Afghanistan, (which literally means Land of the Afghan) is a mountainous land-locked country located in Central Asia. It has a history and culture that goes back over 5000 years. Throughout its long, splendid, and sometimes chaotic history, this area of the world has been known by various names. In ancient times, its inhabitants called the land Aryana. In the medieval era, it was called Khorasan, and in modern times, its people have decided to call it Afghanistan. The exact population of Afghanistan is unknown, however, it is estimated to be somewhere around 31 million. Afghanistan is a heterogeneous nation, in which there are four major ethnic groups: Pashtoons, Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks. Numerous other minor ethnic groups (Nuristanis, Baluchis, Turkmens, etc.) also call Afghanistan their home. While the majority of Afghans (99%) belong to the Islamic faith, there are also small pockets of Sikhs, Hindus and even some Jews. The official languages of the country are Pashto and Dari (Afghan Persian aka Farsi). The capital of Afghanistan is Kabul, which throughout history, was admired by many great figures, such as the great Central Asian conqueror, Zahirudeen Babur. Unfortunately, due to many years of war, this great city has been shattered and nearly destroyed.
Today, Afghanistan is on a road to recovery, however, after decades of war, the economy is still in ruins, and its environment is in a state of crises. After pushing the date back twice, Afghanistan’s presidential elections were finally held on October 9, 2004. Over 8 million Afghans voted in the elections. The Joint Electoral Management Body of Afghanistan certified the elections on November 3rd, and declared Hamid Karzai, the interim President, the winner with 55.4% of the votes. Karzai’s strongest challenger, Yunis Qanooni, came in second with 16.3% of the votes.
With help from the United States and the United Nations, Afghanistan adopted its new constitution, establishing the country as an Islamic Republic, in early January 2004. According to the constitution, the Afghan government consists of a powerful and popularly elected President, two Vice Presidents, and a National Assembly consisting of two Houses: the House of People (Wolesi Jirga), and the House of Elders (Meshrano Jirga). There is also an independent Judiciary branch consisting of the Supreme Court (Stera Mahkama), High Courts and Appeal Courts. The President appoints the members of the Supreme Court with the approval of the Wolesi Jirga. Assembly elections are planned for late 2005.

Location

Afghanistan in southwestern Asia, bounded on the north by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan; on the east by China and the part of the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir controlled by Pakistan; on the south by Pakistan; and on the west by Iran. Afghanistan was a monarchy from 1747 to 1973, when the king was overthrown by military officers and the country was proclaimed a republic; the republic dissolved in 1992 as the country erupted in civil war. Afghanistan lies across ancient trade and invasion routes from central Asia into India. This position has been the greatest influence on its history because the invaders often settled there. Today the population includes many different ethnic groups. Most of the present borders of the country were drawn up in the 19th century, when Afghanistan became a buffer state, or neutral zone, between Russia and British India. Kabul is the capital of Afghanistan.

April 19, 2010

There’s been a lot of news and talk recently about Afghan citizens being arrested for drug trafficking, and then being executed by the Iranian authorities. Some Afghans have legitimate concerns that the Afghans in Iran may have been mistreated and executed without a fair trial. However, the majority of the people, many of them being anti-Shia (and thus anti-Iranian), pro-Taliban Afghans, and Americans are using this opportunity to demonize Iran, and in the process hurt Afghan-Iranian relations.

The stories being published and talked about are indeed troubling. For example, an Afghan man who is a father and a husband attempts to smuggle drugs into Iran; he is caught, arrested, jailed and then executed by the Iranian authorities. The body is then returned to his family. It’s sad to see that Afghans are involved in these types of activities in the first place. Being poor can cause some people to take risks, and in the end, the risk they take only hurts their families in a much worse way.

Even though the stories are sad, let’s not forget the fact that these people are choosing to engage in an illegal activity. Just like alcohol, drug trafficking, and drug abuse is against Islam. Anyone involved in these types of activities deserve to be punished, because they are participating in the destruction of other people’s lives. People involved in these activities are criminals and deserve death, because their actions, directly or indirectly, ruin lives, lead to the deaths of innocent people, and destroy families. Being poor should not be an excuse to participate in smuggling drugs or other activities. It is much more honorable to die hungry, then to participate in an act that is against Islam, and in the end, destroys the lives of other people.

