Anita Inder Singh
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140930/edit.htm#5
AFTER six uncertain months, which saw two constitutionally mandated rounds of voting, much wrangling over fraud which necessitated an audit by the UN of ballot-papers, and mediation by the US, Afghanistan finally has a new government of national unity. Ashraf Ghani, a former Finance Minister, will be Afghanistan’s new President, and Abdullah Abdullah, a former Foreign Minister, will hold a newly created post of CEO — or nominate someone to implement the decisions taken by the President. This power-sharing outcome of the electoral process that started with last April's voting does not look entirely democratic, but the two men must now put aside their differences and meet the expectations of their compatriots.
For Afghanistan’s third presidential election since 2004 demonstrated that war and poverty are not barriers to the wish of people to determine their destiny. And the world should congratulate the Afghan voters who defied Taliban violence and took part in the two rounds of polling on April 5 and June 14. The high poll turnout — nearly 60 per cent in each round — in itself marks the continuation of a decade-old troubled, strife-riven yet impressive transition to democracy, made against great odds.
Hamid Karzai, the mercurial twice-elected President, also deserves credit for steering his country to a peaceful transfer of power. He completed two terms in office, making war-torn Afghanistan a pleasing contrast to neighbouring Pakistan — where only one president — Asif Ali Zadora — completed his constitutional tenure — since independence in 1947. And the leaders of China, Afghanistan's other, more prosperous neighbour, will have no truck with democracy and the elected rulers.
The good news is that both Ghani and Abdullah, who won the first round, are political moderates who seek to bridge ethnic divides, keep Afghanistan on democratic rails and sign a security deal with the US, whose diplomatic intervention facilitated a way out of the electoral impasse.
Security, always essential for a successful election, was provided by the fledgling Afghan National Army. Together the high security and turnout signal “progress”. In the 2009 election only 30 per cent of voters braved the insecurity, for which NATO was then accountable, and cast their ballots. Significantly, heavy polling in the Kandahar area marked the success of the US surge in routing the Taliban from their so-called spiritual home.
Security will remain the top priority. Voting is the test of political legitimacy and the elections made clear that Taliban extremists do not have this legitimacy. But there is no sign that the Taliban will renounce violence and abide by the Afghan constitution. Whether Pakistan will stop training and exporting them is also an open question, given that it is unable to quash its domestic extremists. And while Afghanistan’s security forces were able to ensure the safety of most voters, they doubtless need further strengthening to save their country from destabilisation by the Taliban.
Some 10,000 American troops will remain to help enhance Afghanistan's security. A security deal with Afghanistan would give the US a strategic gateway to the Middle East, South and Central Asia, which should be good news for the US as China and Russia are showing off their territorially expansionist tendencies in Asia and Europe.
The US should treat the new Afghan government with respect. Karzai’s refusal to sign a deal with the US turned him into the Afghan leader some in Washington loved to hate - but the fault was not entirely his. Washington should not repeat the mistake it made with Kara by negotiating over an elected government’s head with the Taliban, or of relying on Pakistan to broker a deal with the Taliban. Like Karzai, Ghani and Abdullah will not play the supplicant to Pakistan. The US must realise that no ruler can accept the ignoring of his country's sovereignty.
Washington could also avoid giving public lectures to the new Afghanistan government. Corrupt Afghan warlords, corrupt Pakistan — and in Europe, corrupt Ukraine — have all got massive amounts of Western aid over the last decade — without being berated publicly, as Karzai was.
India has rightly welcomed the strong showing made by Afghan voters as a ‘resounding rejection of the designs and ideology of terrorists and their supporters’. New Delhi has bestowed more than $2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, and Sushma Swaraj, the new Foreign Minister, recently visited Afghanistan to assure Karzai of India's continuing support for the development and security of his country. India's soft power - in the form of Bollywood movies and music, health, infrastructure projects and the building of new parliament in Kabul — has earned it popularity in Afghanistan.
India could expand military cooperation with Afghanistan under the Strategic Partnership Agreement of 2011. India has an agreement with Russia to supply arms to Afghanistan, for which New Delhi will pay in rupees for the Russian military equipment . New Delhi could also try to persuade Beijing to use its financial and military clout over Islamabad to stop Pakistan fomenting extremism and destabilising Afghanistan. China's domestic security is linked with Afghan security. China is the largest foreign investor in Afghanistan, and has, time and again, blamed Pakistan for training extremist-separatists in its western Zinjiang region. Instability in Afghanistan would certainly spill over into China. New Delhi and Beijing share an interest in containing extremism in South Asia.
Pakistan’s objections about “Indian influence” should be ignored, since violence before, during and since the elections has highlighted Islamabad's unwillingness or inability to restrain the Taliban. Islamabad's demands for power-sharing with the Taliban — who tried to block the elections — have no legal basis.
The elections showed that Afghans rejected religious extremism and ethnic violence. But their war-torn country has few domestic sources of funding to put its economy on the rails.
Afghanistan will need international largesse. For a start, donors should honour the pledge made in Tokyo in 2013 to give $16 billion till 2015. Military support should continue long beyond 2016 if the country is not to become another strife-torn Iraq.
Afghans voted for democratic security and development: India should lead the international community in helping them build it.
