکرات روشنگرا است و نه هم بنیادگر دینی. او متزلزل، بی باور و گاهگاهی فرصت طلب است. بی هویتی سیاسی و فکری ریس جمهور سیمای سیاسی دولت را ضد و نقیض شکل داده و تصامیم و راهکرد نظام موجود را در قید یک کشمکش زیانبار نهگداشته است. فقدان سیاست روشن در رهبری کرزی خلا دگری است که همکاران زیرک او بیشترین سود را از آن میبرند.

مافیای ارگ کیست/چیست؟

به استثنای مسوولین امنیتی و خدماتی، حدود یکصد کارمند در ارگ کار میکند. اگر چه کرزی دو دستیار یا سکرتر دارد که بیشتر با وی در تماس هستند، اما ریس دفتر، ریس اداره امور (که چندین پست مهم دگر را هم در انحصار دارد)، مشاور امنیت ملی، مشاور امور فرهنگی و سخنگو از جمله افرادی اند که بیشترین حرف را بگونه تحریری و شفاهی به ریس جمهور میرسانند. اینها با (ظاهرا برای) ریس دولت کار میکنند. برای سخنگو و مشاور فرهنگی نهگداشت موقف بیشتر اهمیت دارد، اما ریس دفتر، ریس اداره امور و مشاور امنیت ملی بیشتر مصروف مسایل سیاسی و گسترش نفوذ خود هستند. در وضعیت موجود مثلث دو ریس و یک مشاور دستگاه کاری ارگ را بطور سیستماتیک کنترول مینماید.

باآنکه پایه های مثلث ارگ متحد نبوده و اییتلاف ندارد اما سیستم درونی ارگ طوری شکل داده شده است که ریس جمهور از ابعاد گوناگون وابسته هرکدام آنهاست. ارزشهای مشترک ایدیولوژیک، گذشته مشابه، عناصر مجهول و یک سلسله پیوندهای بلندمدت دو ریس باقدرت ارگ را از مدتی بدینسو با هم نزدیک ساخته است (گفته میشود در گزینش مجدد ریس دفتر، ریس اداره امور موثرترین نقش را ایفا نمود).

مشارو امنیت ملی از نزدیکی دو ریس نگران است، اما این کهنه داکترطب اطمینان دارد که بر روان ریس دولت حاکم است و میتواند جلو بداندیشی روسای با نفوذ را بگیرد. مشاور کم حرف – که بتقلید مشاورین امنیت ملی کاخ سفید تلاش میورزد نقش محوری در ارگ داشته باشد – بلوسیله اییتلاف با ریس اداره امنیت ملی یک زیربناء استخباراتی را در ارگ بوجود آورده است که با استفاده از آن دلچسپی ریس جمهور را به کارکردهای خود جلب نموده است.

هر دو ریس از برکت سابقه کاری مشترک، و شناخت با منابع پول ده، میلیونها دالر بودجه غیردولتی دارند (بیشتر از ده میلیون دالر از جانب اداره انکشافی امریکا و ملل متحد به اداره امور و ریاست دفتر داده میشود). پول منبع قدرت است و مصرف غیرشفاف میلیونها دالر، زیر شعار ظرفیت سازی، در ساختن شبکه قدرت و تحکیم نفوذ این دو ریس بسیار موثر واقع شده است.

اما مافیای ارگ چگونه بر افکار و تصامیم ریس جمهور تاثیر میگذارد؟

صبغت الله مجددی، رهبر حزب نجات ملی، که سالها قبل از هجوم قشون سرخ به افغانستان از کشور متواری گردیده بود و ابتدا با حمایت ذوالفقار بوتو و بعد با پشتیبانی ضیاالحق علیه دولت سردارمحمد داود مبارزه مینمود از نخستین مربیان حامد کرزی در کارزار عملی سیاست است. کرزی، به استثنای حاکمیت بعد از طالبان، تمام حیات سیاسی اشرا در رکاب متنفذین سیاسی جهادی و خاندان شاهی تجربه نموده است و هیچگاهی، بشمول پنج سال گذشته، ویژه گی یک رهبر مستقل را از خود تبارز نداده است. از لحاظ روانی، کرزی همواره پیرو نظر دیگران است و غالبا حرف اول را نمیزند.

کرزی بیشترازهرکس دگر خود بر منطق و خردی که برمبنا آن تصمیم میگیرد بی باور است. موقف ریس جمهور اگر با یک طرف موافق نباشد، بدون شک با طرف دگر همنوا میباشد – او هرگز قاطعانه آیده و نظر خود را بر خلاف دیگران عملی نه نموده است.