Moreover, the Iranian government has publicly made it aware to people that if you engage in drug trafficking, you may end up dead. The Iranians have the right to decide the type of punishment that will occur for illegal activities committed on their soil. In fact, the penalty for drug smuggling has been the same in Iran since the time of the Shah.  The death penalty is not just for Afghans, but for anyone, including Iranians that engage in these types of activities.

Illegal drugs are smuggled into Iran; some are sold there, and then eventually make their way to Europe and the United States. Iran is one of the few countries that have been successful in reducing the amount of illegal drugs being smuggled out of Afghanistan. They have invested quite a bit of money, because their own population has suffered a lot from these illegal drugs. For this, they should be applauded, not attacked and demonized.

So, what type of people are twisting the facts and using this as an opportunity to attack Iran? Iran has two enemies in Afghanistan: the Americans and the pro-Taliban, anti-Shia Afghans.

Since getting involved in Afghanistan in late 2001, the Americans have been trying to “cool” Afghan-Iranian relations. Despite being power hungry and corrupt, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has resisted pressure from the Americans to publicly criticize the Iranian President, and downgrade diplomatic relations between the two countries. With Pakistan arming and financing the Taliban to commit gruesome attacks on Afghan soil, Afghanistan, and especially Karzai’s government, needs all the friends it can get. The Iranians have been very committed to the new Afghan government, despite propaganda by U.S. sources claiming that they are secretly arming the Taliban. So far, there has been no credible evidence to show that Iran is working against Karzai’s government or supporting the Taliban.

Interestingly enough, the other group of people who are against the Iranians are the pro-Taliban, anti-Shia Afghans. The majority of Iranians are Shia and the Taliban hate them because they are Shiites. These people may not publicly claim they support the Taliban, and many are secretly on the payroll of Pakistan’s ISI. They are quiet when the Pakistani authorities abuse Afghan refugees, yet when it comes to Iran, they go out of their way to attack and demonize Iran.

For those Afghans who have genuine concerns, let it be known that, so far, there has been no credible evidence to show that the Iranian authorities are mistreating Afghan citizens. If they are executing criminals, then they have every right to do so. Of greater concern for the Afghans should be the innocent civilians being killed by both the Pakistani-supported Taliban, and the US and NATO forces. It’s not Iran that is conducting deadly night raids, and it is not Iran that is training and funding the Taliban so that they can commit suicide attacks in Afghan cities, which ends up killing numerous Afghan civilians – many of them women and children. Let’s focus our energies to keep innocent women and children alive, not the drug trafficking criminals. Don’t buy the propaganda against Iran.

May 5, 2010

In late March, President Obama paid a surprise visit to Kabul to meet his Afghan counterpart, reportedly asking Karzai to improve governance reform to combat corruption. Since then, the two governments have exchanged jabs. Karzai has been openly defiant of U.S. concerns, specifically election reform in the wake of a presidential election widely considered fraudulent, and has charged foreign interference in elections. The U.S. has focused on his decrees eliminating UN participants on the Election Complaint Commission (which was followed by a partial retreat). The reaction by the Afghan Parliament has been mixed, with the Karzai-dominated upper house supporting his decrees and the lower house rejecting them. In March, Karzai told a UN representative that by mid-April there would be a “major and constructive reshuffle of the election commission,” and he did dismiss the head of the Independent Election Commission (IEC). Most recently, Karzai and the UN worked out a compromise that makes some positive changes in personnel and procedure that will improve election governance, and which has brought the UN and donor nations on board to fund the September parliamentary elections. However, there are complaints from Afghan opposition leaders and some in parliament who say that the reforms are not sufficient. And likely were only enough to win international funding for the election.

What is known is that widespread corruption, going far beyond just elections, is destroying Afghan society. It continues to undermine efforts by the international community and Afghans to promote democracy, security, and nation-building, and to fight narcotics trafficking. The Karzai administration has dismissed any mention of corruption, labeling it as “foreign meddling.” But in Kandahar recently, Karzai heard the same complaints from his home town and tribe. There to solicit cooperation for the upcoming major military operation against the insurgents, Karzai was told by a tribal elder that his government was as much a problem for local people as were the insurgents. Afghan citizens interviewed by the second author of this piece said that the government is a problem on all levels–from top ministers and advisers to local employees. Corruption, nepotism, and the rule of warlords is badly affecting the Afghan people and their hopes for the future. It was not until Karzai’s fraudulent election victory that the issue of corruption in Afghanistan was thrust into the global spotlight and the Obama administration felt compelled to speak out. The question is, how willing is the U.S. to confront the issue?

There are at least two possible paths here for the Obama administration, and signals indicate that it is opting for a short term strategy that is more expedient, but a recipe for long-term failure. It appears Obama has chosen not to push for reform, preferring not to rock the boat. He needs Karzai’s cooperation in fighting the Taliban and in using U.S. and NATO forces to defeat the insurgents—eventually enabling the U.S. President to meet a policy goal and withdraw U.S. troops without losing face. Recent statements by top level Administration officials echo the assertion that Karzai is the head of a sovereign state and that he has been a loyal ally. And now the hot rhetoric between the two countries has ended. Presumably, then, especially with some give by Karzai on election reform, the U.S. will give only lip service to the need for changes in Afghan governance, hoping there is enough popular dislike of the Taliban and military fire-power to succeed.

Even if successful—not a given– this path will very likely result in a resurgence of the Taliban later, as occurred following the first U.S. effort to finish them off. For whatever military victory is achieved now will be lost in the future because of the lack of popular support for a corrupt Afghan administration. When that happens, will the U.S. be ready to fight the Taliban for a third time if it feels that it is in its strategic interest? Would there be any stomach for such a war among the U.S. public, even among those who would feel it is morally justified?

Can the U.S. push Karzai for reform? This risks alienating him, but on the other hand Karzai is beholden to U.S. forces to remain in power. The Obama administration could pressure (not abandon) Karzai to make changes and could work with the international community, the UN, and sympathetic Afghan parliament members and citizen groups to truly reduce the systemic corruption. It would help to accompany this with a foreign aid program to help build strong Afghan educational, economic, and political infrastructures. Such a comprehensive effort, which is less costly than an ongoing war, would likely ensure a government which is supported by Afghans, who would, then, surely reject the harmful Taliban for good.

Foreign interference in another government’s internal politics should always be suspect, but in this case it is the lesser of two evils. It is the right path for Obama to take for both moral and political reasons. Currently, it does not look like the U.S. will take the gamble to push for real change in Afghanistan. We hope we are wrong.

May 13, 2010

Will this trip of President Karzai to the USA bring peace, security and stability to Afghanistan?

I came from Afghanistan last week, and during my 30 days stay there, I discovered that the security situation in the whole country was getting worse day by day. In Kabul most of the ministries have barricaded their buildings with high concrete walls. Some of the main roads in the city were closed to general traffic, for example, the road where the ministry of interior is located has been blocked, and as result, the businesses which were operating can no longer do their business. Most of the ministries, embassies and NGOs don’t build their concrete walls inside the compounds; instead they are either taking the whole streets to themselves or are blocking half of the streets.

President Karzai has delivered two or three decrees in the past two years to clear all the streets and roads from concrete blocks and open all the streets and roads to general public, but who is going to implement President Karzai’s decrees? No one, even the law enforcement department of the ministry of interior is acting against the president’s order.

Kabul city is small, however this small city is now accommodating five million people, and around two million cars. People living in this city are full of stress and anxiety. The air is full of dust, pollution and car fumes, while roads are in very bad condition. Going from one place to other is a nightmare, a five kilometer distance can take an hour..

When I was working in the Afghan government between December 22, 2001 to the end of 2004, the Afghan people were hoping for a good and bright future, they believed that the presence of the US and NATO troops would bring peace, security, and economical stability.

Afghans believed that economical assistance from the international community would produce many good and secure jobs. Foreign investment would bring more money and goods for the development of the country. However the ordinary people who had large expectations from the Afghan government, the USA, and the rest of the international community are now questioning the presence of these foreign troops in their country.

In the last five years, lots of empty promises have been made by the Afghan government and the international community to the Afghan people that they will bring peace security and economical wellbeing to them, but unfortunately noting is happening. Instead things are getting worse. In the last eight years there has not even been one large development project to create jobs for the people.

Afghans are saying the 51 billion dollars spent by the USA on the economical development in past eight years, have not found them jobs, while the money may have gone to the pockets of a number of corrupt Afghan and foreign people. The question is how can the Afghan government and the USA and other foreign countries presence in Afghanistan win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people?

President Karzai in this trip has to make lots of changes, to the way how he deals with the US government, and the rest of the international community thus politically and diplomatically that will be beneficial to Afghanistan, US government and the international community. If Karzai wants to survive as president for the next four years, he has to be more honest to the Afghan people and the international community. He has to come up with a clear vision and a clear and understandable economical, political, cultural, development and independent integrity for the future of Afghanistan. Karzai has to bring changes within himself, he has work truly and honestly for a political reform and parliamentary democracy. President Karzai has to come up with a strong professional, skill and political team, so people can trust him, his leadership and his team. He must know that with the kind of cabinet that he has introduced in the past four years, he did not and cannot produce good governance and a strong government. He knows that even in the last cabinet there were ministers who were unable to spend 30% of the ordinary and developmental budget in year 2009. Karzai has to learn that he cannot do everything by himself, he has to make some other people responsible of jobs, and he has to make every one accountable for what they have been assigned to do. Karzai has to make Afghanistan independency, national interest, national security and other economical, political and diplomatically decisions with his strong team, so at the end of day every person of the decision making team would be accountable for the decisions they make.

President Karzai along with President Obama must come up with a realistic program and strategies to encourage those Afghan people who are unhappy with the central government and the presence of foreign forces in that country, to be in support of their joint strategy for all the problems in Afghanistan

While the solutions to all these problems can take some time, however the Afghan people and the international community should be told to be patient and wait as what would be the practical outcome of the objectives of the Karzai and Obama May 2010 meeting and strategies in the short and long terms.

In the London Conference, President Karzai  announced his policies, and he said that his new government wants to improve the economy, security and governance in Afghanistan. President Karzai also unveiled details of his plan to encourage Taliban insurgents to lay down their arms and to stop the violence and join the political process aimed at rebuilding the war-torn nation.

I am sure that these are very promising messages to the Afghan people, the international community and the legitimist wishes of president Karzai to President Obama. But would these discussions and plans alone convince elements of the Taliban to come into this political process and can it be successful and achievable without looking into the larger picture of the nation’s problems?

It is time that President Obama and President Karzai authorized representative team should be given the right clear plan and instructions to talk to the Taliban leadership, showing them an olive branch and assuring them that once they respect the government, the Constitution and the laws of Afghanistan, then they will be given full guarantee safety, security and joining the government in different level.

Past experience has shown that problems cannot be solved by military means in Afghanistan, it should be noted that the proposals made by President Karzai to the UN Security Council to review the Council’s black list must be part of the negotiations with the Taliban. The names of those Taliban who are not attached to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups should be omitted from the list, so it can encourage the Taliban to come to the negotiation table

President Obama and President Karzai should be aware of our neighbor’s intentions and interests in Afghanistan and they must come up with strategies which it should convince Afghanistan neighbors and the international community that the promotion and strengthening of Afghan security forces will be beneficial for the region, the international community and the Afghan people.

British Prime Minister Golden Brown, UN secretary General Banki Moon, and other representatives from over seventy countries to the London Conference in Feb 2010, supported President Karzai’s plan for negotiations with the Taliban and I believe it is time that President Obama also endorse that plan.

Now it is time for President Obama not to repeat the mistake of the last eight-year-old military strategy in solving Afghanistan’s problems.

I believe that peace security and stability to Afghanistan will only come if President Obama, the international community and the Afghan government seriously and objectively look in to the following issues.

1. A comprehensive discussion should take place between the Afghan and Pakistan governments. In these discussions, Pakistan must be assured that Afghanistan will not interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan. The government of Afghanistan has to make 100% sure to Pakistan that the assistance of the Indian government for the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, will in no way harm the good relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

2. Afghanistan has to make sure that neither India nor Pakistan will be given the right to use Afghanistan for their play ground and Afghanistan must keep its neutrality and must not side with either one in their conflict.

3. Pakistan must genuinely and practically stop their logistical, financial and all other kind of support to the Taliban, and all other armed groups who are fighting against the Afghan and foreign forces in Afghanistan.

4. Pakistan government should encourage the Taliban leadership to resolve their differences with the Afghan government through negotiation, in a peaceful manner and they should be allowed to return with respect and dignity and security back in to their country Afghanistan.

5. Pakistan must stop thinking that the extension of the Afghan military forces is an obstacle, against their interests in the region; they should remember that once in the past Afghanistan had a well trained army, it was never a threat against its interests.

6. Afghanistan government should have a comprehensive discussion with the government of Iran, and assure that country that the presence of the foreign forces in Afghanistan will never be a threat to the safety and stability of Iran and Afghanistan, and it will never allow any country to be engaged in any activities against Iran.

7. The Iranian government has to be asked that they must assure the Afghan government that Iran is not supporting or arming Afghan or other militants or political activists who create violence in Afghanistan.

8. Afghan government and international community have to assure Russia and China that the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan is not going to be a threat to them and to their friends in the region. Bilaterally, Russia and China should at the same time generally strongly support President Karzai’s and President Obama’s recent peace plan to bring peace, security and stability to Afghanistan.

9. In Afghanistan the following responsibilities must be fulfilled by President Obama’s new strategy, Karzai’s government and the international community before peace and security is passable.

1. Creating jobs for the unemployed people, who desperately need an income for themselves or their families. Once employed then they would not need to be looking to the money paid by the militant groups.

2. Increasing employment.

• It can be the distribution of free land, seeds, water and other necessities, in order for people to start working in the agriculture field.

• Building water dams, so it can be used for electricity and agriculture, and can employ many people.

• Creating a safer environment for national and international investors to invest in the industry and the reconstruction sector, so it can employ many people and the local product can be consumed locally and the rest for export.

3. Corruption is a big problem, thus President Obama’s and President Karzai’s governments must take the first step followed by the international community to eliminate corruption from all the government departments, contractors and the NGO, and they must be under strict surveillance.

4. Transparency and accountability with all the money allocated for the development and reconstruction of the government departments, contractors and NGOs must be given high priority.

5. Appointment of public servants must be based on the merits of right people who are skilled, professional, good leaders and managers. (For all government posts.)

6. Good governance, can be obtaining the support of the Afghan people towards the central government.

7. The Judiciary system must be kept independent. Law and order must be enforced. Afghanistan’s constitution and other laws must be taken seriously and implemented by all the people from the president to an ordinary person in the street. Those who disobey the law must be seriously punished by the judiciary no matter who the person is.

It is time that everyone should come to the conclusion that the problems in Afghanistan will not be solved by power or money. Therefore, the only way out of the current problem can be seen by negotiations and understanding.

In his address to the media on the 31st of Jan 2010 in Kabul, President Karzai said the London Conference will be followed by a (Loya Jirga) great assembly in spring and an international conference in Kabul this year in which the Afghan government would formally present its commitments to the people of Afghanistan. While I was in Kabul I was hearing from the media and people that the list of people would be invited to that National consultative Jirga was not by its merits and their back ground

President Obama and President Karzai must fulfill their promises given to the Afghan nation and the international community. However, at the same time, the international community must stand hand in hand with President Karzai and President Obama in achieving the shared goals and objectives, together bringing peace, security and stability in Afghanistan, the region and in the world. If either side fails to deliver what their responsibilities are, then it will be the end of a stable and secure Afghanistan, Pakistan and the world in general, and there will be the possibility of the disintegration of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which will be a disaster for the whole world. If a Pakistan disintegration occurs, who will be in control of those nuclear arsenals?

Abdul Khaliq Fazal was the former Minister of Public Works from 2001-2002, President of the Evaluation and Privatization Commission of Public Enterprises from 2002-2004, and an advisor to President Karzai in the 2004 Presidential Elections. He can be reached at a_k_fazal@yahoo.com.au

May 15, 2010

The secret as to how Afghanistan will achieve a stable, secure future really is no secret at all: agriculture.

So it was not surprising that during this week’s meetings in Washington between US and Afghan officials that agriculture was a principal topic of discussion.

In Afghanistan, 85 per cent of the population relies on agriculture to earn a living, and strengthening Afghanistan’s agricultural sector is a critical element in stabilizing the nation. But until the agriculture sector can support legitimate crops such as wheat and fruits, the Taliban will continue to prey upon disaffected, out-of-work youth and push the production of poppy.

Unfortunately, poppy production provides little return to the farmers; pomegranates will earn a farmer five times that of poppy on the open market, almonds will earn seven, and grapes will earn eight times as much.

That is why the United States and Afghanistan are working together with a shared strategy to rebuild Afghanistan’s once-vibrant agricultural economy. Our efforts are already yielding results in troubled provinces such as Helmand, the heart of Afghan poppy production.

The strategy is fourfold: First, we must increase the productivity of staple crops such as wheat, introduce complementary crops such as soybeans, and improve the yields of cash crops such as horticulture and nuts.

Second, we must protect Afghanistan’s natural resources by investing in watershed management, sustainable forestry efforts and soil conservation.

Third, we must redouble our efforts to rebuild the country’s agricultural marketing system and return Afghanistan to its once-prominent position as the fruit and nut epicenter of Central Asia.

Fourth, our countries must continue to work together to restructure Afghanistan’s Ministry of Agriculture by recruiting competent professionals, especially in the rural areas where extension agents with technical know-how and expertise can make a real difference to farmers and herders.

The possibility of the turnaround we envision is real. International demand for Afghan agriculture is returning. In Dubai recently, at the region’s biggest food and trade expo, Afghanistan’s tiny stall was overrun with customers from Europe, Africa and the Middle East with orders for dried fruit and nuts. For the first time, Afghan apples and other fresh fruit are being air freighted to India.

Just recently, a Kabul businessman obtained his certification to begin exporting raisins to Europe. And, in what might be the biggest boon to Afghanistan’s agricultural economy thus far, the nation’s first concentrated juice factory opened near Kabul in October 2009, selling out its entire production for 2010 in just six weeks. The plant employs hundreds of Afghans and is planning an expansion so it can continue to ship its products across the globe. Other similar facilities are being planned across the country.

Furthermore, the US and Afghan governments are working with Afghan farmers to introduce new production and post-production technologies, while improving existing crops with enhanced cultivation and seed varieties. American support is helping to develop Afghan grading, packaging and sanitary methods per international standards. And together, we are building the infrastructure and opening the transportation routes necessary to get Afghan grains, fruits and nuts to consumers.

The Afghan Ministry of Agriculture also needs help to build research and agricultural extension services — from satellite mapping to experts standing in a field teaching farmers. This is an area where USDA’s assistance is crucial. USDA has contributed more than 100 highly skilled individuals to this effort — foresters, soil and plant scientists, marketing specialists, and water and rangeland specialists — all with a special ability to share their knowledge through demonstration.

USDA is partnering with the US Army National Guard, the State Department, the US Agency for International Development, other US federal agencies and, most important, Afghans, to solve complex agricultural issues.

Moreover, the Afghan government has reorganized its Cabinet so that ministries focused on solving the problems facing its rural communities are teamed together: agriculture, electricity, water, construction and counternarcotics.

For 85 per cent of the Afghan people, the path to a better job and life for their family is likely to pass through a farm. That is why, despite the challenges that certainly lie ahead, we are committed to building a better life for the Afghan people by working together to rebuild its once-vibrant agricultural economy.

Tom Vilsack is the United States Secretary of Agriculture, and Mohammad Asif Rahimi is the Afghan Minister of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL).

June 6, 2010

In “Interpreting Afghanistan” (Op-ed, June 1) H.D.S. Greenway makes many connections between the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and that of the United States and its allies there now, indicating that it may not be possible to win peace in the country. The fact is, there are more fundamental differences than similarities between the Soviet and NATO engagements: the former one of invasion, and the latter of liberation.

The Soviets were fiercely resisted by the Afghan people, while NATO is overwhelmingly urged to stay the course to help rebuild Afghanistan. Recent polls, for example, show that more than 70 percent of Afghans continue supporting an international presence in Afghanistan.

Greenway’s comment that the Afghan “government in a box’’ came “damaged’’ in Marja hits a key point but does not reflect the complexity of the issue. A government cannot simply be propped up and immediately be successful. Just eight years ago, our state institutions had long ceased to exist, and we had to start the state-building process practically from the ground up.

While rapid success is unrealistic, conditions have significantly improved for Afghans, who do not oppose the government but want it to work better. Thus, our government must be assisted to regain the lost ground by building institutional capacity to deliver on the basic expectations of the Afghan people: protection from violent extremism, a livelihood, and the rule of law.

But I agree with Greenway that institutional extremism in Pakistan remains a grave threat to Afghanistan and to world peace and security. Focus must be put on dismantling the extremist institutional infrastructure in Pakistan.

M. Ashraf Haidari is the political counselor of the Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington

June 15, 2010

Placing the people of Afghanistan at the center of the ongoing debate on the lingering war against extremism and terrorism is the key to the success of international peace building efforts in the country. Yet, this is rarely done. Afghans as the main victims of the past 30 years of imposed conflicts on our country, seldom figure in the ongoing discussions of the past, present, and future of Afghanistan. In other words, the moral obligation of helping Afghans build a strong state, a secure future, increasingly appears to have become secondary to preserving foreign national security interests in Afghanistan.

Indeed, the Afghan people would have built a functioning state and Afghanistan’s development would have slowly taken off by now had Afghanistan not become a victim of both the Cold War and its aftermath, the culmination of which was the tragedy of September 11, 2001. But Afghanistan decided to side with the West against the Soviets in the last decade of the Cold War. Of all the nations in the West or in the East, and since the end of the Second World War, Afghans made the ultimate sacrifice to help defend and ensure the freedom of then “the Free World” or our NATO nation-partners today.

It is dismaying, however, that the sacrifices of the Afghan people are hardly remembered or recognized in some NATO countries. One hardly reads in the U.S. or European papers that Afghanistan suffered immense losses in human life and limb (2 million killed; over 2 million injured), destruction of our country and property ($100 billion a year for two decades), internal and external displacement of the Afghan population (10 million displaced), and the ensuing generational psychological trauma affecting every Afghan today.

In return, however, Afghanistan’s post-Cold War reconstruction was completely neglected. The unspeakable atrocities of 1990s against the Afghan people are well-documented by human rights organizations, and we remember the tragedy of 9/11 as a direct consequence of having failed to deliver on the moral obligation of rebuilding post-war Afghanistan and giving Afghans a glimmer of hope for a bright future, for their own sake.

So, today, when Afghans hear talk by some NATO countries of limited involvement or withdrawal plans, even when we know that half-measures for the last nine years have failed, many Afghans feel betrayed. They increasingly believe that international involvement has hardly been about them, about their human rights, about their very basic expectations for peace and justice, or about their overwhelming demand for institutionalization of peace and democracy in Afghanistan.

As they daily listen to the official statements of our nation-partners, Afghans may begin believing that international involvement in Afghanistan is more about the national security or geo-strategic interests of the countries involved. These divergent and conflicting interests, Afghans may think, seem to determine what should or could be done or what should not or could not be done to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan.

Hence, Afghans could believe that Afghanistan is once again serving as a proxy battlefield for international posturing and influence at worst or as the main frontline in the war against transnational security threats at best. And even the latter narrative now means different things to different countries in or outside the alliance in Afghanistan. So, no wonder that to simplify this crisis of what is really at stake in Afghanistan, metaphors such as poker, chess or, worse, buzkashi have become routine to describe and rationalize international intervention in Afghanistan.