The writer is a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, New Delhi
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140930/edit.htm#5
AFTER six uncertain months, which saw two constitutionally mandated rounds of voting, much wrangling over fraud which necessitated an audit by the UN of ballot-papers, and mediation by the US, Afghanistan finally has a new government of national unity. Ashraf Ghani, a former Finance Minister, will be Afghanistan’s new President, and Abdullah Abdullah, a former Foreign Minister, will hold a newly created post of CEO — or nominate someone to implement the decisions taken by the President. This power-sharing outcome of the electoral process that started with last April's voting does not look entirely democratic, but the two men must now put aside their differences and meet the expectations of their compatriots.For Afghanistan’s third presidential election since 2004 demonstrated that war and poverty are not barriers to the wish of people to determine their destiny. And the world should congratulate the Afghan voters who defied Taliban violence and took part in the two rounds of polling on April 5 and June 14. The high poll turnout — nearly 60 per cent in each round — in itself marks the continuation of a decade-old troubled, strife-riven yet impressive transition to democracy, made against great odds.
Hamid Karzai, the mercurial twice-elected President, also deserves credit for steering his country to a peaceful transfer of power. He completed two terms in office, making war-torn Afghanistan a pleasing contrast to neighbouring Pakistan — where only one president — Asif Ali Zadora — completed his constitutional tenure — since independence in 1947. And the leaders of China, Afghanistan's other, more prosperous neighbour, will have no truck with democracy and the elected rulers.
The good news is that both Ghani and Abdullah, who won the first round, are political moderates who seek to bridge ethnic divides, keep Afghanistan on democratic rails and sign a security deal with the US, whose diplomatic intervention facilitated a way out of the electoral impasse.
Security, always essential for a successful election, was provided by the fledgling Afghan National Army. Together the high security and turnout signal “progress”. In the 2009 election only 30 per cent of voters braved the insecurity, for which NATO was then accountable, and cast their ballots. Significantly, heavy polling in the Kandahar area marked the success of the US surge in routing the Taliban from their so-called spiritual home.
Security will remain the top priority. Voting is the test of political legitimacy and the elections made clear that Taliban extremists do not have this legitimacy. But there is no sign that the Taliban will renounce violence and abide by the Afghan constitution. Whether Pakistan will stop training and exporting them is also an open question, given that it is unable to quash its domestic extremists. And while Afghanistan’s security forces were able to ensure the safety of most voters, they doubtless need further strengthening to save their country from destabilisation by the Taliban.
Some 10,000 American troops will remain to help enhance Afghanistan's security. A security deal with Afghanistan would give the US a strategic gateway to the Middle East, South and Central Asia, which should be good news for the US as China and Russia are showing off their territorially expansionist tendencies in Asia and Europe.
The US should treat the new Afghan government with respect. Karzai’s refusal to sign a deal with the US turned him into the Afghan leader some in Washington loved to hate - but the fault was not entirely his. Washington should not repeat the mistake it made with Kara by negotiating over an elected government’s head with the Taliban, or of relying on Pakistan to broker a deal with the Taliban. Like Karzai, Ghani and Abdullah will not play the supplicant to Pakistan. The US must realise that no ruler can accept the ignoring of his country's sovereignty.
Washington could also avoid giving public lectures to the new Afghanistan government. Corrupt Afghan warlords, corrupt Pakistan — and in Europe, corrupt Ukraine — have all got massive amounts of Western aid over the last decade — without being berated publicly, as Karzai was.
India has rightly welcomed the strong showing made by Afghan voters as a ‘resounding rejection of the designs and ideology of terrorists and their supporters’. New Delhi has bestowed more than $2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, and Sushma Swaraj, the new Foreign Minister, recently visited Afghanistan to assure Karzai of India's continuing support for the development and security of his country. India's soft power - in the form of Bollywood movies and music, health, infrastructure projects and the building of new parliament in Kabul — has earned it popularity in Afghanistan.
India could expand military cooperation with Afghanistan under the Strategic Partnership Agreement of 2011. India has an agreement with Russia to supply arms to Afghanistan, for which New Delhi will pay in rupees for the Russian military equipment . New Delhi could also try to persuade Beijing to use its financial and military clout over Islamabad to stop Pakistan fomenting extremism and destabilising Afghanistan. China's domestic security is linked with Afghan security. China is the largest foreign investor in Afghanistan, and has, time and again, blamed Pakistan for training extremist-separatists in its western Zinjiang region. Instability in Afghanistan would certainly spill over into China. New Delhi and Beijing share an interest in containing extremism in South Asia.
Pakistan’s objections about “Indian influence” should be ignored, since violence before, during and since the elections has highlighted Islamabad's unwillingness or inability to restrain the Taliban. Islamabad's demands for power-sharing with the Taliban — who tried to block the elections — have no legal basis.
The elections showed that Afghans rejected religious extremism and ethnic violence. But their war-torn country has few domestic sources of funding to put its economy on the rails.
Afghanistan will need international largesse. For a start, donors should honour the pledge made in Tokyo in 2013 to give $16 billion till 2015. Military support should continue long beyond 2016 if the country is not to become another strife-torn Iraq.
Afghans voted for democratic security and development: India should lead the international community in helping them build it.
The writer is a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, New Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment