Kabul Politics

2010-11-11T02:50:00.000-08:00

UNICEF builds school named after a criminal

It’s so good to hear schools are being built in a country with some of the worst literacy indicators in the world.

UNICEF has just completed spending US$60,000 on a school in the northern Balkh Province which has been named “Shaheed Mazari School”.

For a brief profile of Mazari’s criminal activities in Kabul in 1992-1993, see Human Rights Watch’s Blood-Stained Hands.

Two things are interesting about our warlords: alive they want private TV stations, mini palaces and ministries when dead their cronies name public schools, roundabouts and streets after them.

Daudzai: “We’re accountable to Iran” for bags of money

2010-11-07T03:21:00.001-08:00

Two days after Waheed Omar was quoted in the local media as saying the President’s Office will soon provide accounts/details of the Iranian cash, Umar Daudzai, Chief of Staff, invited a few local journalists to his secretive office and repudiated the promise.

Daudzai said he keeps records of the payments to his/President’s Office and regularly reports invoices to his Iranian donors. “I can show you the files,” he told reporters.

He tacitly accused US government agencies of trying to abuse his authority.

“One day before the New York Times story, a person contacted my office and said if until tomorrow I don’t change the President’s decision about private security companies – I should read New Times tomorrow,” he cynically alleged referring to President Karzai’s adamant decision to disband all private security firms.

MPs, among many Afghans, had demanded the President to declare details of cash payments to his office by Iran. The scandal was disclosed in a NY Times story in October in which Mr. Daudzai was accused of promoting Iranian interests at the Presidential Palace in return for bags of cash.

Mr. Karzai has been on a highly confrontational mood towards US and NATO since Daudzai took charge of the President’s Office in 2007. Kai Eide, a former UN envoy who maintained friendly ties with Karzai, described Daudzai as an “unconstructive force” to BBC.

Karzai – unsurprisingly – defended Daudzai and called him a “patriot”.

The question vexing me is: why are our alleged patriot officials accountable to Iran?

آیا وقت خانه تکانی در ارگ فرارسیده است؟

2010-10-25T22:10:00.000-07:00

چیزی کم چهارسال قبل از امروز نوشتهء "مافیای ارگ ریس جمهور را بکجا میکشاند" این نویسنده خشم اداره چیان ارگ را چنان برانگیخت که علاوه بر سایر اقدامات خصمانه، یک دشنامنامه طویلی بقلم آصف ننگ، سخنگوی وقت اداره امور، (البته به هدایت مدیران ارگ)، حوالی من گردید.

در آنزمان طی یک فرصت چندروزه ی رفت و آمد به ارگ به این حقیقت واقف گردیدم که شخص ریس جمهور در چنان یک سیستم پیچیده ی کنترول و نفوذ گیر مانده است که تصامیم، مدیریت و حتا تفکرشرا به گروگان داده است. از جمله مقاماتی را که من به اعمال کنترول و انحصار بر دستگاه ارگ مقصر دانستم یکی عمر داودزی، ریس دفتر، بود.

در دشنامنامهء آقای ننگ به من اذعان شده بود که "هتک حرمت به شخصیت های ملی که مایه افتخار ملت هستند" یک جرم بوده و انتقاد من از آقایون داودزی و فاروق وردگ (ریس اداره امور وقت) یک عمل زشت و دیکته شده است.

حالا روزنامه نیویارک تایمز، به نقل از مقامات ارشد حکومتهای افغانستان و امریکا، عمرداودزی را به اخذ رشوه از حکومت ایران و توسعه منافع رژیم احمدی نژاد در ارگ ریاست جمهوری متهم کرده است.

از شناختی که من از حامدکرزی دارم، فکر میکنم ضمن رد اتهامات وارده بر آقای داودزی از وی قاطعانه (شاید هم لجوجانه) حمایت خواهد ورزید.

داودزی، و سیستمی را که او در ارگ ایجاد نموده است، قویتر و منطقی تر از عواطف و احساساتی است که آقای کرزی بر اساس آن دولتداری میکند. چون شناخت آقای کرزی از وقایع و حوادث و بینش سیاسی او برخاسته از آموزه های نامریی سیستمی است که داودزی جزء آن است، نمیتوان توقع واکنش خارق العاده را از ریاست جمهوری در مورد اتهامات وارده نمود. در چند سال گذشته، آقای کرزی ناخودآگاه و کورکورانه چنان در سیستم کنترول و نفوذ بر ارگ فرورفته است که حالا از نظر فکری و عملی کاملا وابسته به اطرافیان چون داودزی گردیده است.

حمایت بلاقید و شرط ریس جمهور از اطرافیان و دستیاران نابکاراش حقایق را از انظار عامه نمی پوشاند، بلکه فقط این حس کاذب را در ارگ ایجاد میکند که "مردم نمیدانند".

قدرت حاکم بر ارگ و بخصوص بر ذهن و تصامیم ریس جمهور را نمیتوان تنها به عمر داودزی نسبت داد، چونکه او یکی از مهره های کنترول و نفوذ در سیستم دولتی افغانستان است. داودزی در چند سال گذشته به حد کافی در نصب و گماشت مقامات، در داخل و بیرون ارگ، دست باز داشته است و بنابر همین دلیل از گزند اتهامات معافیت دارد.

در چهارسال گذشته هم اوضاع عمومی کشور بصورت نگران کننده بدتر شده است و هم میزان تایید اجراات و محبوبیت شخص ریس جمهور به پایین ترین حد کاهش یافته است.

ارگ، که عادتا اخبار ناخوشآیند را رد میکند، شاید با جزء دوم این حقایق موافق نباشد و برای بخش امنیتی آن شاید دلایل گوناگونی را ارایه نماید. این روش جهت پوشش ناکارایی ها و غلط کاری های آن مقاماتی صورت میگیرد که در بوجود آوردن بحرانهای موجود نقش دارند.

اما وقتی مقامات برای توجیه فساد و غلط ورزی هایشان بهانه میتراشند، توجیه میآورند و به این و آن استدلال متوصل میگردند آیا ریس جمهور به نتایج کار توجه میکند و تصمیم مستقل میگیرد؟ و اگر موضوع داودزی را مثال قرار دهیم، آیا آقای کرزی به پاسخ این پرسش میندیشد که در چهارسال گذشته ارگ با داودزی چی دست آوردی داشته است؟

آقای کرزی هم گزارش سازمان صحی جهان در رابطه به عمومیت بیماری های روانی در شصت در صد نفوس افغانستان را طعنه آمیزانه مردود دانست و هم هرگونه علایم اینگونه بیماری ها را در شخص خود شدیدا رد نموده است. اما آیا این بیمار است که تشخیص میکند یا داکتر؟ ریس جمهوری که یکروز از ترس آیندهء تاریک یگانه فرزندش در محضر عام میگیرید، و روز دیگر به این سفسطه مباهات میورزد که خارجی ها بدلیل ثروت بیکران معادن افغانستان به افغانها دست به سینه ایستاده اند – آیا میداند این علایم از چگونه روان منشا میگیرد؟

یک متخصص بیمارهای روانی بیشتر از حرفهای پراگنده به سلامت فکری و واکنش منطقی یک مریض توجه میکند و مبتنی بر آن حکم تشخیص اشرا صادر میکند. دیده شود، آیا سلامت روانی ریس جمهور در حدی است که با یک خانه تکانی عمومی در ارگ، خودشرا از اسارت جاسوسان و فاسدان آزاد سازد؟

2010-10-24T00:21:00.001-07:00

Who thwarted attack on UN in Herat?

A statement issued by the UN Secretary-General’s office is different from a statement issued by the Special Representative of the UN, Staff de Mistura, in one important way.

The SG’s statement first thanks “Afghan National Security Forces” but the SRSG’s statement first commends “the internal international security guards for their bravery and courage” in responding to Saturday’s attack on a UN compound in Herat Province.

At least two Afghan police guards were injured during the firefight with the attackers.

Shot in their own country in defense of the UN, why were Afghans treated secondary to “the internal international security guards” by UNAMA, one can ask the organization.

As everyone expresses gratitude that no UN staffer was affected in the incident, and also condemns, in strongest terms, the perpetuators, we don’t hear about the wounded heroes – why?

2010-10-21T01:14:00.000-07:00

Hazaras win Kabul from Tajiks, Pashtuns

At least 12 of Kabul’s 33 seats in the upcoming Wolesi Jirga have been won, somewhat democratically, by ethnic Hazaras (9 men, 3 women).

The number is higher both from Tajiks 11 (8 men, 3 women) and Pashtuns (6 men, 3 women) respectively.

Hazaras also lead the gender-segregated lists in terms of their voting proportion with Haji Muhaqiq top among male and Fatima Nazari first in female representatives.

Also elsewhere in the country, Hazaras have scored high promising them a fairly good representation in the next parliament.

They win with ballots, not bullets, so deserve a big congratulation!

As to what will be the social and political consequences of this election amid growing insecurity, well, it’s too early to predict in our usually unpredictable circumstances.

Perhaps, as seen in Iraq, the US will have fewer friends than Iran among Afghan lawmakers.

2010-10-06T23:55:00.001-07:00

Control, censor or coordination?

“We have been instructed not to talk to journalists. Only the GMIC [government media and information center] can talk,” director of the Afghan Red Crescent (ARCS) Office in Kandahar Province told me over the phone. I needed quotes/info for a story on conflict-related internal displacement – a humanitarian issue which falls within the core realms of the ARCS.

“Coordination” is the word you’d receive if you ask government officials why information is strictly controlled. The government, they say, should speak in one voice.

Principally and constitutionally, the ARCS should be independent and neutral from government politics. And when it comes to humanitarian information/analysis the ARCS must be a credible, transparent and accessible source.

Indeed, this war is not only about suicide/IED attacks and aerial strikes by warring parties. It is equally fought through propaganda, spin and lies. For this so-called ‘soft war’ there are structures, bodies and spin doctors.

Filtered information is not good for the health of societies, history tells us. The challenge is on journalists how to write the unfiltered truth.

2010-09-14T22:20:00.000-07:00

How about wiping Afghanistan out of the map?

The strongest option being proposed to an anticipated “Policy Review” in December in Washington is the partition of Afghanistan into “Talibanistan” and “Warlordistan” along certain ethno-geographic lines.

As armed violence, corruption and political crisis mount in Afghanistan an increasingly vexing question is gaining more weight in Europe and US: How to cut short?

Peace-making with the Taliban has not given fruit, as has the overwhelming use of military force to eradicate them, so a new solution formula has been initiated by a former US official, Robert Blackwell: Let’s divide Afghanistan!

Blackwell and other people who back his proposal are not concerned about Afghans and their country.

They want an immediate end to US’s spending in Afghanistan. War is unaffordable – allegedly costing over US$100 billion to US alone – and Afghanistan has no oil. In fact, they want to say:
“Sorry Taliban, we’re running out of money to buy bullets and kill you!”

In 2005, when Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad suggested that Israel should be wiped out of the Middle East map in order to end a long-standing regional conflict, he was globally condemned and labeled as insane. Even George W. Bush refused Ahmadinejad’s challenge for a debate on the issue, and no foreign journalist dared to request an interview and question his philosophy.

However, Mr. Blackwell was invited to London this week to lecture a large group of British officials, journalists and writers. His blunders are well-reported by almost all major US and British media outlets. And this is no double standard – ignoring Ahmadinejad, reporting Blackwell – simply because no one can question Israel but Afghanistan, off course, is an open-to-all lab.

In case the new states of Talibanisation and Warlordistan do not live in peace and pose threats why not go one step ahead and eradicate both, or indeed the one Afghanistan, by a few nuclear bombs?

Off course every effort will be made to only target the Taliban and avoid civilian casualties.

2010-09-13T13:48:00.000-07:00

Can a German-like Black Book curb corruption in Afghanistan?

Every government agency in Germany tries to avoid appearing in a Black Book which reports misuse and misspending of public funds by government authorities, deliberately or otherwise.

In 2009, the Black Book, published annually by the independent German Taxpayers’ Association (GTA), over 120 cases of wasteful and inappropriate expenses by various government agencies totaling 30 billion Euros were reported.

In one project, a provincial agriculture department spent 250,000 Euros on music parties for cows! Another government body procured camel’s milk worth of 40,000 Euros from Kenya to feed camel babies in Germany.

At least 1,600 articles appeared in the German print media about projects mentioned in the Black Book last year.

Ranked the second most corrupt state in the world in 2009 by the Berlin-based anti-corruption organization Transparency International, the Government of Afghanistan has no checkbooks to fear. Hardly any Afghan knows how much their government earns (from taxes, foreign assistance etc) and how much it spends on what projects.

Bribery, embezzlement and misuse of public money by government officials are rampant and hinder Afghanistan’s efforts to end conflict and implement development projects.

Donors who have a stake in a stable Afghanistan and have repeatedly and increasingly called on President Hamid Karzai to tackle corruption in his administration, but Mr. Karzai has fallen short in meeting their expectations.

It is widely believed that so long as Mr. Karzai refuses to take bold action against official corruption – starting with his own brothers, ministers and political allies – fighting corruption will only remain in words.

Facing little or no domestic pressure, Hamid Karzai has fiercely rejected external criticisms of his corrupt government under the pretext of national sovereignty. He wants to keep anti-corruption an Afghan government business with no foreign involvement.

However, critics doubt a highly corrupt government will really fight corruption.

Another concern is the abuse of anti-corruption by Mr. Karzai against his political rivals, particularly when only he is in full control.

Afghanistan needs not only a Black Book but also truly independent watchdogs in order to combat corruption effectively.

Perhaps German officials would have already banned the Black Book if the GTA had not been an independent entity. Founded in 1949, the watchdog is entirely funded by thousands of members who pay 50-90 Euros annually to enable it track their taxes.

In the immediate post-World War II years, Germans paid up to 90 percent tax to help rebuild their country.

Afghanistan may not have a large taxpaying population to form a similar association but Afghans definitely need a Black Book to tell them how much their government spends inappropriately.

2010-09-07T12:13:00.000-07:00

The Return of God

A Church in the US state of Florida plans to burn copies of the Holy Quran on the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The church’s pastor, Terry Jones, claims he “hates” Islam and will “burn Quran” for the “Love of God”.

In Iran a woman is facing death sentence for alleged “consensual” adultery. Iranian judges say the verdict is God’s command: God will be pleased with Sakina’s death, they claim.

The Vatican has remained silent in regards to Quran’s burning controversy. However, it has called on Iran not to hang the alleged adulterer woman. A French government facing immigration, pension and social scandals is willing to send its foreign minister to Tehran to request clemency for her.

As floods rage catastrophes across Pakistan, suicide attackers blew up mosques, shrines and police stations to “please the God”. Won’t God be pleased if the suicide attackers at least postpones their attacks and instead give hands to desperate flood-affected people?

God has returned into our lives/minds and forces us to sacrifice each other for His satisfaction, or so is the perception among some people.

Some would argue God never left our lives/minds, at least in strongly religious societies such as Afghanistan. It might be true but God was said to have given His place to human rationality in the 21st century. Perhaps, the politics of God have resurfaced.

2010-08-17T06:37:00.000-07:00

Who to blame for Pakistan’s aid crisis: ISI or donors?