خوب-و-بد و باید-و-نباید ذهن حامد کرزی ساخته و بافته یک سیستم اداری است که بگونه نامری او را در انحصار یک وابسته گی عقلانی قرار میدهد. او هراسی عمیقی از اشتباه خود دارد و نمیخواهد یکسره و بدون راهنما عمل نماید. بیم از اشتباه، متاسفانه، کرزی را ناخواسته مجبور به عملکرد کور-کورانه نموده است و بسا خطاهای بزرگی را در رهبری او ببار آورده است. افراط دراجماع گرای وسیله مطلوبی است که با بکار گیری آن ریس جمهور، در صورت لزوم، نارسای های رهبری خود را توجیه مینماید. کرزی میخواهد این گفتمان را تقویت نماید که "ریس جمهور خوب است، اما اطرافیان اش بد هستند. "

از شگفتنی های ارگ یکی اینست که تقریبا تمام ملاقاتهای ریس جمهور در حضورداشت و مشورت ریس دفتر صورت میگیرد، و جالبتر اینکه اولی ویژه گی حرف شنوی و دومی حرف گویی حیرت انگیزی دارد. عدم حضور ریس اداره امور و مشاور امنیت ملی در تمام ملاقاتهای ریس جمهور موجب کاهش نفوذ آنها را فراهم نمیسازد. این دو در هر گوشه و هر اطاق ارگ شخصا موجودیت فزیکی ندارند، ولی هر تصمیم و عملکرد ریس جمهور بگونه نامری و سیستماتیک مراقبت و Scan میشود. ریس جمهور کی را باید ببیند، چی باید بشنود و حتی اینکه چه باید بگوید مسایلی اند که روی یک برنامه دقیق اجرا میگردد.

چگونه باید ظواهر یک امر را باید به ذوق و ایده ریس جمهور فراهم کرد؟ پاسخ این پرسش را دو ریس و مشاور ارگ بهتر از دیگران میدانند. دو ریس و مشاور بخوبی میدانند با کدام الفاظ و جملات عواطف و احساسات ریس جمهور را تحریک نمایند و در روشنای آن منطق-تصمیمگیری وی را شکل دهند. حامد کرزی یا بنابر محدودیتهای زمانی و یا بدلیل فقدان یک پوتانسیل قوی علمی نتوانسته است صحت و سقم عقلانیت تصامیم خود را بگونه مؤثر تحلیل و موشکافی نماید. کرزی به حرف – نه عمل – به ساده گی متقاعد میگردد.

افول حیرت انگیز محبوبیت و کاهش حمایت داخلی مسیری است که مافیای ارگ تا اکنون حامد کرزی را بدان کشانیده است. بر علاوه نهادینه شدن فساد اداری، آشفتگی سیاسی و ناکارای در نظام موجود جهت های است که ریس جمهور چشم و گوش بسته بطرف آنها گام برمیدارد. هر مظاهره و یا احتجاجی که در کابل، ننگرهار و سایر نقاط کشور میشود دو شعار همواره در بگوش میرسد: مرگ بر کرزی، مرگ بر امریکا! این کرزی است که باید حساب ضیاع بزرگترین فرصت ملی افغانستان را بدهد. مافیای ارگ و عناصر آن نه مشروعیت و نه هم مسوولیت افغانی دارند.

AN AFGHAN’S FIRST IMPRESSION OF INDIA

India is a must-visit for tourists, vacationers and fun-seekers from all over the world. For many Afghans, however, India is an ideal destination for medical treatment, education and business. In almost every flight of the Indian Airlines and the Ariana Afghan Airline between Kabul and New Delhi, dozens of passengers are diseased Afghan men and women, young students and entrepreneurs for whom India is the only gate to an advanced world.

India and Indians have a positive image among Afghan populace. The famous Bollywood stars, the fabulous Indian music, the well-known Gandhian nonviolence, the historic friendly ties between Afghan and Indians, the great Indian civilization and the Indian spice are basic understandings of India among most Afghans. Having been tormented by their aggressive neighboring states, most Afghans also admire India for playing a rather constructive role in the recent history of their country. Afghanistan’s first-ever democratically elected president – Hamid Karzai – was educated in Shimla, and has visited New Delhi more than any other capital in his seven-year tenure.

Prior to my first visit to India in 2007, I was thinking my positive mindset about the country would be strengthened when I mingle with the Indians in their homeland. Sad to say, it did not happen according to my expectations.

Upon arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in a recent trip, I was segregated from other passengers at the immigration point due to my Afghan passport. When I handed over my passport at the arrival counter, the immigration officer unexpectedly turned rude and inquisitive. It took him 20 minutes to stamp my passport for entry.

The Indian Embassy in Kabul had typed in the visa that I must register at the police within seven days of my arrival.

My understanding was I should appear to any police station and present my passport and other supportive documents for the registration. It was not the case though.

There is only one location in New Delhi where Afghans and other third-class citizens of the world are registered. There is no help and/or guidance on how and what time one should appear at the registration office, and what documents should be presented; one needs to be extra intelligent and sharp to quickly access the office.

The registration office is chaotic, insulting and disappointing! One has to spend a whole day - 5am to 4pm - in the long queues and tolerate abusive language in order to be registered only for arrival! Prior to departure, the same stringent procedure has to be practiced again.

As I went through the registration process, I increasingly felt as if I am a Palestinian visitor in an Israeli territory and have to prove that I would cause no harm.

It was particularly offending to see elderly people, women, children and diseased people languishing in the hot weather outside the registration office where few seats, no drinking water, toilets and other facilities are available.

Farhad Darya – Afghanistan’s iconic and internationally-recognized singer – was also forced to this humiliating registration in 2007, a friend told me.

Afghans also receive their final humiliating treatment when they get through the airport immigration at the departure where they are supposed to present a bundle of papers and documents in addition to their passports.

An Afghan passport is a ‘license for trouble’ everywhere in the world, based on my travel experience.

However, neither in Europe nor in Asian counties I have experienced the kind of degrading registration as I did in India.

Apparently Indian national security is the main rationale for the stringent registration process of Afghan passport holders, but it is wise for New Delhi to ponder its long-term side effects as well. There should be humane alternatives to the existing chaotic and humiliating registration or the positive and friendly Indian’s image will gradually fade away among most Afghans.


[ENDS]

DAWN OF CHANGE BEYOND AMERICA

CHANGE has come to the USA and it is imminent elsewhere in the world through diplomacy and soft power. The George W. Bush’s war machinery has given its place to Barack Obama’s diplomacy and pro-civilian politics to heal the post-9/11 injuries.

For eight years the world suffered under a parochial administration in the Washington which effectively divided the entire humanity between “with us or against us” borders. The ‘against us’ were brutally suppressed and denied even the right of a “prisoner of war”. The ‘with us’ - mostly totalitarian, corrupt and warlords – were cherished against the will of millions.

The Obama administration is not another utopian inertia. It is the ultimate rational reaction of the American people to a deeply antagonized world in which once-loved American ideals have been besmirched by the Guantanamo prison, the Abu Ghraib and the pure politics of war.

Like a post-disaster expert, President Obama has a long list of problem-fixing from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the greater Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Europe.

Easy is always to make foes and ruin, as was for the former President Bush. For Obama, however, it will be extremely challenging to revive trust in US leadership and pacify antagonist forces around the world.

Thus far, the Obama administration has managed to attract some of the best people in the American diplomacy community in order to breathe life into global diplomacy and save emergencies like Afghanistan and Pakistan from collapse.

Vice President Joe Biden’s pre-inauguration mission to Afghanistan and Pakistan and President Obama’s numerous references to both countries clearly indicate that Kabul and Islamabad will be hotspots in the American foreign policy in the coming years. Both countries are technically at the verge of security and political collapse and the White House has tasked a senior diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, to prevent an unexpected breakdown.

In Pakistan where the military and the intelligence have always wielded the real power, Mr. Holbrooke’s job will be to strengthen President Asif Ali Zardari’s grip on power and decision-making. The civilianization of politics and governance in a country where George Walker Bush spent over US$10 billion American dollars on military and intelligence build up will be an extremely delicate mission for Mr. Holbrooke and his seniors at the State Department.

There will be real risks of backlash from the Pakistani military establishments which have traditionally used Islamic fanatics as strategic tools in the regional power-politics. The repercussions of such a scenario will be dreadful for the entire world. No one would like to see Al Qaeda and Taliban lieutenants holding a remote control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

Mired in corruption, weakness and widening unpopularity - Hamid Karzai’s government in Afghanistan will not enjoy unconditional support from the Washington as it did over the past seven years.

Mr. Karzai has a very short time to show that he also believes in CHANGE. He will have to prove his effectiveness and use in the new American agenda for the region or will have to back of politely.

But if Karzai defy the US and seek Russian, Iranian and Chinese protection, his country will probably plunge into chaos and more bloodshed.

[ENDS]