Foreign aid is all but sufficient in Pakistan where millions of people are surrounded by a severe humanitarian crisis. The post-flood environment in the worst affected provinces of Khyber-Pukhunkhwa and Punjab is alarmingly bleak as diseases, starvation and desperation join forces to bring about a major human catastrophe.

Politically the country is torn apart among corrupt and inefficient politicians who seem to be seeking personal interests from the crisis than lending hands to help their desperate people. There are conflicting calls coming from Pakistan’s political establishments regarding foreign assistance. Some rejects foreign aid categorically while others plead for billions.

International donor response to funding appeals has been criticized as weak and mean. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been demanded by the international aid community to fight highly contiguous diseases, feed the hungry, provide drinking water and assist people to regain a somewhat normal life.

However, it seems time has gone for Pakistan to receive immediate blank cheques from the West as it did in the past. People in most donor countries rightly say why aid to a country which exports religious terrorism? Will not the aid be siphoned off by the ISI (Pakistan’s notorious intelligence agency) to bankroll its Taliban protégés and sponsor more terrorist operations?

These are critical questions. Pakistan cannot rely on foreign generosity when its rogue state institutions only send suicide attackers, bombs and hatred to the world.

Will the unfolding flood crisis awaken Pakistanis and lead to radical political and institutional reforms?

The backlash is clear: ISI’s terrorism and Talibanization has weakened international sympathy with the Pakistani people. As ISI agents perpetuate violence abroad they bring home global condemnation.

The ISI, therefore, deserves a strong domestic condemnation for denying foreign aid to needy Pakistanis and turning Pakistan into a notorious terrorism hub.

Complaint about German Consular services in Kabul

2010-08-01T04:01:00.000-07:00

(I emailed this to the German Embassy last week, but, unsurprisingly, have not received a response yet)

Dear Sir/ Madam:

I am writing to you to complain about the way German consular services are executed in Kabul, particularly for Afghan nationals.

Submission of a visa application at the German Consulate requires undergoing a highly disorganized, stringent and to some extent inhumane procedures.

Ironically, the Consulate does not arrange appointments to serve its clients.

This creates a situation in which applicants make long queues in front of the Consulate as early as 6:00am and linger until 12:00 when guards simply instruct them to “go” and “come tomorrow” for the same chaotic exercise. In the hot weather outside the Consulate no basic facilities such as benches, water, toilets etc are available for the languishing applicants. This is unfair, sir!

I spent three days in order to be able to submit my application to a counter where I was treated unprofessionally and indecently. Despite I had provided all the required documents (invitation letter from a German institute, health insurance etc) I was told to provide these very documents and comeback another day!

When I asked a German employee of the Consulate on 26 July to behave with me humanly and respectfully, he retorted that he was not there to solve my problems. The gentleman further told me that the chaotic and long queues are “problematic to everyone” but he nevertheless insisted the Consulate “would not arrange appoints” to solve the problems.

Both the guards and employees of the Consulate treated me roughly, indecently and without appropriate respect. I think this happens to every other applicant. The people who legitimately apply to German visas are not illegal migrants or asylum seekers and they should not be treated as such.

I have never visited Germany but I trust Germans are great and civilized people. Respect to other people, I believe, is at the heart of German culture which has made Germany a highly respected country in the world.

I hope you will seriously consider this complain and urgently reform and improve German Consular services in Kabul.

As an applicant and an Afghan citizen, I would be happy to provide further information if you will need.

Thank you in anticipation for your understanding.

Why Karzai does not like Wikileak’s revelations

2010-07-26T22:14:00.001-07:00

The Whistleblower’s Afghan War Dairy embraced, surprised and shocked many leaders across the world but Hamid Karzai was not impressed.

“Most of this is not new…of this is what has been discussed in the past,” a Karzai spokesman told reporters in Kabul on 26 July.

He lied bluntly. His boss – Mr. Karzai – was surprised by the news.

However, Karzai – who was once crying loud to US/NATO to tackle the ‘sanctuaries, training facilities and ideologues of terrorism’ in Pakistan - preferred not to capitalize on the opportunity.

Karzai thinks the high-profile intelligence leak is a Washington-sponsored plot designed to damage his rapprochements with Islamabad.

What Gen. MacChrystal described Ambassador Holbrook in his blunders to a Rolling Stone reporter – “a wounded animal” – can be rightly referred to Mr. Karzai.

Since August 2009, Karzai lost his unwavering confidence in the US and NATO.

Karzai has said he gave almost everyone the opportunity to defeat the Taliban over the past eight years. He now believes US/NATO cannot and will not defeat the Taliban. He also feels he lost the blame game on terrorism and extremism to Islamabad as US/NATO refused his numerous pleas to tame and civilianize the ISI and end its bloody game in Afghanistan.

Disappointed in his Western patrons and increasingly fearful of his government’s survival, Karzai overhauled his politics and said hello to Islamabad and its Talib protégées.

As he tries to forge a ‘new’ strategic partnership with Islamabad and the Pakistani military, the Wikileaks revelations appear to him a conspiratorial move to derail his plans.

2010-06-12T21:27:00.000-07:00

افغانها را کی به مسیحیت میکشاند: رهبران فاسد یا انجوهای خارجی؟

در پی نشر تصاویر مشاجره برانگیز مراسم تعمید شماری از افراد که ظاهرا به دین مسیحی گراییده اند از تلویزیون خصوصی نورین، مقامات و وکلای شورای ملی درامه ی فریبنده اسلامدوستی شانرا به نمایش گذاشته اند.

وزیر اقتصاد دو سازمان غیردولتی خارجی را که سوابق کاری طولانی در ارایه خدمات بشری و انکشافی دارند را بیشتر بدلیل موجودیت کلمه "مسیحی" در نامهای شان مورد سوءظن قرار داده و ضمن لغو موقتی جواز کار شان، خواستار تحقیقات جدی در مورد فعالیتهای آنها گردیده است.

مجلسین شورای ملی و ارگ ریاست جمهوری هم به هیاهوی موجود شتافته و با ابراز "نگرانی های شدید" مخالفت شانرا با هرگونه تبلیغ و ترویج مسیحیت اعلام داشته اند. حداقل در کابل و هرات شماری از جوانان احساساتی با راه اندازی تظاهرات خواستار به محاکمه کشانیدن موسساتی گردیده اند که هموطنانشانرا در جریان ناملایمات سه دهه کمک و مساعدت نموده اند.

در لابلای این همه احساسات و ناشیگری ها ما نه تنها ترس عمیق مانرا از عیسویت و یا روند عیسوی شدن افغانها آشکار نموده ایم بلکه خامی پیوندهای اعتقاد دینی جامعه خود را هم به نمایش گذاشته ایم. ما بدون حصول اطمینان از چگونگی تصاویر پخش شده (تصاویر از چی زمانی بوده اند؟ محل مراسم کجاست؟ آیا افراد مطلوب افغانها ها اند و آیا قبلا مسلمان بودند؟ چگونه، چرا و توسط کی ها به عیسویت رو آورده اند؟) فی الفور داد "محکومیت ها" را سر میدهیم و خواستار "مجازات" خارجی ها میگردیم و بدینترتیب اسلامدوستی خود را به مردم نشان میدهیم.

عدهء فکر میکنند مردم ما مظلوم واقع شده اند و بزور و خدعه به دین و آیین خارجی ها کشانیده میشوند. از اینجاست که مزبوحانه تلاش میورزند تا با برخورد شدید و خشن، با عوامل که ظاهرا مردم را به سایر ادیان میکشانند، دین و عقاید اسلامی خود را از تعرض و تغییر مصوون نگهدارند.

شکی نیست که هر دین و کیشی برای گشترش جغرافیای انسانی خود تلاش مینماید، همانگونه که دعوت از جمله ارکان برجسته اسلام میباشد. در حالیکه مسلمانان در بریتانیا، امریکا و سایر کشورهای غیرمسلمان تبلیغ اسلام میکنند و مردمان را به مسلمان شدن دعوت میکنند ما، کشورهای مسلمان، نه تنها به راهبان سایر ادیان حق تبلیغ و فعالیت های قانونمند را در جوامع خود نمیدهیم بلکه دعوت به سایر ادیان را جرم مینامیم. اما این امر مبلغین سایر ادیان را از وجایب دینی شان بازنمیدارد و آنها از طروق و راه های متفاوتی دعوت به دین شانرا ادامه میدهند. یک مبلغ و دعوتگر اسلام در همه جا قابل تشخیص میباشد و میشود با او هر گونه معامله حقوقی و قانونی صورت گیرد، اما ما نمیدانیم از جمله ده ها هزار خارجی مقیم کشور ما کی ها مبلغ عیسویت هستند و به دلیل همین فقدان شناخت ما به هر خارجی به چشم شک مینگریم. روش موجود بجای نفع به زیان مسلمانان میباشد چون در کشورهای غیرمسلمان مردم از مبلغین اسلامی اجتناب میورزند و یا حداقل به بیانیه های آنان بدیده شک مینگرند در حالیکه مسلمانان نادانسته به موعظه های عیسویت تا وقتی گوش میدهند که تارهای عقاید اسلامی شان کاملا پوده میگردد و با ساده گی تغییر دین میدهند.

نقص دیگر روش موجود اینست که ما پرسش های کلیدی را که در تشخیص عوامل اساسی انحراف شماری از هموطنان ما از اسلام نقش دارند را نادیده گرفته فقط از احساسات و شعار کار میگیریم.

چرا یک افغان که از والدین مسلمان تولد یافته، و در یک اجتماع کاملا اسلامی پرورش یافته و به کاملترین ادیان مشرف است در پی چند مصاحبه با مبلغین عیسوی با قبول تمام خطرات با دین، عقاید، هویت و ارزشهای خود را به یکبارگی ترک میکند؟

بیسوادی، فقر، عدم آگاهی درست از اسلام و تمایل مهاجرت به کشورهای غربی از جمله عوامل عنوان میشوند که افغانها، و شاید هم مردم در سایر کشورهای فقیر مسلمان، را به ترک اسلام و پیوستن به عیسویت میکشاند. مزید بر این موسسات خارجی متهم میشوند که در بدل ارایه کمک های بشری مردم را بسوی بیدینی و ارتداد تشویق مینمایند.

خب - افغانها چرا بیسواد، فقیر و بی خبر از دین شان اند؟ مسوولیت محو بیسوادی، فقرضدایی و ترویج سالم دین با کیست؟ و چرا دست گدایی افغانها همیشه به خارجی ها دراز بوده است؟

بیسوادی و فقر در افغانستان نه اذلی بوده اند نه تصادفی. اینها نتایج و پیامدهای فساد، بی کفایتی و جنایات وسیع رژیم ها و رهبرانی بوده اند که بیشتر از سه دهه حاکمیت را در انحصار گرفته اند.

شاید در تناسب به نفوس سایر کشورهای اسلامی شمار ملاامامان و علمای دینی در افغانستان زیادتر باشد، اما اینها با داشتن منبر و محراب و سایر سهولتها در ویرایش و توانمندی عقاید اسلامی مردم موفق نبوده اند.

در میان فقر، بیسوادی و سایر مشکلات شان مردم سردمداران جهاد و جماعت های اسلامی را میبینند که جسورانه آدم میکشند، جنایت میکنند و از راه های کاملا نامشروع پول و قدرت میاندوزند اما تمام غلطکاری هایشانرا در قالب اسلام میپوشانند. بنام جهاد و مسلمانی نه تنها حقوق حیات، عزت و مالکیت مردم وسیعا و پیهم نقض میگردد بلکه بالاجبار به نظام های برده گی و عصر حجر سوق میشوند.

وقتی کودکی در محرومیت ها، فقر و بیسوادی پرورش یابد و از رهبران بظاهر مسلمان خود بجز از جنایت و گناه چیزی خوبی نبیند، آیا میتواند در مقابل فریفتن های سازمان یافتهء مبلغین عیسویت از عقاید خود قاطعانه مدافعه نماید؟ و اگر افغانی بدلیل بیسوادی، فقر، عدم آگاهی درست از اسلام و مظالم رهبران بظاهر مسلمان دین اشرا ترک میکند تنها او باید مرتد شمرده شده و مستوجب مجازات باشد یا آنهای که مسبب کاستی ها و بدبختی های او بوده اند هم باید مسوول شناخته شوند؟

عوامل و مسببین اصلی گرایش افغانها به ادیان دیگر یکی دو موسسه خارجی نیست و ما نباید اغفال شویم بلکه در میان ما، حاکمان ما و رهبران ما اند که با اعمال زشت شان اسلام را بدنام مینمایند.

2010-06-06T21:17:00.000-07:00

Hypothetical Karzai-Omar debate

The world is trying to convince the Taliban leadership to renounce terrorism and take part in Afghanistan’s existing constitutional political system.

Well, let’s imagine Mullah Omar extricates himself from the ISI and agrees to challenge the incumbent “president” in a debate.

Here is a transcript of the most likely arguments and counterarguments the two will exchange:

Karzai: “Welcome brother! It’s great you’ve extricated yourself from the ISI. This is your country and I am very pleased to offer whatever you want. My government and I are at your service. What ministries and provinces do you want? How many armoured vehicles? How many mansions in Shirchoor? What about a luxury resort in Pam Jumaira in Dubai? Would you like a visit to Panjshir to Masoud’s tomb? Or you like an Uzbeki Qaboli at Dostum’s palace in Sheberghan? Or….”

Omar: “Nonsense! I want to revive my Islamic Emirate. I want you out of the Argg. I want your brother out of Kandahar. I want your American patrons out. I want your corrupt ministers out. You’re a coward and a looser. I am the future of this country….”

Karzai: “Well, dear brother. We can work together. Tell me what do you want, please tell me. It’s not good you – like others- call me corrupt. Where is corruption? Who is corrupt? What’s corruption? I am a great president. Look how highly the Americans are talking about me. If you join my government we will increase the GDP to $100,000, we will make great roads and Afghanistan will make airplanes. We will defeat the world in technology and sport. Please! Don’t you want all this?”

Omar: “I can’t work with your tugs. They’re criminals and murders. I don’t want your dollars. I seek Islam and the rule of Sharia. You’re such a great liar! You think I am fool? I know you’re all bluff and nonsense. You use rousing lies and never abide by your words. You’re a puppet. I don’t trust you a penny…”

Karzai: “OK! OK! Fine I am a puppet - so what? I am corrupt and a warlord - so what? I am a liar and bluff master - so what? Who cares about these issues? This is Afghanistan my friend. Don’t waste your time with these futile slogans. Just enjoy man! We’ve suffered a lot but now it t is our time to relax and prosper. Condemn the Satan and let’s go to Hazrat Sahib and kiss his hands and forget about the past….”

Omar: “What about that ‘black list’? What about my friends?”

Karzai: “Hey brother! Don’t worry about anything. You’re our hero and the Afghan people are proud of you. I have an inclusive government which strives to serve you and others like you. Women and girls will wear burqa – as you wish – and I will not allow any journalist or media to cause you any inconvenience with freedom of expression, human rights, democracy and other similar issues. You just let me rule and I assure you’ll really thrive. Please, I beg you!”

Omar: “Let me think. I’ll let you know when I make up my mind. But what is Obama saying about all this?”

Karzai: “OK! Dear brother. Take your precious time. Obama respects you man! He is our friend. He wants peace and welfare in our country. I spoke to him last week and he said ‘tell my brother – Omar – how long this fratricidal war should continue?’ he hates war and loves peace. You know he won a Nobel Peace Prize. He said if you join my government he will also give you a Nobel Prize…”

Omar: “Oh! Yeah I like a Nobel but I don’t like it to be shared with Masoud, Mazari, Fahim and others. I want a Nobel only for my self to honor my endeavors for peace.”

Karzai: “You definitely deserve it brother, you deserve it! America is a very rich and powerful country. They can give us anything we want. Dollars, power, fame, prizes and anything you want – they’re very reliable. I swear they are very good.”

Omar: “OK! I got to go now. Tell Obama to call my Quetta number and talk to me about my Nobel and other issues. Sorry I can’t trust you though!”

Karzai: “Sure sure. I will tell him. He’d love to talk to you. He respects you…

Omar: “Bye!”

Karzai: “Bye my dear brother! Take good care brother!”

[ENDS]

2010-05-27T02:20:00.000-07:00

AFGHAN TRANSLATORS LIVE IN FEAR AND MISTRUST

It was midday 5 May when Azizullah received a devastating phone call about the death of his 24-year-old son Sardar Mohammad, who was a translator with foreign forces in the southern Kandahar Province.

“They [foreign forces] told us that he was killed in a Taliban’s ambush in Chora District in Urozgan Province but we doubt it,” the bereaved father said adding that his son could had been killed “purposely” or “mistakenly” by his employers.

“He was hit in the heart with one bullet and was bleeding freshly when we received his coffin,” he said.

As with other similar cases the government did not launch a criminal or judicial investigation and his parents did not even know if they had a right to demand an impartial inquiry into their son’s death.

No one at NATO’s regional command in Kandahar Airfield was available to comment on Mohammad’s death and NATO’s spokespersons in Kabul refused to talk about the subject.

When Mohammad was offered the translation job in 2007 his family fled to Pakistan because they feared Taliban insurgents would harm them. The insurgents widely target people who work for foreign forces and the government.

Vulnerable

Hundreds of Afghans, mostly young males, work as interpreters and language assistants with over 120,000 foreign forces stationed in Afghanistan. They earn about US$400-1500 monthly based on their contract type and job location which could be a military base or a combat zone.

While the insurgents are their arch enemies several translators interviewed for this report expressed deep concerns about mistreatment and risks they faced from their own employers.

“They don’t trust us and if they find out anything suspicious about a translator his life will be in hell,” said an Afghan working for NATO forces in Wardak Province who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“We are not trained to be fighters and soldiers but they take us to front lines where god knows who kills who,” said another interpreter who used a pseudonym, Jalil.

“Our live is cheap, cheaper even than an insurgent’s life,” whined another translator.

Whether a misunderstanding or a reality such grievances have sometimes led to tragic events.

A “"disgruntled” Afghan interpreter reportedly shot dead two US soldiers before he was gunned down on 30 January in Wardak Province.

NATO’s press office in Kabul said it could not comment on the issue due to its sensitive and “classified” nature.

Unknown casualties

Over 1,780 foreign troops have died in Afghanistan since November 2001, according to a tally, but the number of local interpreters killed and maimed during their work for international forces is unknown.

NATO said it did not know how many of its local language assistants were killed over the past eight years.

“We have started tracking translators’ casualties since March [2010],” said Kevin Bell, a NATO spokesman in Kabul.

Ironically the translators are not protected by the country’s labour law and their work contracts are only managed by private companies which deliver human resource services to NATO and US forces in Afghanistan.

“Afghans working for foreign military forces, embassies and UN agencies are not covered by the labour law,” said Mohammad Ghaws Bashiri, deputy minister of the Ministry of Labour, Martyrs and Social Affairs.

“We don’t deal with their work and contractual disputes,” he said.

However, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) said the government must enforce a low to protect its citizens employed by external civilian or military actors.

“They must have access to legal protection and their rights, privileges and safety measures must be legally transparent and respected by their employers,” said Fareed Hamidi, a commissioner at the AIHRC adding that the translators’ work conditions must be humane and civilian.

Translators said they were entitled to a life insurance scheme which pays a sum to the family of a fallen translator (provided the death is during duty and meets all regulatory measures).

Dozens of interpreters recruited by the US military have been granted residence in the US over the past three years and Canada has announced it will provide special immigration services to some of the translators employed by its military in Kandahar Province in 2010-2011.

2010-05-23T22:43:00.000-07:00

Big news no coverage

Kabul-based foreign journalists have missed a very important issue which has been taking place over the past three days!

It seems the world’s top TV channels, newspapers and online outlets are deliberately overlooking the ongoing strike at the Wolesi Jirga (lower house of the National Assembly) because reporting it could offend Karzai. Mr. Karzai was reassured in Washington last week that he would have a lapdog media.

The MPs are on a democratic strike against Karzai’s prolonged failure to introduce nominees for 11 ministries. Karzai has appointed the very same individuals as “care-taking ministers” who were rejected by Wolesi Jirga. According to a law recently adopted by the parliament ‘a care-taker minister can only work for no more than a month’ but the Karzai Argg does not buy the law.

Almost seven months have gone by since Karzai re-inaugurated himself but half of his cabinet is throng with ‘care-takers’.

A Taliban suicide attack usually makes breaking news and headlines unwittingly feeding dangerous propaganda. However, democracy and big democratic events hardly reach to editors’ desks in London and New York.

The problem is with this approach the Taliban are our news-makers and opinion-dividers.

2010-05-19T22:12:00.000-07:00

Washington’s second bad choice: Dr. Abdullah

Washington has only concluded the glitzy and formal part of its hospitality to Afghan politicians but the informal and behind-the-doors meetings are still ongoing.

Almost the same policy-makers who held lengthy discussions with Hamid Karzai last week are now listening to Dr. Abdullah’s rants.

On Tuesday Washington Times ran a story on Abdullah’s malicious predictions on a number of issues including the upcoming Consultative Peace Jirga and talks with the Taliban.

Unsurprisingly Dr. Abdullah looks at every issue from his ethno-negativistic prism.

I am not astonished to see the Abdullah who tried to deceive some people with his fake Pashtun identity card during the presidential election is now a staunch and vocal Panjshiri (in fact a Shora-e-Nezaree).

He welcomed Karzai’s choice for the IEC only because Mr. Manawi is a Panjshiri and a Shora-e-Nezaree but he fiercely demanded all the key Pashtun ministers (defense, interior, education and finance) to be sacked in October 2009.

Abdullah is not short of ills and evils which I don’t want to focus here. I would like here to protest another of Washington’s historic mistake in my country which I fear will have grave consequences for us.

For over eight years we have been suffering and losing precious opportunities under a Karzai-centric US engagement in Afghanistan. As Karzai reaches to end of the show – or in order to have a B-plan in case Karzai dies – Dr. Abdullah is steadily making headway into corridors which led Karzai to the Argg.

This is wrong. Abdullah is by no means better than Karzai but has several worse factors.

Abdullah is not and should not be the future of Afghanistan unless the plan is to push the country from bad to worse.

2010-05-18T05:16:00.001-07:00

The untold truth behind Hazara-Kuchi conflict

Why are Kuchi herders unwelcomed in Behsud, Bamyan and other areas in the Central Highlands where Hazaras make the majority of settlers?

The Kuchis flock to almost all other parts of the country where they are not treated as “invaders” or “Pashtun terrorists”.

Over the past five years seasonal pasture-related tensions in Behsoud have often erupted into dangerous ethnic conflicts as both Kuchis and Hazaras blame each other for repression and wrongdoing.

Hazars say Kuchis storm into their agriculture fields, inflict damages and disappear.

Kuchis say their traditional right to “public” grazing lands has been denied by Hazaras and in some instances local Hazara strongmen have grabbed their legitimate properties.

This is only a fake face of the problem.

As you go deep into the issue, listen to kingpins and use some intelligence the underlying truth goes into two directions: A) corruption, and B) ethno-politics.

A) Blessed with free and flooding dollars the Karzai regime earmarked over 160 million Afghanis (about US$31 million) to compensate warring parties (affected Kuchis and Hazaras) in 2009. Most of the money ended up in the criminal coffers of prominent ethnic power-brokers and government officials. However, the regime has failed to buy peace and accord with corrupto-dollars and the profiteers have re-orchestrated another violent drama again.

B) Tehran has brainwashed many Hazara leaders and activists with the idea of “an independent Hazaristan” – another Shia state in the region. Maps showing the Central Highlands, Daikundi and parts of Urozgan as a sovereign Shia/Hazara state have been produced to inspire the powerful Hazara leaders. Purging the region from non-Hazaras is a prerequisite for the ideal Hazara country. The U.S. foreign policy, undoubtedly, is pro-minority and Hazaras strongly believe they are following the path of Iraqi Kurds.

How a landlocked Hazaristan will live in a landlocked Afghanistan is a question Hazara protagonists need to ponder about.

2010-05-08T22:08:00.000-07:00

What’s Karzai doing in U.S. barracks?

Karzai and McChrystal are buddies definitely. The top U.S. general has accompanied Mr. Karzai in his almost all provincial travels over the past few months; sitting legs-crossed, drinking tea and listening to Karzai through his interpreter. McChrystal has studied the embattled Afghan leader more than any other U.S. official in Kabul.

His spontaneous public apologies after every major civilian casualty incident involving international forces and indeed a major reduction in NATO’s notorious air strikes (which has reportedly decreased civilian deaths attributed to NATO) have made McChrystal a favorable figure.

In an unprecedented gesture of friendship Karzai popped into McChrystal’s dual headquarters – NATO’s HQ in central Kabul and U.S. (non-NATO) command center in Bargram Airfield – over the past one month.

Through these visits Karzai has tried to re-assure Washington that he’s not lost his mind totally to seek a new patron in the region. He just wants to say he does not like diplomats and envoys pressing him on corruption and inept but likes to work with non-critical generals.

“Don’t criticize me! Cherish me and I’m all your guy!” is what Mr. Karzai telling Washington.

Well-taken Mr. Karzai! Ambassadors Holbrook and Eikenberry have got their lessons and are not going to displease you in future. You’re status has been elevated to that of Hosni Mubarak and other U.S.-backed dictators in the Muslim world.

2010-05-03T23:27:00.000-07:00

What for us in Karzai-Obama row?

Despite his groundless tirades, Karzai is defiantly the winner of recent Washington-Kabul war of words as he has been increasingly cherished by U.S. officials.

Ironically a military commander, Gen. MacChrystal, has played far better diplomacy in Kabul than the veteran diplomat Richard Holbrook. MacChrystal knows well how fond of commending is Karzai so he has all the sweets in his shop to keep the incompetent President pleased.

Just as Afghanistan is bound to its unfriendly geographic neighborhood Washington feels obliged to work with Karzai, no matter how ineffective or even harmful he could be.

Ice is melting between Argg and the White House and a victorious Karzai expects no “No!” but all “Yes!” during his May 12th visit to Washington.

Unsurprisingly and despite his displeasure President Obama seems ready to keep issuing “blank cheques” to Mr. Karzai, as did his predecessor.

Looking at Mr. Karzai’s shrewd skills in selling his inept, corrupt and criminal presidency to Washington makes me wonder why this man cannot, or does not want to, play his talents for his country?

Karzai deserves a strong bravo at least for his well-played survival tactics.

As corruption, warlordism and bad-governance win over democracy and good governance I feel sad for our generation’s unending miseries under a government loved by outsiders but disliked by most of us.

What have we, ordinary Afghans, achieved from this? Who is speaking for us in Kabul and Washington?

2010-04-17T21:57:00.000-07:00

Is it UNAMA or UNAMK?

Immediately after Karzai announced his new handpicked head of IEC the UN SRSG rushed to his media room to report his ‘comfort*’ with the appointment.

Manawi, a senior Northern Alliance figure, was chosen through backdoor deal-making by Karzai and his Jihadi mentors.

Manawi is a Muslim cleric with no intellectual and professional expertise in democracy or elections management, but it’s apparently not important for the UN envoy to rattle for democratic principles in a country that is fast plunging in personal tyranny.

Manawi will not end our looming electoral crisis with verses of the Holy Quran.

The IEC needs institutional independence, operational integrity, democratic laws and procedures, and an apolitical leadership and/or governing system to run free & fair elections.

Ironically a cabinet minister requires parliamentary approval but IEC officials are entirely presidential appointees. Won’t it be right, instead, to say the “impendent” interior ministry than “independent” election commission – after all how do we define “independence”?

As for UNAMA or UNMAK is it the UN assistance mission for Afghanistan for Karzai?

* - Read de Mistura's transcript here: http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1741&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=8592

2010-04-11T05:16:00.000-07:00

The Perils of Premature Afghanisation

Hamid Karzai, the self-proclaimed president of Afghanistan, and his corrupto-criminal allies are by no means ready or fit to take on responsibilities for all political, development and security affairs in Afghanistan. Karzai is fiercely seeking absolute sovereignty from the world in order to unilaterally run the country as his personal fiefdom. Giving this unreliable partner all what he wants will spoil the blood and treasure spent in the post-Taliban Afghanistan and will plunge the country in a chaotic feudalism.

There is no legitimate and competent political class in Afghanistan that can effectively assume the unassisted management of the country’s complex challenges. Corruption and cronyism are rampant and the Kabul regime, totally manipulated by warlords and criminals, has been ranked second only to Somalia in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.

Politically the country is worryingly fragmented among rival groups loyal to Iran, Pakistan, India and other external powers. Over four months have gone since the re-inauguration of Mr. Karzai but almost half of his cabinet ministers are yet to be nominated and approved by an increasingly antagonistic parliament which recently rejected Karzai’s totalitarian amendments to the electoral law.

Security is worse than all times since the hardliner Taliban were ousted in late 2001. The quick fixes applied by donors in the national security sector have created a mercenary police and army that are hardly able to secure their own barracks without international military forces. The arrival of additional U.S. forces to fight back the insurgents from key southern provinces is widely perceived as a temporary remedy to the country’s untamable security challenges. In Marja city, in the southern Helmand province, the Taliban have told locals they will return in July 2011; when American forces will start leaving the country according to President Obama’s strategy.

Administratively the landlocked South Asian country is plagued by the legacy of over three decades of unrelenting war, brain drain and a lack of basic infrastructures necessary for the delivery of services and governance. Almost half of school-age children are out of school, everyday 48 mothers and scores of children die from preventable and curable diseases, and over half of the estimated 28 million population live with less than US$1 a day.

Hamid Karzai is at odd with Washington and London more than any time before in his political career. On 1 April Karzai accused the U.S., the UN and the EU of orchestrating “massive” fraud in the 2009 Presidential Elections. Like Iran’s Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Karzai thinks the U.S. is trying to “colonize” the region and install puppet regimes. He recently confided at journalists his personal determination to “stand up” to the U.S.’s colonial ambitions. Karzai has proved he is always ready to offer himself for sale to Russia, China and Iran if Washington stops providing him the blank cheques he used to receive from President George W. Bush.

Not only are the Taliban too strong and are seriously threatening to topple the Karzai regime should NATO forces withdraw quickly but the unfolding regional panorama is also too detrimental for the future of a stable Afghanistan. Intelligence and military officials in Islamabad, Tehran, Delhi and Moscow are strategizing on a post-U.S. Afghanistan divided among traditional Pashtun, Tajek, Uzbek and Hazara warlords and power brokers.

However, tired of an increasingly costly war American and European leaders have started a chorus of “Afghanisation” at a critical juncture while the destabilizing country urgently needs an overhauled strategic engagement from the West.

Contrary to the predominant pessimism that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable and that Afghans are naturally unfit with democratic governance both peace and democracy are achievable in this ill-perceived Muslim country.

Afghans are not fighting each other out of luxury. They are sick of war.

For the current waves of armed violence, however, some Afghans have reasons, some have grievances and some others are being misled or exploited by internal and regional war-mongers. The problem of conflict in Afghanistan has been compounded by a huge lack of knowledge in the international community about the very reasons, grievances and incentives which fuel violence and rebellion.

Apart from Hamid Karzai and his travel jamboree policy-makers in outside Afghanistan have hardly known ordinary Afghans. Little is known in Kabul and Washington about the motives of young Kandaharis and Helmandis who are killing their own country’s police, army and government officials. Little is heard from educated youths in Kabul and Herat.

The Afghan war cannot be won in the far remote districts in Helmand and Kandahar. It cannot be the killing and capturing of rural Pashtun youths.

An Afghanisation is not and is different from total Karzai-o-fication of Afghanistan’s affairs.

Surrendering Afghanistan to Hamid Karzai’s paralyzed regime will be a catastrophic mistake similar to the one the Soviets did in 1989.

Irrefutably Karzai has failed. He must not fail Afghanistan with himself. And Afghans must not be forced to share his failure either.

Returning to Afghans the ultimate command over their country is an unavoidable destination. The world must have strategic patience until Afghans get ready to run their country alone.

Time is not right for Afghanisation now. It is time to find, befriend and empower competent Afghans who can take charge in the foreseeable future.

2010-04-07T04:54:00.000-07:00

Will IEC’s resignations end electoral crisis?

The engineered resignations of IEC’s head and deputy will not solve electoral chaos in Afghanistan unless the entity’s constitutional independence is respected and ensured by Hamid Karzai.

Over the years we have repeatedly experienced a ‘bad to worse’ situation with Mr. Karzai’s cabinet reshuffling and senior appointments.

However, reform with individuals alone has proved ineffective.

What this country needs is system-based institutional development and reform.

IEC’s decision-makers must not be exclusively Karzai’s appointees. Their integrity must be screened and approved by the Parliament either.

The resignations offer an opportunity to circumcise Karzai’s absolutism and prevent replication of the electoral catastrophe witnessed during last year’s presidential election.

A genuinely independent elections commission will serve democracy, Afghans and state-building in this country.

Don’t expect “fair and free” elections in future if Karzai is allowed to replace Ludin and Najafi with other – perhaps worse – cronies.

2010-04-05T21:51:00.000-07:00

بحران عقلانی انقلاب هشت ثور

یا دیروز و امروز جنگ و جنایت شده است و یا دیروز وامروز جهاد بوده است*

برای شمار از رهبران گروه های جهادی اسبق وضعیت موجود کشور با دهه شصت شمسی تفاوتهای اساسی دارد. عده از این رهبران دراوایل دهه پنجاه شمسی، سالها قبل از تجاوز قشون سرخ به افغانستان، به آغوش ذوالفقار علی بوتو پناه برده علیه نظام و حکومت وقت در افغانستان اعلان جهاد کردند.

با ورود نیروهای شوروی به افغانستان شمار معامله گران جهاد به حدی افزایش یافت که هرکدام، جهت دسترسی به پول و سلاح بیشتر، تلاش میورزیدند وفاداری خود با سازمانهای استخباراتی پاکستان را بهتر ثابت نمایند. در آنزمان سوزانیدن مکاتب، "پراندن پل ها"، به راکت بستن قریه ها و کشتار مردمی که با گروه های جهادی همکار نبودند، مطابق فتوا جهادسالاران افغانستان که در پاکستان بتصویب رسیده بود، یک عمل اسلامی و مجاز پنداشته میشد. برای آنکه از خطر مصون باشند، افغانها باید به کمپ های مهاجرین در پاکستان پناه میبردند و اطفال و نوجوانان شان باید درس خشونت و فرهنگ کلاشینکوف را می آموختند. اما آنهای که در شهرهای تحت حاکمیت دولت وقت بسر میبردند همه کمونیست و ملحد نامیده شده و واجب القتل شناخته میشدند.

اما امروز چی؟ حالا که ملاعمر و حکمتیار ظاهرا در پاکستان مستقر شده و بیشتر رهبران جهادی اسبق به افغانستان تشریف دارند. اگر چه حالا اسلام آباد از مهمانان افغان خود همانند دهه های قبلی پذیرایی علنی نمیتواند و ملاعمر و حکمتیار در قصرهای مجلل در پشاور و اسلام آباد بگونه آشکار برنامه جنگ و تباهی افغانستان را رهبری نمی نمایند، اما لانه های آنطرف مرز، که رهبران اسبق جهاد بنیان گذار آن هستند، امروزهم با همان تفکر محدود دیروز، جهاد در شرایط موجود را بر حق میدانند.

در اوآخر سال 1357 ده ها هزار سرباز قشون سرخ وارد قلمرو افغانستان گردید. در آنزمان برای اشغال یکعنوع مشروعیت تصنعی بر سرزبانها بود، از جمله اینکه حکومت وقت افغانستان خواستار حضور نیروهای کشور دوست و همسایه در خاک خود شده بود و هم اینکه مسکو- قبل از آنکه افغانستان در دام "امپریالیزم جهانخوار" اسیر گردیده و بر علیه منافع جماهیر شوروی مورد استفاده قرار گیرد دست به یک عمل پیشگیرانه برد - طرح که جورج بوش بر اساس آن به عراق حمله نمود.

از شش سال و اندی بدینسو ده ها هزار سرباز امریکای و سایر کشورهای غربی در افغانستان حضور دارند. برای شمار تحلیلگران غربی، و عده ی از افغانها، در میان اشغال شوروی اسبق و حضور فعلی نیروهای امریکای در افغانستان تفاوتهای اساسی حقوقی وجود دارد. به باور اینها موجودیت سربازان امریکای و متحدین نزدیک اش در افغانستان از شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد مشروعیت میگیرد، مشروعیتی که مسکو برای سربازان اش تامین نموده نتوانسته بود.

اما نمیتوان باور کرد رهبران جهاد افغانستان، که فتوا قتل هموطنان خود را از پاکستان صادر نمودند و با قساوت شیرازه های مادی و معنوی کشور خود را ویران ساختند، اصل جهاد دینی شانرا در روشنایی قطعنامه های شورای امنیت تایید و یا رد نمایند. احکام اسلام از فیصله های شورای امنیت، که یک عضو مسلمان ندارد، مشروعیت نمیگیرد اما عکس آن، از نقطه نظر دینی، جواز دارد. بنابراین غیر دینی خواهد بود اگر گفته شود جهاد فعلا مجاز نیست تنها بدلیل اینکه شورای امنیت آنرا مشروعیت نمیدهد.

بآنهم اگر تحلیلگران غربی تفاوت در حضور نظامی امریکا و شوروی اسبق در افغانستان را از زاویه قطعنامه شورای امنیت تفکیک مینمایند، رهبران اسبق جهاد این تفاوت را از بعد دسترسی شان به منابع قدرت بررسی مینمایند. خب، حالا استاد ربانی، صبغت اله مجددی، استاد سیاف و دیگران چگونه میتوانند – از نقطه نظر دینی – ملا عمر و حکمتیار را متقاعد سازند که جهاد آنها از پاکستان بر ضد افغانستان به حمایت آشکار آی اس آی روا بود اما اکنون از اینها حرام است؟ رییس جمهور کرزی که خود در شهر کویته پاکستان زنده گی میکرد و از همانجا شاهد تباهی وطن و بدبختی هموطنان اش بود و از همانجا دولت ببرک کارمل و نجیب اله را دست نشانیده مسکو و محکوم به فنا میدانست، اما امروز که خود در سایه حمایتهای نظامی، سیاسی، اقتصادی و حتا معنوی واشنگتن درهمان ارگ ریاست میکند، مخالفین خود را جنایتکار و تروریست میداند! آیا تفاوت این نیست که دیروز شخص دیگری در ارگ بود و امروز شخص او؟

جالب است اگرگفته شود: جهاد با طرح آی اس آی، پول سعودی و سلاح های غربی بر علیه شوروی شرعی بود اما جهاد با همان طرح و همان پول، البته بگونه مخفی، علیه غرب حرام است. دلیل هم فیصله های شورای امنیت در نیویارک باشد. از بابت بازسازی و کمک هم نمیتوان استدلال منطقی نمود. با گذشت بیشتر از شش سال مداخلت امریکا بازهم بیشتر از 18 ميليون نفوس کشور مصونیت غذایی ندارند و افغانستان پنجمین کشور فقیر و عقب مانده در جهان محسوب میگردد.

جنگ دیروز که بیشتر از یک و نیم میلیون کشته، صدها هزار معیوب، میلیونها آواره و ویرانی کشور را با خود داشت – و بعد از پیروزی هم فجایع ناگفتنی یی را بر مردم تحمیل نمود – هر هشت ثور بنام پیروزی جهاد برحق با شکوه تر از استقلال 1919 جشن گرفته میشود، اما جنگ امروز، با سالانه 7-10 هزار کشته، بنام تروریزم و وحشیگری تقبیح میگردد!

آیا ما با منطق فاتح جنگ مواجه نیستیم؟ مشابه منطق برنده گان جنگ اول جهانی که فاتحین جنگ را برحق، خوب و سزاور تمام مکافات و امتیازات محسوب کردند اما بازنده گان جنگ را بد، مسوول و تاوان ده قرار دادند – منطقی که جنگ بزرگتر با بدبختی های بیشتری را بوجود آورد.

ما یا باید قبول کنیم که هم دیروز به بهانهء خدا و دین، و در اصل برای برنامه و اهداف کشورهای دیگر و یا برای دسترسی به قدرت، وطن خود را ویران و میلیونها هموطن خود را به خاک و خون کشانیدیم و هم امروز دست به همچو جنایات میزنیم – و یا باید دیروز و امروز هر دو را بنام جهاد علیه بیگانگان تقدیر نماییم.

یک افغانستان نوین نمیتواند تنها بر منطق برنده گان جنگ، که هر چند سال تعویض شده اند، ایجاد گردد. مادامیکه یک عمل واحد، و در اینجا کشتن مردم و ویرانی افغانستان، برای بعضی ها مایه ی افتخار (بنام جهاد) و برای شمار دگر ذلت و محکومیت تروریست را داشته باشد چگونه میتوان از یک افغانستان نوین – جاییکه عدل و انصاف برای همگان یکسان توزیع میگردد – حرف زد؟

از همینجاست که حکومت حامد کرزی با بحران انصاف و عقلانیت مواجه گردیده است.

حکومت کرزی بهترین فرصت عملکرد فراتر از منطق فاتح جنگ و ساختن یک افغانستان واقعا نو را داشت چون بعد از سرنگونی طالبان هم ابزار و هم اوضاع برای یک آغاز نو آماده گردیده بود.

بحران موجود در افغانستان نه با تغییر اعضای کابینه حکومت کرزی و نه با افزایش شمار نیروهای ناتو حل شده میتواند. این بحران، همانند گذشته ها، ریشه در حاکمیت و منطق یکجانبه فاتح جنگ دارد و اساسا با عقلانیت و خرد سازگاری ندارد.

بعد از دهه ها جنگ و مصایب بیشمار مردم افغانستان از بُعد روانی با انصاف، عدالت و عقلانیت راستین تسکین نگردیده و فرهنگ مصونیت زورداران اساسات اعتماد مردم به یک نظام نوین را جدا خدشه دار نموده است.

تا وقتیکه مردم در افغانستان مطمین نگردند که جنایتکار - صرفنظر از اینکه در ارگ، در وزیراکبرخان، در دشتهای هلمند و یا کوهپایه های بدخشان است – مستوجب یکنوع سرنوشت است، نمیتوان به حل بحران فعلی امیدوار بود

این نوشتهء دو سال قبل است که در یکی از روزنامه ها هم بنشر رسید*

President Obama’s midnight visit

2010-03-29T05:22:00.001-07:00

His furtive, short and clad-in-dark visit to Presidential Palace in Kabul and Bagram Airfield on 9:15pm-11:59pm on 28 March 2010 demonstrated how insecure and unreliable Kabul is for the U.S. President.

“Now, I know for most of you, you didn’t get a lot of notice that I was coming,” Obama admitted to thousands of American soldiers at Bagram Airfield, arguably the safest and most protected location in Afghanistan.

However, he fell short to elucidate the fact that prevalent insecurity and fear of Taliban attacks forced him to make a rather stealthy and sneaky visit to Kabul.

I may look impolite to call him a “coward” but I am afraid this is the impression President Obama has left with his surprising visit.

Undoubtedly Mr. Obama spent more hours in his Air Force One on the long way from Washington to Kabul than with his troops and partner in Kabul.

He gave a 372-word speech in the heavily fortified Karzai Palace as helicopters and jets roared overhead but did not answer a single question from journalists.

Arguably for U.S. Presidents Afghanistan means Hamid Karzai and therefore meeting Karzai means visiting Afghanistan and Afghans.

Bravo Mr. President! You visited Afghanistan. Get back to the Oval Office and revamp another policy/strategy for Afghanistan because you’ve got first-hand knowledge.

Where Afghan and American democracies disagree

2010-03-18T05:13:00.000-07:00

I read with fear a Washingtonpost article in which Afghanistan is described as democratizing and developing because a music TV show –American Idol – has been badly mimicked by a bunch of disconnected youths in Kabul.

Hank Stuever, author of the article titled TV preview of 'Afghan Star' naively writes: “The Taliban cruelly dialed Afghanistan's clock back to the Middle Ages, so it now falls to the producers and performers of "Afghan Star," the country's version of "American Idol," to bring pop culture forward to at least a David Cassidy level of cool.”

Hank wrongly links the duplicate show’s cell-phone text voting to a new “culture of democracy” and puts a hugely exaggerated number – 11 million! - for the viewers without mentioning where and how he got the statistics in a country which is yet to count its people.

He compares the show to a “Borat”-like mimicry of the Western pop culture and lauds an Afghan girl – Setara – as “outspoken” for dropping her scarf and doing a funky dance in a show.

Himself a gay, Hank writes about a man - Daoud Sediqi - who used to run the “Afghan Star” show as a modernizer and an enlightener. Off course he does not mention the fact that Mr. Sediqi has ran away from his country (applied for asylum in a Western country) apparently because he was imposing an indigestible pop culture on his conservative nation.

Eight years on with billion of dollars spent and hundreds of Americans and thousands of Afghans killed there is still no common understanding of “democracy and development” between Afghans and the Americans, sadly.

We, Afghans, love our traditions, religion and values regardless of how bad or derogatory they are perceived in the West. We love our sisters, daughters and mothers to have their scarves and avoid dancing in clubs and discos.

We believe democracy means legitimate, accountable and efficient governance – not a corrupt regime of warlords imposed by fraud. We consider development means achieving human security from physical violence, hunger, illiteracy, preventable diseases and poverty. We don’t think eating McDonald burgers and wearing tight jeans would solve our problems. Blindly copying the Americans way of life does not fit us and would lead us nowhere but to problems we have repeatedly suffered since 1919.

A distinct Afghanistan, albeit democratic, is possible between the Taliban’s Middle Ages and the American Idol.

The ‘Afghan Star’ is a fake, fragile and alien social product which cannot be digested by a majority of Afghans. Its expiry date is: ‘when US forces withdraw’.

PS: This is understandably not a thorough critique of Afghanistan’s democratization, but a few quick observations.

Government’s “corrupt” spokespeople

2010-03-16T03:10:00.000-07:00

A journalist friend who works for a prominent – wealthy and generous – media corporation gave me an embarrassing answer when I complained to him about the unavailability and bad behavior of some government spokespersons (frankly the MoI spokesman).

“We bribe them,” he said “and we don’t need to call them to inquire about an incident or an issue but they call us and keep us [exclusively] update up-to-the-minute.”

When I asked him what “bribe” means he said: “a bottle of wine, a telephone handset or a coat from Dubai!”

I hopelessly hope this is untrue!

Ironically, these days it is easy for me to get a quote/confirmation/rejection from the Taliban’s spokesmen. Zabihullah Mujahid regularly texts me security incidents as they happen, albeit with hugely exaggerated figures.

However, I spend hours to catch a government spokesperson on the phone and the worse thing is they often gave me rubbish!

Alas! Corruption is everywhere in this country.

I may need a “spokespersons’ relations budget” – bribing fund – in order to be able to access prioritized information.

Is Great Game re-Starting in Afghanistan?

2010-03-14T03:40:00.001-07:00

Reuters has quoted President Karzai as saying “Afghanistan does not war any proxy wars on its territory”.

Yes, Mr. Karzai there is a lot Afghanistan does not want, but in reality it has often been forced to unwanted directions. We did not want Soviets to invade our country, but they did. We did not want Pakistani and Iranian generals to rip apart the very foundations of our society, but they did. And our history is indeed replete as such.

The problem is we are too wishful and too little realist.

You need to do more than politely pleading to Iranian, Indian and Pakistani officials to leave us alone.

As it appears, whether we want it or not, our country is again falling into the dangerous quagmire of regional rivalries – perhaps another Great Game.

2010-03-10T21:06:00.000-08:00

تيروتنه

نن سبا يوه ستره تيروتنه د ګڼو خبريالانو او شنونکو لخوا تکراريږي: "په تيرو اتو کلونو کي د رسنيو پرمختيا او لاسته راوړنې د ولسمشر کرزي د واکمني له سترو لاسته راوړنو شمير کيږي"ا

اکثر دغه متناقض استدلال په هغو خبرونو او شننو کي ډير اوريدل کيږي چي د حکومت لخوا پر رسنيو د بنديزونو، له خبريالانو سره د چارواکو د زورياتيو او يا نورو ناسمو چلندونو په تړاو وي

د غيرحکومتي رسنيو پرمختګ د هغو سلګونو او آن زرګونو خبريالانو، ليکوالو او فرهنګيانو ګډه لاسته راوڼه ده چي د لږو امکاناتو په لرلو او د سترو خنډونو، ګواښونو او ننګونو په زغملو يي د ژبې، قلم او فکر په مټ د رسنيو نهال پاللي او روزلې دې

افغانستان کي د رسنيو پرمختګ د شهيد صمد روحاني، اجمل نقشبندي او ګڼو هغو خبريالانو او ليکوالو د سرښيندنو له برکته ترلاسه شوي چي د تيرو اتو کلونو راهيسي له هر زورور او واکمن څخه يي څاپيړې خوړلي دي

د بيان د آزادي او د رسنيو د بريا اصلي ساتونکي او ګټونکي نه حامدکرزي، نه يي مخالفين او نه يي هم باندني ملاتړي دي - بلکه هغه ويښ ځوانان او پيغلي دي چي ګډ نوم يي افغان خبريالان دې

لطفا، په وينو او خورا سختو ستونزو ګټل شوي د رسنيو د برياوو وياړ د سياسيونو او واکمنو په دستار مه ټومبوي

Dostum tasked to stabilize the North

2010-03-07T00:37:00.000-08:00

“I have brought to you regards and gratitude from the Commander-in-Chief of the army and the President, Mr. Hamid Karzai, for your votes [in the elections] - the votes which you gave to your Dostum,” the bury militia leader, Abdul Rashid Dostum, told dozens of supporters in an emotional talk in Sheberghan city last week.

In his bilingual talk, in Uzbeki and Dari, Dostum leaked Kabul’s increasing agony about widening insecurity in the northern provinces and, indeed, the alienation of local power holders such as Ustad Atta in Balkh.

“Your votes were vital,” Dostum shouted, falling short to say ‘votes were vital for his own survival and impunity from prosecution for his alleged egregious crimes’.

A garish show-of-power, Dostum’s visit was aired at his private TV channel, Aina – mirror.

Dostum said he will tour the North – Kunduz, Baghlan, Jozjan, Faryab, Maimana – at the behest of Mr. Karzai in order to find out why insecurity is slipping out of control.

“A Woloswal [district governor] called me and said he would resign if the situation is not improved. I told him better you coward resign!”

Watching Dostum’s empty slogans I recalled his allegiance to former Moscow-backed Dr. Najibullah whom Dostum had vowed to serve “until the last drop” of his blood. He was instrumental in the collapse of Najibullah’s regime, however.

In 1990s Dostum made and broke several other allegiances.

Dostum is signing his old mantra only to his new patron.

He is now Hamid Karzai’s ‘Iron Fist’ in the North.

Story Behind Washingtonpost’s Kabul Bank Story

2010-03-03T21:01:00.000-08:00

Andrew Higgins revealing piece on Kabul Bank and capitalist cronyism in the highest hierarchies of the Kabul regime is fascinating.

But do you know how a Washington-based columnist found out the strict secretaries of an extremely corrupt and inaccessible regime in Kabul?

Well, here is an enlightened answer: Higgins wrote some of the findings of an enhanced anti-corruption unit in the US Embassy in Kabul. The unit is comprised of investigators from the FBI and State Department. The unit looks into large-scale and unlawful financial transactions from Kabul; monitors the accounts of senior government officials and their family members; and checks other financial flaws.

Higgins’s story is intended to scrutinize and warn Hamid Karzai and his corrupto-criminal allies in an undiplomatic way as Washington has fell short in hammering the Kabul regime for fear of losing leverage on an increasingly intractable Karzai.

“Hey guys! We know what wrongs you’re doing…if you don’t stop we will let everybody know about them and off course we can add to the spice with more revelations!” is Washington’s indirect message to the Kabul regime delivered through the Washingtonpost’s article.

[Photo by: Andrew Higgins - showing Karzai's home in Dubai's luxury port Palm Jumeirah. ]

AIHRC’s ethnic organogram

2010-02-24T03:08:00.000-08:00

I found this rather unusual and hopeless table in the human rights commission’s website which I think is in response to widespread criticisms on Sima Samar’s alleged (president of the commission) Hazara cronyism.

The table is unhelpful though as it confirms that Hazara’s weight is far heavier than all other ethnic groups.

If Pashtun are 45% of the population they should have 290 of the 646 posts; Tajiks (30%) should have 193; and Hazaras (12%) should only have 77 – certainly not 170!

The table is also ambiguous as it does not specify the ethnic balance in terms of senior and junior posts. So, is it fair to count a Tajik door-keeper equal to a Hazara boss?

The table is also dodgy as the Sadaat, Qezelbash and Bayat ethnic groups it mentions could in the meantime be Hazaras.

Lazy journalists in Helmand

2010-02-11T03:34:00.000-08:00

The appalling assassination of the BBC’s reporter Samad Rohani in 2008 would prove me wrong to suggest journalists in Helmand province are idle and unprofessional.

Almost three years of work with a number of Laskargah-based reporters have left me with little hope that we are well informed about events and realities in Afghanistan’s hotbed of conflict, opium and controversies – Helmand.

I am not naively expecting world-class reporting from Helmand – low capacity is our common notorious pretext – but I often see grave misinformation, stereotypes, phony facts and similar patchworks flowing into national and international media outlets from there.

I pay handsomely to quality reports from across Helmand to freelancers but guess what – I hardly find buyable products.

“You emphasize too much on accuracy, balance and sources….you’re too demanding,” complained number reporters I recently asked them why were they not able to earn my dollars.

The Lashkargah media family seems to me more of a lap-dog and some members may be filling pockets with donors/NATO projects money. Some lads put NATO’s risky hat of “cultural adviser” which is unhealthy for their career too.

Use your phone and establish direct lines of communication/contacts and cross check facts/figures/analyses from your reporters in Helmand, I strongly advice.

2010-01-31T20:23:00.000-08:00

Afghan Taliban thrive as Pakistani Taliban die

Pakistani Taliban seem to be leaderless again. Their latest leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, was reportedly killed by a drone attack in the Northern Waziristan in January. Hakim had substituted Baitullah Mehsud who was also killed in US drone bombing in 2009.

Over the past few years dozens of senior Pakistani Taliban leaders have been killed by the pilotless aircrafts which are controlled by the US military.

Most of the targeted Pakistani Taliban were behind appalling attacks inside Pakistan.

Pakistani Taliban leaders are dying one after another while Mullah Omar and his senior cadres are operating freely in Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province. The existence, location and operation of the so called Quetta Shura of Afghan Taliban have been confirmed by almost everyone (even the ICRC has referred to Quetta Shura Taliban, read for instance: "Risky Ally in War on Polio: the Taliban"). In his widely-reported leaked assessment of the Afghanistan situation, the commander of all international forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, clearly mentions the Quetta Shura Taliban as a supreme entity which motivates, equips, directs and drives the bloody insurgency in Afghanistan.

Indeed, Mullah Omar and his al Qaeda patrons have killed more American and other NATO soldiers in Afghanistan (let alone thousands of Afghans) than Mehsuds and Pakistani Taliban that mostly fight the Pakistani military.

A question that vexes me is why are the Taliban being treated differently based on their nationality and area of operation? In other words, why are drone attacks restricted to North and South Waziristan where mostly Pakistani Taliban operate?

I hate bombs and bombings but if drone attacks are so useful in crippling the Pakistani Taliban, why are they not extended to Quetta to “dismantle, disrupt and defeat” the Quetta Shura Taliban?

Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has already and repeatedly been breached by drone attacks and special kill/capture operations by US military in the FATA, therefore bombing Mullah Omar and his senior commanders in Baluchistan would not mean a major shift in the modus operandi.

But, this seems of the radar.

Alas! Am I suggesting bombing the headquarters of the next Prime Minister of Afghanistan in Quetta?

Doesn’t Afghanistan need a restart?

2010-01-30T20:59:00.000-08:00

DONORS have agreed to buy off the Taliban with US$140 million: equivalent to one-day US military expenses in Afghanistan.

Indeed, the West could do so in 2002-2004 when the Taliban were a group of defeated, disappointed, hated and fleeing individuals.

However a resurgent, strengthened and resourceful armed opposition which loudly chants victory could be hardly lured now to lay down arms and submit to a government which is mired in corruption, inefficiency and warlordism.

At the eve of the much publicized London Conference the Taliban leadership said in a statement: “If we were fighting for money, power or protection in foreign countries we had better and stronger offers during our reign.”

Over the past eight years the same donors that have pledged $140 million to buy off the Taliban spent over $300 billion on warfare to kill, capture and defeat the Taliban. If spent on true rebuilding, development and poverty-alleviation half of the amount could have turned Afghanistan to a model country in South Asia where hundreds of foreign soldiers and thousands of Afghans would not have had died.

The US and its NATO-allies have lately reached into a realization that every Talib cannot be eliminated but some have to be assured that they have a place in their country and in their government. However, this belated realization is accompanied by too little understanding of the means to win over the Taliban.

If I were a Talib – gladly I am not - I would not have submitted to Karzai’s government for a couple of dollars or a temporary job for the very Karzai government is the problem not an appropriate means to solution.

The promised $140 million fund and the political rhetoric of “reintegration” would soon dissipate in the quagmire of failures and corruption Mr. Karzai has generously maintained since 2002.

Yes, most of Taliban rank-and-files are unemployed, poor and mostly illiterate rural youths who would love to have a job, an income and a life away from fighting. But money and jobs alone would not entice the peasants to defy a very strong – if not winning – Taliban and embrace a government which has lost in all fronts.

Radical and impractical would many call this but truly saving Afghanistan requires rebooting the whole post-Boon system. By this, I mean removing the failing Karzai and his corrupto-criminals from the power and re-launching a genuinely Afghan Loya Jirga to form a new governing body. Don’t allow warlords, criminals and other thugs to mock democracy by re-manipulating the power with money, terror and mischief. The new government’s No. 1 agenda should be “justice” through which all criminals and warlords must be trailed.

With Karzai and his corrupto-criminals there is no road to peace and settlement and spending more on his plans would be just waste of lives, money and time.

2010-01-16T22:07:00.000-08:00

Is BBC doing war propaganda?

EVEN President Karzai has doubted the findings of a self-contradictory polling by BBC/ABC/ARD televisions on Afghans’ perceptions of governance, development, security and popularity of the warring parties. Although the debatable opinion survey gives the embattled president top marks in leadership and performance yet in an interview with ABC Mr. Karzai said: “I don’t know…we’ve been in power for eight years and that’s a long time. People get tired of seeing the same faces and the same performance…so I hope the 70 percent is true.”

The polling says 67% of the 1,534 respondents said billions of foreign aid dollars have not eased their sufferings but 66% said their living conditions have improved over the past eight years. Over 76% said corruption is a major problem, but 70% approved the performance of their corrupt government. It says optimism on the future direction of the country hiked from 40% in 2009 to 70% in 2010 but it does not mention what on earth prompted 30% to change opinion after some of the bloodiest and most controversial months since the ouster of the Taliban?

Let’s contextualize the polling’s extraordinary assertions beyond basic mathematics.

Over the past one year Washington’s fierce criticisms of corruption and inefficiency in Kabul’s regime yielded no good but raised serious questions in the West whether it was necessary to prop up the regime with blood and treasure.

Amid the electoral crisis in September-November two realities vexed policy-makers in Washington and London: First, Karzai was intractably alienated and there was almost no leverage on him, and second, the anti-Karzai rhetoric was fueling the Taliban’s propaganda. In fact, in September both Washington and the Quetta Shura were united in lashing out at Karzai as ‘corrupt, inept and illegitimate’.

President Obama spent months before presenting a rationale for the deployment of additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan to safeguard the Kabul government. He boasted about the end of “blank cheque” era and promised to return soldiers home in 18 months.

As U.S. and its European allies seek to formalize devolving responsibilities to Afghans through the London Conference on 28 January – in order to facilitate a graceful exit – the conditions in Afghanistan must be depicted ripe for this major policy shift. U.S. and European citizens must be convinced that almost nine years after the Taliban and with billions of dollars and thousands of lives spent Afghans are happy and ready to say goodbye to foreign troops.

To depict a favourite picture and breathe live into a failing Kabul government nothing could do better than a least expected polling from BBC/ABC/ARD channels at a critical juncture. After all, what part of the BBC’s charter allow the broadcaster to do sensitive polling in other countries?

The self-deceptive survey would be used as a tool by participants of the London conference to justify policies which aim to drag the ill-prepared Kabul government into the midst of the exit project.

Our beloved ministers

2010-01-04T02:55:00.000-08:00

(Note: I wrote this piece a day before the Wolesi Jirga voted on the cabinet)

As Hamid Karzai goes out of favour due to rampant corruption and inefficiency some of his key ministers are befriended by Western officials to facilitate a face-saving exit.

Omar Zakhilwal, the nominated minister of finance, is now at days the beloved darling of Western diplomats in Kabul. Because he has been perceived as efficient and uncorrupt by the powerful diplomatic and aid community, Mr. Zakhilwal is enjoying personal political support and his ministry has been receiving generous funding. Some foreigners even propose him to take up the role of a super-coordinator and/or manager of the entire development enterprise in Afghanistan.

Although new into the ministers’ club, Omar seems to be gradually outpacing Hanif Atmar and Rahim Wardak the two US/UK-favourite ministers of the interior and defence.

Apart from his glorified tenure in the rural rehabilitation and development ministry (MRRD) Mr. Atmar failed to sort out the mess in the education ministry (2005-2008), and seems paralyzed in bringing order into his current interior ministry.

Obviously competency is not what drives Rahim Wardak as the defence minister, but he has been blessed by his own and his son’s deep ties with US military and intelligence heavyweights in Kabul and beyond.

Giving the three key ministries of interior, defence and finance to Pashtuns was not expected from a Karzai who has a sensitive style of ethnic inclusiveness and power-sharing. The weakened and isolated Karzai had received clear instructions to satisfy his Tajik and Hazara allies elsewhere in the cabinet.

Dollars, political support and other resources will surely usher Messrs Zakhilwal, Atmar and Wardak through the parliamentary approval and they all will have to handle big projects designed by their Western patrons.

My Afghani wisdom tells me that the personification of international community’s approach is as flawed as the 200-2008 development and democratization of Afghanistan. We need system-and-institution-building development not individual-based policies in which the departure of an individual minister marks the end of donors’ interest and funding to a ministry. Almost nine years after the Taliban we terribly suffer Washington’s Karzai-centric approach to Afghanistan as a result of which a failing president has been failing a nation.

I am amazed by the naivety of those who justify the personified approach as transfer of authority to Afghans or the so called “Afghanisation”. Washington has made no secret of its policy of direct support for “competent and uncorrupt” ministers and governors in a bid to tackle corruption and ineptitude in the Afghan government. As such, the new policy is picking and supporting ministers like Zakhilwal and Atmar.

This policy is wrong. It creates a culture of cronyism where ministers and governors will seek to satisfy their foreign patrons instead of meaningfully serving their Afghan constituencies.

Moreover, picking a handful of ministers and governors to do things the way the US and its allies want is actually Americanising the Afghan development and governance – not Afghanising the process.

How can Zakhilwal, Atmar and Wardak change the lot of Afghanistan when their boss – Karzai - is weak, ostracized and doomed to failure?

It would look very cynical to suggest that Washington and London do not support ministers and governors to change the wrongs of Afghanistan but to engineer their own exit. Are the three beloved ministers commissioned to finance, train and prepare a large Afghan mercenary force to which NATO will eventually outsource the war?

Alas! This seems to be an imperialistic project.

2009-11-25T01:42:00.000-08:00

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؟

2009-11-17T04:53:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-08T20:30:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-02T20:29:00.000-08:00

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!

2009-10-15T01:32:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-09-13T07:50:00.000-07:00

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؟

2009-08-30T03:27:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-18T00:29:00.000-07:00

“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.

2009-08-10T20:56:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-06T04:46:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-06-01T04:33:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-05-24T03:55:00.000-07:00

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…

2009-04-27T03:34:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-31T02:19:00.000-07:00

“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

2009-03-18T05:13:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-02-28T03:44:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-20T22:39:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-24T03:06:00.000-08:00

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]

2008-12-22T04:47:00.000-08:00

پیش شرطهای کاردهی در تلویزیون طلوع
الف: داشتن لهجه ی فارسی ایرانی
ب: سابقه ی اقامت در ایران

کابورا پرودکشن و تلویزیون طلوع به افرادی که به لهجه ی فارسی ایرانی صحبت میکنند و یا سابقه ی اقامت در ایران داشته باشند، جهت دوبله ی برنامه های تلویزونی ضرورت دارد.

علایق و روابط بزرگترین بساط مطبوعاتی، اعلانات و انتشارات در کشور، که از پنجسال بدینسو سمارق وار توسعه یافته و عواید هنگفتی را به حسابات بانکی برادران محسنی (مالکین این بساط) سرازیر ساخته است، با ایران تنها در" لهجه ی فارسی ایرانی" خلاصه نمیگردد.

برادران محسنی که حامل تابعیت آسترالیا بوده و شاهرگ تجارتی شان در دوبی موقعیت دارد، با داشتن بیشتر از 11 کمپنی تبلیغاتی در کابل نه تنها نبظ سیاسی جامعه را با قویترین وسایل فشار کنترول میکنند بلکه خانواده ای کوچک رسانه ی کشور را هم در انحصار خود گرفته اند.

بیشتر آگاهان در کابل بدین باورند که هدف اساسی برادران محسنی اندختن ثروت است، چون آنها عملا در فعالیت های سیاسی سهم نمیگیرند. اما این باور ناقص و گمراه کننده است، چون اهداف دستگاه گسترده ی برادران محسنی فراتر از اندوختن پول میباشد.

موبی میدیا گروپ یا شبکهء تبلیغاتی برادران محسنی، با موفقیت توانسته است از ایجاد بحث و گفتگو در مطبوعات داخلی در مورد شرارتهای ایران در افغانستان جلوگیری نماید. بگونهء مثال، در هفته ی گذشته سرخط اخبار جهانی عدم حضور ایران در اجلاس همسایگان افغانستان در شهر پاریس بود، اما در اخبار ساعت شش طلوع گفته شد که ایران در اجلاس اشتراک ورزید. گرداننده گان طلوع میدانستند که پخش این خبر که ایران در نشست صلح افغانستان عمدا اشتراک نورزید، ذهنیت عامه را در مورد آنکشور مخدوش خواهد ساخت

در حالیکه گفته میشود در چند سال گذشته برادران محسنی کمک های مالی هنگفتی را از ایالات متحده امریکا و سایر کشورهای غربی دریافت نموده اند، کمپنی های تبلیغاتی آنها بیشتر پیام های دولت جمهوری اسلامی ایران را به خورد افغانها داده است. افزایش حس بی اعتمادی مردم در مقابل دولت، ایجاد تنفر عامه در مقابل امریکا و اسرایل، دامن زدن به اختلافات لسانی و ایجاد بحران پوهنتون/دانشگاه، و بلاخره کتمان نمودن غلط کاری ها و مداخلات ایران در امور داخلی افغانستان برنامه ی ستراتیژیک موسسات تبلیغاتی برادران محسنی بوده است. این عملکرد واضحا با اصول مسلکی خبرنگاری (تناسب، موءثقیت، عدم وابسته گی، منصف بودن و غیر) در تناقض میباشد.

برادران محسنی با استفاده از تابیعت آسترالیایی، انگلیسی سلیس، چانه های تراشیده و نکتایی های شان و همچنان با جاه دادن سمبولیک دختران در برنامه ها و پخش آهنگ های مبتذل توانسته اند تا حدی امریکایی ها و سایر غربی ها را کاملا اغفال نمایند. سفارتخانه های غربی مقیم کابل و سازمانهای بین المللی بیشتر اوقات بنام دفاع از آزادی بیان و رسانه های آزاد موبی میدیا گروپ را مورد حمایت قرار میدهند؛ غافل از آنکه این شبکه بیشتر سیاسی و تبلیغاتی عمل مینماید تا رسانه ی و حرفوی.

برادران محسنی همچنان با زیرکی تمام هر حرکت خصمانه ی حکومت و سایر گروه ها را با سوء استفاده از مقوله های "آزادی بیان" و "دموکراسی" موءفقانه دفع نموده است.

گرداننده گان تلویزون طلوع وکلای شورای ملی و سایر اشخاص با نفوذ در جامعه را هم در بند شهرت کاذب نگهداشته است. برای شماری از وکلا، زورمندان و ثروتمندان یکی از راه های شخصیت سازی و جلب توجه ظاهر شدن در پردهء طلوع است که گفته میشود حتا در بدل اینکار به مجریان طلوع پول میپردازند. اینها هرگز نمیخواهند با برادران محسنی و یا تلویزون طلوع طرف شوند.

کمیسیون امور دینی و فرهنگی ولسی جرگه بریاست حاجی محمد محقق که بر سر جزءیترین مسایل – مثلا گفتن دانشگاه/پوهنتون – وزیر اطلاعات و فرهنگ را به استجواب میطلبد، هیچگاهی از گرداننده گان تلویزون طلوع نیپرسیده است که چرا زبان رسانه ها باید "ایرانیزه" گردد؟

برمیگردم به اصل بحث - "لهجه ی فارسی ایرانی" و کاریابی در کابورا پرودکشن و تلویزون طلوع: برای برادران محسنی به همان اندازه ی که اندوختن پول مهم است، "ایرانیزه کردن" زبان مطبوعاتی کشور و پخش تصور خوب ایران هم حایز اهمیت است. چنان بنظر میرسد که این برادران پرنفوذ و ثروتمند آزادی بیان و دموکراسی را به گروگان گرفته و زیر چتر مطبوعات آزاد یک شبکه ی بزرگ اطلاعاتی و سیاسی را در کابل بوجود آورده اند که بیشتر با تهران سازش دارد تا کابل.

حل معضل بوجود آمده از موبی میدیا گروپ، حداقل در وضعیت ناهنجار موجود، بعید بنظر میرسد.

از یکطرف دولت ظرفیت لازم جهت بوجود آوردن و تطبیق راهکارهای را ندارد که بتواند موبی میدیا گروپ را به حسابدهی، شفافیت، مسوولیت پذیری و تعهد به ارزشهای افغانی وادارد. از جانب دیگر، شماری هستند که در دام "پویایی زبان دری/فارسی" چنان گیر افتاده اند که سرسختانه تلاش میورزند با کمک موبی گروپ هویت نو لسانی یی را در لابلای واژه های صادراتی ایران بوجود بیاورند. این گروه کوچک که رهنورد زریاب و پرتو نادری از جمله سخنوران آن محسوب میگردد، به دو چیز باور ندارد: تهمل پذیری و ارزشهای افغانی.

2008-11-27T05:01:00.000-08:00

The New Karzai: Too little too late

As his predecessor Burhanuddin Rabani, the incumbent Hamid Karzai wants to stay in power; no matter how far he has failed his people. And similar to Barrack Obama, Mr. Karzai’s strategy for reelection is concentrated on “change”.

Over the past seven years Karzai has widely been criticized at home and outside for his weak leadership, ineptitude and inability to curb corruption and warlordism in his government.

Mr. Karzai has wasted a very long time and too many good opportunities to rid his country of another failure.

However, the desire to remain president in the coming five years has forced Karzai to embark a garish show of change. He wants to give out the message to Afghans and to foreigners that he has changed, and can be a darling again.

In an effort to appease fast growing domestic dissidence, president Karzai has reshuffled some cabinet posts, voiced disgust over civilian causalities and fired a minister over corruption charges. Karzai has also approved the execution of criminals sentenced to death by his notoriously corrupt judiciary.

To attract the support of Pashtuns – Afghanistan’s largest ethnic group – Hamid Karzai has invited the Taliban to reconciliation and power-sharing. He has even breached limits by offering amnesty and protection to Taliban’s leadership. The U.S. has put a bounty of US$10 million over the head of Mullah Omar whom Mr. Karzai has repeatedly invited for reconciliation.

With the departure of George W. Bush, Karzai finds himself vulnerable and lonely in a post-War-On-Terror world where “change” is top policy in the agenda.

Regardless of Mr. Karzai’s ambition for reelection, his attempts to show off “change” are too late and futile. Things have already gone out of Karzai’s control.

Mr. Karzai can succeed to keep the power, but he will not reverse Afghanistan’s failure under his leadership.

2008-11-03T06:01:00.000-08:00

Outsourcing the America’s difficult war to Afghans

US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, has asserted that the ongoing war in Afghanistan is not “America’s war”, but is “an Afghan war”.

"We would be making a terrible mistake if this ends up being called America's war,” Gates was quoted by the AFP on 1 November.

I think Gates’ assertion marks a watershed in the post-9/11 so called “War on Terror”. It also seems to me that the outgoing Bush Administration has decided to inherit its “War on Terror” to its Afghan ally, Mr. Karzai.

Mr. Gates might have forgotten the fact that the very post-Taliban Afghanistan has been a product of US adventurism, blunders and the cheap state-building.

Not only is the current war in Afghanistan a purely US manufacture, but the country has been a playground for US interventionism since 1978. The Taliban, the Mujahideen, the warlords, the narco-industry, the ineptitude Karzai and many other scourges in today’s Afghanistan are made-in-USA.

In 2002-2003 Afghanistan was widely labeled a “good war” which tempted the Europeans to step in. The easy-and-good war in Afghanistan also prompted George W. Bush to initiate the Iraq catastrophe.

Now as the war has become tough and the Europeans and Canadians have begun doubting the very rationale of their engagement, the Americans want to sell it to the Afghans. The Americans think they won the good war in 2002 and the current bad war, the bloodier one, is of Afghans.

Mr. Gates! The real war has just broke out in Afghanistan with over 10 million food-insecure population, thousands of civilian casualties, numerous warlords, endemic corruption, dozens of ineptitude puppets, skyrocketing organized crimes and millions of destitute and desperate people.

Does America have the guts to win this war?

It would be easy and cheap to scapegoat Afghans in this war, again as in 1980s.

It requires much more than the B52s, the Special Forces, the Guantanamo and the aerial strikes. It requires humanity, sympathy, responsibility, commitment, honesty and many other little things which the Pentagon may consider petty.

Will Mullah Omar submit to US/NATO/Karzai?

2008-10-05T05:06:00.000-07:00

“Everything belongs to Allah and I only submit to Allah…I don’t care if I loose everything but I will not hand over a Muslim [Osama bin Laden] to the Americans because Osama is not the only contentious point between Islam and infidels…” these were the words of Mullah Mohammad Omar, the totalitarian Amir-ul-Mominien of the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate, at the eve of USA’s strikes on his undisputed kingdom which included over 90 percent of Afghanistan’s territory.

According to declassified intelligence and diplomatic documents the US was willing to recognise the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan only if the Taliban had surrendered bin Laden and had publicly renounced anti-US terrorism.

Had Mullah Omar agreed to Washington’s terms Afghan women would have never gone back to school and work and Hamid Karzai would have never taken over Omar as the leader of Afghanistan.

Whatever the US and Mr. Karzai may label Omar and his insane insubordinations the one-eyed veteran has unwavering faith in his way and would never be cajoled by power, money and political spin. He has solid confidence in his ultimate victory.

Omar is definitely smirking from his hideouts (most probably from ISI’s secret guesthouses in Pakistan) at US/NATO/Karzai’s reconciliatory calls and their naivety in inviting him to be a small part in a puppet and dependent government in Kabul.

“I could keep my undisputed kingdom in 2001 so why should I submit to an inefficient stooge in Kabul?” Omar is most probably saying in response to US/NATO/Karzai’s calls for negotiation.

The very motivation which has driven US/NATO/Karzai’s anew overture is a fake idea that seven years of war might have tired Omar and his mesmerised lieutenants.

Surely war tires American soldiers that fight for money and mundane privileges in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, for Omar and his ready-to-die soldiers, war is a religious obligation, a way of life, a traditional pride, a sacred struggle and an opportunity to martyrdom and eternal prosperity.

No matter how big and attractive US/NATO/Karzai orient their reconciliation package Omar has got only one eye and only one answer: “Go to hell!”

2008-09-28T03:13:00.000-07:00

پښتانه او ګلوبلايزيشن

با سواده كه بيسواده؟

د متحده عربي اماراتو د دوبۍ هوايي ډګر په دوهم ترمينال كي يوه ډله پښتانه له ټولو نورو خلكو ډير توپير لري. دوې چي غالبا د خوست، پكتيا او پكتيكا ولايتونو څخه وي په عربي هيوادونو كي په ساختماني، موټرچلونې او ورته نورو درنو كارونو بوخت دي. هغه څه چي دغه مسافر-كارګران له نورو جلا كوي د دوې جامې، د كالو غوټې، نصوار او بيسوادي ده. كه څه هم ګڼ دغه كارګران له كلونو راهيسي د ډوبې په څير په عصري ښارونو كي كار او ژوند كوي خو په پايله كي دوې بيله نقدو پيسو نور هيڅ كور او كلو ته نه وړي.

پداسي حال كي چي موږ تعليم يافته پښتنو خپلې جامې، ژبه، كور كهول او ډير نور ارزښتونه د بدلېدونكۍ نړۍ له دود او فيشن سره د سمون په موخه بدل كړي او د بدلون دغه بهير اوس هم روان دى د سواد او بيسوادۍ په اړه يوه فلسفي پوښتنه رامنځته كيږي: آيا بيسواده پښتانه د باسوادوو په پرتله د ګلوبلايزيشن (نړيوالتوب چي ګڼ يي د امريكايي او غربي كيدو بهير بولي) د كلتوري يرغل په وړاندي ډير ځواكمن او غښتلي ندي؟

زه مخصوصا د ګلوبلايزيشن پر كلتوري اړخ ټينګار كوم او د دغه بهير له ټكنالوژيك او پرمختيايي ځانګړتياوو يي جلا ارزوم ځكه خو هيله كوم چي د موبايل او كمپيوټر كارول له كوباي-پتلون او ټي-شرت د اغوستلو سره بايد ګډ نكړو.

مدرني نړۍ موږ ته دا تعليم ښه راكړي چي بيسوادوو كسانو ته په كښته سترګه وګورو او هغوې تر ځان كم عقله وګڼو، خو زه فكر كوم لږ تر لږه له يوه اړخه بيسواده پښتانه تر ډيرو باسواده پښتنو د پښتو او پښتونولى ښه ساتنه كوي.

زما هدف هيڅكله دا ندې چي بيسوادي تر باسوادې او تعليم غوره ده. زه غواړم د باسواده پښتنو يوې سترې نيمګړتيا او كمزورتيا ته ګوته ونيسم او دا ووايم چي كه ډير نه حداقل د خپلو بي تعليمو وړونو او خويندو په څير بايد موږ هم خپلې خاصې ځانګړتياوې وساتو او وي پالو.

2008-09-11T02:32:00.000-07:00

Brits are too unpopular in Karzai’s Kabul

Long after British colonialism ended in South Asia and despite its substantial development aid to Afghanistan, mutual trust is still absent between Kabul and London.

Mr. Karzai has too many reasons for his increased suspicions on British policies in his country.

He is particularly incensed about the chaos in Helmand Province where thousands of British soldiers and intelligence officers have created a mini satellite state. President Karzai has repeatedly said – both in public and private – that since Brits have gone to Helmand his government has lost control there and he is personally unaware of the decisions made in Helmand.

The October 2006 deal between UK forces and the Taliban over Musa Qala District; the ouster of Helmand’s former governor Shir Mohammad Akhundzada; and Helmand’s booming opium production are some of the issues which have seriously frustrated Mr. Karzai.

In the international arena Britain’s cordial relationship and massive aid to Karzai’s utmost rival Islamabad has further soured relations between Kabul and London. Karzai wants London to use its leverage over Pakistanis to end their covert support for Afghan Taliban.

Britain’s post-colonial approach to the region could be understandable to Pakistanis and Indians, but it has only confused and embarrassed Afghans.

In late 2006, after the Musa Qala’s dilemma, Karzai started purging his administration from Afghans who were educated and/or had returned from the UK. A close aide told me that Mr. Karzai cancelled several senior level appointees only because they were perceived “too close to the UK”.

The bizarre rejection of the British politician Paddy Ashdown as UN envoy to Afghanistan marked President Karzai’s impatience towards the UK.

Mr. Karzai wants more authority over the affairs in Helmand Province and asks for transparency in Britain’s involvement with Pakistan.

London, on the other hand, considers Karzai a weak and impotent leader whose authority does not stretch beyond his palace, leave aside the far-fledged Helmand.

Over the past two years Kabul and London have unwittingly maintained a hate-love scenario only because both want to keep vital partnership with the U.S.

Ironically Washington has spared genuine efforts to reconcile frustrated Karzai with London and has not done enough to revive trust between the two.

Perhaps the understanding in the U.S. is that it would be wise to leave the problem for new administrations in Washington, London and probably Kabul in 2009.

[ENDS]

Peace-building, reconstruction and development with “peanuts”?

2008-09-08T01:47:00.000-07:00

The donation of a single laptop by German military to a hospital in Balkh Province prompted the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force on 7 September to issue a press release which also includes the happy photo of two donating German soldiers and two recipient Afghans.

The press release is titled “Afghans, Germans start first joint scientific project” which apparently makes a reader to think that Afghanistan and Germany are probably undertaking a major joint scientific project. This disillusionment immediately fades away upon a glance into the content of the press release which is solely about donation of one laptop and one digital camera to a hospital.

What kind of a “joint scientific project” could be conducted when only one laptop bridges the partnership between two countries?

The press release reminded me of former Pakistani military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq who rejected an offer of US$325 million by the then U.S. President Jimmy Carter to help Afghan Mujahideen fight against Soviets in 1979. Haq rejected the offer and had called it “peanuts”. A short while later Ronald Reagan increased the offer to $3.6 billion.

Over the past several years many donors have boasted about their generous aid to reconstruction and development in Afghanistan.

Almost 20 donor organisations put their logos and emblems on banners in Kabul to demonstrate they were supporting a ceremony of Youth’s Day!

A while ago Lithuanian prime minister went to Ghor Province – where a Lithuanian Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) is based – to inaugurate three public toilets which were built by the PRT!

To “win hearts and minds” faster I think it’s wise to advise NATO soldiers and donors to take photographs while they pay a few cents or a loaf of bread to beggars at Kabul streets and issue press items such as: “X donor is working to eliminate poverty/ fight hunger”.

2008-08-30T04:27:00.000-07:00

پایان درامه ی بوش، مشرف و کرزی

دیکتاتور پاکستان به تاریخ پیوست، امپراطور-مآب امریکای رفتنیست، سرنوشت کرزی چیست؟

به باور حامد کرزی کاری را که او سه ماه کم هفت سال قبل از امروز آغاز کرد تا هنوز تکمیل نگردیده است و بنابر همین دلیل او کاندید انتخابات آینده هم خواهد بود. اینکار ناتکمیل - به عقیده کرزی – "رسانیدن افغانستان به ترقی، رفاه و عمران است"

ظاهرا جهت دسترسی به همین هدف در چند سال گذشته حکومت آقای کرزی بیش از 20 میلیارد دالر را در امور بازسازی و انکشاف بمصرف رسانیده است (البته بودجه مسایل نظامی که جهت تحکیم حکومت کرزی از جانب ایالات متحده و متحدین اش بمصرف رسیده از مرز 600 میلیارد میگذرد). حکومت کرزی، علاوه بر کمکهای وسیع اقتصادی و نظامی، حمایت بی شایبه ی جهانی را هم با خود داشته است، چیزی که کمتر حکومتی در افغانستان از آن برخوردار بوده است

دست آوردهای کرزی گرانبهاترین خدماتی بوده اند که در درازنای تاریخ افغانستان ارایه گردیده اند. قانون اساسی، دو دور انتخابات، تشکیل اردوی ملی و ترمیم چند شاهراه از جمله بزرگترین موفقیتهای اداره کرزی محسوب میگردند (اگر چه حکومت برگشت 4 میلیون مهاجر افغان، برگشت چند میلیون متعلم به مکاتب و برگشت زنان به حیات اجتماعی را از جمله دست آوردهای خود محسوب مینماید، اما من فکر میکنم اینها روند واکنش مردم به تغییرات اجتماعی بوده اند که بدون کدام برنامه و کارکرد دولت تبارز یافته اند

علاوه بر مصرف بیشتر از 20 میلیارد دالر کمکهای جهانی، در چند سال گذشته هزاران تن، اعم از افغانها و خارجی ها، جهت تحفظ قدرت و حاکمیت آقای کرزی کشته شده اند

ارقام ارایه شده از طرف ملل متحد نشان میدهد که در هشت ماه گذشته بیشتر از 3 هزار نفر در کشور کشته شده اند، که حداقل 1200 تن آنها مردمان ملکی بوده اند. فقدان امنیت و مصونیت فزیکی در سرتاسر کشور بصورت روزافزون محسوس میگردد، به حدی که حتا ریس جمهور با داشتن صدها محافظ و مراقب نمیتواند از چهاردیوار ارگ بیرون برآید

مزید بر نبود امنیت فساد در ادارات دولتی به طاعونی مبدل گردیده است که خون مردم بیچاره را میمکد

از نظر سیاسی حکومت به گلوله ی باروتی میماند که هرآن امکان آن میرود تا از درون منفجر گردد. حکومت کرزی میان معاونین ریاست جمهوری، وزرا و سایر زورمندان به چند دسته ی متضاد تقسیم گردیده است که هر کدام بر خلاف دیگر بخاطر منافع گروهی، جبهه ی و سمتی خود عمل مینمایند

در بیرون از کشور ما درگیر جنگ سرد با پاکستان هستیم و با ایران و سایر همسایه ها هم روابط ما روزتاروز سردتر میشوند

بریتانیا که زمانی یکی از قویترین حامیان حکومت کرزی به حساب میرفت بعد از ناشی گری آقای کرزی در مورد انتصاب سیاستمدار انگلیس به سمت نماینده ی سرمنشی ملل متحد برای افغانستان در جبهه ی منتقدین حامد کرزی قرار گرفته است، و هرازگاهی به حمایت پاکستان علیه منافع افغانستان اتخاذ موقف مینماید

اما بدترین روزهای آقای کرزی شاید چند ماه بعد آغاز گردند

حیاتی ترین حامی و مدافع حامد کرزی ریس جمهور ایالات متحده امریکا، جورج دبلیو بوش، در حدود سه ماه بعد از قدرت کنار خواهد رفت و میان بارک اوباما و جان مکین – که هردو منتقد رهبری حامد کرزی میباشند – یکی زمام قدرت را بدست خواهد گرفت

بدون شک سیاست های جورج بوش در مبارزه علیه تروریزم بحث برانگیزترین مسایل در داخل امریکا بشمار میروند و توقع میرود هر حزبی که به کاخ سفید راه یابد روش های آقای بوش را بصورت همه جانبه مورد بازنگری قرار دهند

هفت سال جنگ بدون موفقیت علیه تروریزم ایالات متحده و متحدین اروپایی اشرا خسته، نگران و در حالت شکننده ی قرار داده است. امریکای ها فکر میکنند اسباب و متحدین محلی را که جهت سرکوب القاعده و طالبان بکار گرفته اند از کار افتاده، بی کفایت و نادرست بوده اند که باید عوض گردند.

پرویز مشرف، دیکتاتور نظامی پاکستان، اولین قربانی تغییرات در حال راه در واشنگتن بود که بدون سروصدا از قدرت کنار زده شد

با کنار رفتن جورج بوش ریس جمهور افغانستان، حامد کرزی، تنها و بدون حامی خواهد ماند

بعد از سقوط حکومت داکتر نجیب الله در سال 1992 برهان الدین ربانی جهت نگهداشت قدرت افغانستان را به قهقراء آنارشیزم و خانه جنگی فرو برد و بلاخره در دسامبر 2001 در یک استهزای سیاسی زمام را به حامد کرزی سپرد

سرگذشت آقای ربانی میتواند پند خوبی برای آقای کرزی باشد، بویژه اینکه شباهت های میان این دو مجاهد روزتا روز آشکارتر میگردد

ادامه ی افتضاح موجود که آقای کرزی آنرا بنام "وظیفهء ناتکمیل" خود مینامد نه به صلاح مردم بیچاره افغانستان است و نه به نفع آقای کرزی

آقای کرزی نمیتواند با لفاظی ها و چانه زنی ها شکست و ناکامی خود را توجیه نماید

قبول شکست و ناکامی تلخ است، اما اعتراف به آن باعث آرامش وجدان میگردد

{تمام}

On Karzai’s naïve foreign policy vision

2008-08-25T08:15:00.000-07:00

In an exclusive and long-ranging interview with the TIME President Hamid Karzai has presented his utopian philosophy on Afghanistan’s relations with the outside world, and with Pakistan in particular.

Mr. Karzai shared with TIME Magazine his wishful thinking of Afghanistan and Pakistan interacting with each other as “Germany and France” both of whom, in Karzai’s view, maintain “the best strategic depth” between them.

But in Karzai’s words the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) has been using Islamic extremism, Madrasas and disenfranchised and uneducated Pashtoon youths as “ammunitions in a political game” and as foreign policy instrument.

To end this vicious trend – which has been ongoing for about three decades – Mr. Karzai suggests “a proper [re]analysis of the Pakistani national interest”.

To sum up Karzai’s largely vague analyses the Pakistani intelligence and military establishments should overhaul their Afghan policy in light of European-like interdependence.

Such oblivious is Mr. Karzai that he ignores the basics of international relations and foreign policy which strictly forbid “wishful thinking and utopianism” and require states to think, decide and act realistically.

Sad to say Mr. Karzai is a naïve idealist in a hyper-realist region where realipolitik has been the guiding principle of neighborhood and regional interaction.

The very node of the problem which has engulfed our region in a worsening violence and anarchy, and which Mr. Karzai may consider petty, is the militarization of the region promoted and prompted by Mr. Karzai’s No. 1 backer: the USA.

Over the past several decades the US has pumped billions of dollars to build up Pakistani military and intelligence establishments and arm the country with the most deadly weaponry.

Even in the post-9/11 arrangements the USA has spent far more money on Pakistani military and intelligence institutions than on rebuilding and developing a war-torn Afghanistan, according to Ahmed Rashid’s Decent into Chaos.

The USA has also inked nuclear deal with Pakistan’s top rival India. To incite Pakistani military rulers the USA has provided F16 jets and other sophisticated weaponry to India.

In brief the USA has deliberately promoted the militarization of Pakistan-India relation and has propelled an atmosphere of fear, military build up and suspicion among regional payers.

On our west the Islamic Republic of Iran is building up its nuclear arsenal in a desperate effort to contain the USA and Israel.

Dear Mr. Karzai: at your threshold, in the region and beyond realist states are building up their military capacity, seeking nuclear weapons and are preparing for war, and not peace, very sadly. And given theses realistic – though bleak – circumstances what motivates you to dream about Afghanistan and Pakistan interacting with each other as Germany and France?

[ENDS]

What and who can stop Taliban’s re-entry to Kabul?

2008-08-14T03:34:00.000-07:00

A glance into the BBC’s Alastair Leithead’s reportage of Wardak Province and the New York Times’ Carlotta Gall’s feature from Salar District reminded me of 27 September 1996 when Taliban fighters entered into Kabul city, lynched a former president and embarked a long era of violent demagogy.

Since 2002 Afghans and internationals alike have called the Taliban’s comeback to power all but possible.

We have put an enormous and unwavering confidence in the US and NATO military might that any Taliban’s desire to rule again on Kabul will be repelled promptly.

Until the invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was also a widespread condemnation of the Taliban’s draconian rules and alleged nexus with international terrorists.

Until late 2004 even foreigners like Mr. Leithead and Ms. Gall could easily travel all around Afghanistan to report how easily and quickly the powerful British and American armies had defeated their enemies.

However much has changed both for foreigners and Afghans in the war-racked country.

The insurgents are knocking at Kabul’s doors and the whole country has been plunged into virtual anarchism, and everyday scores of people, a majority of them civilians, are dying.

Experts such as Ahmed Rashid are blaming ineptitude Hamid Karzai in Kabul, hypocrite General Musharrad in Islamabad and short-minded neo-cons in Washington for the current Taliban crisis.

Indeed it is easy to blame anyone for anything he/she might have had done in regards to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Even Mr. Rashid can be blamed for keeping his valuable analysis so late only to make another bestseller Decent into Chaos. But what benefits will a blame game offer?

The rulers of Kabul (here I imply the international and national military, diplomatic and aid community based in Kabul) have clearly got the BBC’s and the New York Times’ warnings seriously as they have already turned the capital into a heavily fortified trench with major roads and footpaths barricaded by gigantic blast-resistant walls and rude gauds. Even a busy man like Barrack Obama knows that President Karzai and his international backers are trapped in bunkers in Kabul.

Mr. Leithead and Ms. Gall are fine reporters and have produced excellent journalistic pieces out of their brief visits outside Kabul.

Let me add to both reports an Afghan perspective: the Taliban are not going to run over Kabul in the near future.

Instead the insurgents want to create and expand an atmosphere of terror and fright in order to show off their might.

The Taliban were in control of Kabul in September 2001 when Mr. Karzai was staying in Quetta, Pakistan – ironically a place where Mullah Omar has reportedly resided since 2002 – but left the capital in October because they could not stand up and resist against only a few dozens of US forces. They are not willing and in fact cannot fight thousands of US forces that are currently based inside and outside the Afghan capital.

In late 2001 there was a firm determination in the West that the Taliban should be smashed and ousted from power. The desire was accomplished quickly. In 2008 however there is little interest among NATO member nations to protect an increasingly unpopular US stooge in Kabul.

The Taliban will peep into Kabul regularly only to remind Afghans that sooner or later they will return, and until then there is a message for them: Don’t support Karzai and internationals!

[ENDS]

2008-08-13T23:05:00.000-07:00

د ملا څلورم واده

ملاعبدالحي پر ږيره لاس تير کړ او بيايې ګوتي تر زني لاندي کړې او اوږده په تک تور رنګ لړلې ږيره يي په څلورو برخو وويشل - د طالبانو په اصطلاح ږيره يي خلال کړه او سنت يي پر ځاې کړ.

“ دا لوي ملاصاب هم عجبه زوره ور فرمان ورکړي، کابل کې به ودونه نه کوۍ

ياره سخته مې يوه نوي واده ته زړه کيږي”

بيايې څنګ ته پيتاوي ته ناست ملاعبدالقيوم ته وکتل او وې ويل

“انډيواله سنت به پوره کوو! دا خو د نبي عليه صلاة و عليه سلام طريقت دې”

ملاعبدالقيوم چې د نصوارو د دبلي په هينداره کي ځانته کتل او کله نا کله به يي کوم اوږد بريت د کوچنې قيچي په مرسته پرې کوه، وويل

“ملاصاب تاخو دا څو مياشتي دمخه واده وکي! ”

بيا موسکې شو او زياته يې کړه

“ته څلورمه نکاح پوره کوې، موږ ته ګوره چې د اولي له ولوره نه خلاصيږو او ....”
ملاعبدالحي خبرې ته وروليد

“پرتا د خداې نده پيرزو، موږ خو مخلصه يوو – شاکره يوو ځوانه! تا خامخا ناشوکري کړې”

ملاقيوم قيچي چرمي پوښ ته واچوله او د نصوارو دبلې يي په ګوته وټکوه او د دبلې د سر د تاوولو پر مهال يي وپوښتل

“آښه ملاصاب کور والاوي چيري دي؟ ”

ملاعبدالحي په بې خونده لهجي ځواب ورکړ

“درې سره مي کلي کې کښېنولي، دا پنځمه مياشت ده چي کور ته نه يم ورغلي. ”

ملاعبدالحی ولاړ شو او پټو يې اوږې ته کړ

“ ولاړ شم اودس تازه کم، خداې ياد کوو ”

IS AFGHANISTAN AN OPEN-TO-ALL INTERNATIONAL MILITARY MISSION?

2008-08-10T06:18:00.000-07:00

Who has actually invited Colombia, Slovenia and Georgia to send troops to Afghanistan?

KABUL, 10 August 2008 - The Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in Beijing to watch the openings of the Olympic Games on 7 August when Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, announced his interest to send troops to Afghanistan to fight against Taliban insurgents and eradicate poppy fields. Mr. Karzai and his usual travel jamboree had only spent two days in Kabul to recuperate after visits to India and Sri Lanka before heading to China.

In addition to 26 NATO-member nations that have stationed thousands of soldiers and military personnel in Afghanistan some 14 non-NATO-member countries have also been engaged in military activities in the war-ravaged Afghanistan ostensibly to back the USA’s War on Terror.

Georgia – which proved to be unable to defend its own territory – and Slovenia – a country of 2 million people – have also said they will join the open-to-all international military mission in Afghanistan in 2008.

India has reportedly rejected Washington’s perpetual requests to send troops to Afghanistan.

Don’t mix the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and the NATO-led ISAF (this one is also led by the USA) with too many Gurkhas, South Africans and the citizens of other countries who have been working as “private mercenaries” for dozens of private security firms all over Afghanistan.

The NATO-ISAF, the US-led OEF and the private mercenaries that have established strong military presence in Afghanistan over the past seven years have distrinct mandates and thus responsible for different operations. However it is unclear exactly how many armed non-Afghans are operating in Afghanistan.

Mr. Karzai inked a “strategic partnership” with US President George W. Bush in 2005 which gives the US unlimited latitude for military, strategic and political involvement in Afghanistan. The NATO-ISAF mission is sanctioned by the UN Security Council. The private mercenaries are apparently operating according to the “free market” rationale and are ostensibly complying with “Afghan rules”.

Unsurprisingly President Karzai was (and probably is still) unaware of Colombia, Slovenia and Georgia’s readiness to send troops to his country.

Ironically when I asked a member of parliament in Kabul about Colombia’s willingness to send troops to Afghanistan he mistook the South American country with Sri Lankan capital Colombo and said: “We don’t need Sri Lankan soldiers”!!

While the Afghan President, the Afghan National Assembly and the Afghan people are unaware of countries like Colombia, Slovenia and Georgia that want to send troops to Afghanistan, for whatever legitimate purpose they may present, I wonder who actually authorizes their presence, under what mandate and by whom??? Should a national of any of the aforementioned countries commit a crime in Afghan territory and against an Afghan citizens what rules will apply and who will ensure the rule of law??

I am not presenting a classic definition of state sovereignty in case of Afghanistan. I just want to know whether post-9/11 international interventionalism has any legal, ethical or political boundaries which can apply to Afghanistan.

Is Afghanistan an open-to-all international military mission where all countries are most welcome and free to fight against “terrorists” and Taliban insurgents?

[ENDS]

2008-08-02T20:35:00.000-07:00

آیا ارگ در باطلاق قومگرایی فرو میرود؟

مکثی بر کوته بینی قومی معاون دوم ریاست جمهوری

نوت: این نوشته ابتدا به روزنامه هشت صبح فرستاده شد تا همانند سایر مقالات نویسنده بچاپ برسد. اما هیت مسوول این روزنامه بدلیل آنکه "اختلافات فی مابین حاجی محمد محقق و کریم خلیلی بیشتر نگردد" از نشر آن ابا ورزید. روزنامه هشت صبح از طرف کمیسیون مستقل حقوق بشر تمویل میگردد.

24 July 2008

بیش و کم چهار سال قبل از امروز کریم خلیلی دوشادوش حامد کرزی و احمدضیا مسعود در پیشگاه مردم بر قرآن دست گذاشته سوگند یاد نمود که منافغ "ملی" را مقدمتر از هر نفع دیگر دانسته و تعهد نمود که به "افغانستان" خدمت خواهد کرد.

اما هفته ی گذشته آقای خلیلی نقاب "ملی" بودن را از چهره بر کشید و ظاهرا بخاطر منافع اجتماع بهسود اصل منافع "ملی" را زیر پا کرد.

بدون شک شماری از "کارشناسان سیاسی" وارد شده از بیرون کشور در کل وجود منافعی بنام "ملی" در افغانستان را با حساسیت رد مینمایند، چون به باور اینها (باوری که بیشتر دیکته شده است تا عقلانی) اصلا "ملتی" در افغانستان وجود ندارد تا صحبت از منافع آن نمود. جا ندارد در این نوشته درگیر این بحث شد و به تعاریف و مقوله های این و آن دست زد. به این اکتفا میکنیم که وقتی آقای خلیلی دست بالای قرآن به اعتلای منافع ملی سوگند یاد مینمود غالبا تعریفی از"منافع ملی" داشت و شاید بپای یک سلسله موهومات و ابهامات تعهد نمیکرد.

این سوگند خورده ی منافع ملی در چندین جلسات شورای وزیران به آن دلیل اشتراک نورزید که گویا شماری از مردم در یکی از ولسوالی های یکی از جمله 34 ولایت افغانستان با مشکلاتی برخورده بودند. به عقیده آقای خلیلی لازم نبود تا در شورای وزیران پیرامون مشکلات و رنج های مردم در بیشتر از 350 ولسوالی دیگر در سرتاسر کشور بحث کند و در اتخاذ تصامیم مشارکت نماید.

اینکه معاون دوم ریاست جمهوری در خفا چگونه و از چی راه های احساسات قومگرایی خود را فرونشانیده است برای همه گان آشکار نیست. اما آنچه واضحست انتقادات و سخن پردازی های علنی آقای خلیلی است که سیلی محکمی زد بر رخسار اعتماد میلیونها افغانی که همانند او قومیت را مقدمتر از هر ارزش دیگر نمیدانند.

کریم خلیلی در یک نشست مطبوعاتی اردو و پولیس ملی کشور را در حل معضل بهسود بباد انتقاد گرفته این دو نهاد ملی را متهم به اهمال، بی کفایتی و تبعیض نمود.

آقای خلیلی خوب آگاه است که صدها و شاید هزارها جوان هزاره در صفوف اردو و پولیس در حال نیرومند شدن افغانستان دوشاش و همانند جوانان سایر اقوام کشور مصدر خدمت به مردم کشور میباشند. خلیلی از این حقیقت هم مبرهن است که این دو نهاد امنیتی کشور با مصرف میلیون ها دالر کمک امریکا و جانفشانی هزاران اولاد این کشور در حال جلب اعتماد مردم به امنیت، دفاع و مصونیت "ملی" میباشند.

آیا برای آقای خلیلی مهم نیست که محض برای سلطه طلبی یک اجتماع بر دو نهاد مهم کشورش غیرمسولانه انتقاد کند؟ آیا برای معاون دوم ریاست جمهوری آزار دهنده نیست که به اردو و پولیسی توهین میکند که به شخص او به چشم یک رهبر ملی و فرا-قومی مینگرند؟ پرسش را بگونه ی دیگری مطح میسازم: آیا معاونت دوم ریاست جمهوری – و بدلیل آنکه آقای خلیلی هزاره است – منصبی برای حفظ و توسعه ی منافع قوم هزاره است؟ اگر جواب مثبت باشد پس ریس جمهور کرزی هم باید منافع مردم کندهار را مقدمتر از منافع تمام کشور قرار داده و برای توسعه آن علنا اقدام ورزد. و این سلسله بلااستثنا در تمام دولت عملی گردد قسمیکه وزیر تاجیک به تاجیکان کار کند و پشتون به پشتونها.

آقای خلیلی از جایگاه معاون دوم ریاست جمهوری پیرو منطق و روش حاجی محمد محقق بوده است، شخصی که حیات و موقف سیاسی اش طفیل روش های قومگرایی افراطی بوده است و گذشته بحث برانگیزی داشته است.
انتقاد از آقای محقق - با توجه به ویژه گی شخصیت، افکار و گذشته اش - موجه نباشد و نه هم از او میتوان توقع کرد که کوته بینی قومی اشرا کنار بگذارد. اما آقای خلیلی قانونا ملزم به "ملی گرایی" است و نه تنها اینکه باید بر سوگند اش وفادار بماند بلکه از عملکردهایش نزد قاطبه ی مردم افغانستان مسوول است.

آقای خلیلی مسوول تطبیق قانون اساسی افغانستان است که صریحا قومگرایی و هرگونه تبعیض را نفی میکند. تخلف و سرپیچی عمدی از این مکلفیت مویدات قانونی با خود دارد که موقف رسمی ایشان به آن بستگی دارد. اگر آقای خلیلی میخواهد تنها برای توسعه حقوق و منافع اجتماع بهسود عمل نماید، ابتدا باید از سمت معاونت ریاست جمهوری کنار رود و بعد از جایگاه فردی وارد عمل گردد

[تمام]

Me and My Country

2008-08-02T11:42:00.000-07:00

Bismillah ......