Afghans are appalled by some of the most bizarre and irrelevant terms used to describe our people, our country, our culture, and our very way of life. Some call us a “tribal society” and thus primitive and backward, who don’t deserve human or women’s rights, democratic security and governance, and a place in the community of what they call “civilized nations.” Others call Afghanistan “the graveyard of empires” where peace-building is doomed to failure no matter what. And references to Afghanistan as America’s second Vietnam or NATO replacing the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan are just as frequent.

Clearly, these mischaracterizations of Afghanistan may be designed to serve certain domestic purposes in some countries, while in others it may be due to mere ignorance of ground realities of the Afghan theater. The fact is, however, that Afghanistan has one of the youngest populations in the world, which is at once extremely resilient and enterprising. Contrary to the misperception of a “divided tribal society,” Afghans take pride in our ethnic diversity, long history and rich cultural heritage, and have stood united, particularly at the grassroots level, on major national causes, including the stabilization, reconstruction, and development of Afghanistan.

Despite all these problems and short-comings, Afghans have not lost hope in their partners and the future of their country. The BBC-ABC-ARD poll released in January, 2010 confirms widespread optimism and unity among Afghans, as 70 percent said they thought Afghanistan was going in the right direction. Ninety percent said they want the country run by the current government, and only 6 percent want to see the Taliban come back. The same survey rated approval of President Karzai at 72 percent, and 60 percent viewed government performance favorably.

Indeed, if the state-building enterprise for the security of Afghanistan and global peace is to succeed and sustain on the long run, it has to be Afghan-centered and Afghan-led. In other words, international peace building efforts must, henceforth, be driven by Afghan hands not “Afghan face,” for without building peace by and for the sake of Afghans, the drama will most likely end in tragedy again, not just for Afghanistan but for its nation-partners as well. The tragedy of 9/11 is a sad reminder.

Shaida M. Abdali is Deputy National Security Adviser and Special Assistant to President Hamid Karzai. M. Ashraf Haidari is the Political Counselor of the Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington, DC.

The above article originally appeared in the The Diplomatic Courier. Reprinted here with permission from the authors.

June 23, 2010

The experience of Afghans as the largest refugee population in the world shows that refugees have never hesitated to return home as soon as promising conditions have given them hope for restoration of peace and justice in their homeland. In 1992 and 1993, for example, following the fall of the Afghan communist regime, more than two million Afghan refugees voluntarily repatriated from Pakistan and Iran. But their return grounded to a halt, shortly after the breakout of the civil war that plunged Afghanistan into anarchy and chaos.

Buoyed by international re-engagement in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, more than five million Afghan refugees returned home from Pakistan and Iran during the early 2000s, making the largest voluntary repatriation in the history of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

But there still are about two million Afghans in Pakistan, and less than one million in Iran and these remaining refugees are now reluctant to return home. Deteriorating security, widespread poverty and unemployment, and a severe lack of social facilities such as access to education and healthcare constitute major obstacles to voluntary repatriation of most Afghan refugees. In many areas, especially in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban has once again emerged as a violent force to be reckoned with.

The government and people of Afghanistan appreciate the humanitarian assistance Pakistan and Iran have provided to Afghan refugees over the past three decades. But pull factors such as improved security, enhanced protection and reintegration assistance, and increased employment opportunities in Afghanistan should determine push factors in host states.

Pakistan and Iran must honor the principle of non-refoulement, rooted both in international and Islamic law, to refrain from forcible deportation of Afghan refugees. The Afghan government maintains separate trilateral agreements with Pakistan, Iran, and UNHCR—a key provision of which is to facilitate voluntary repatriation of Afghan refugees from the two countries only if the conditions inside Afghanistan allow. Although host states have an interest in encouraging refugees to go back home, UNHCR is mandated to prevent and protect refugees from repatriating prematurely if the prevailing conditions at home are not ready for their return. Except for spontaneous returns during 2002-2003, Afghan refugees must have been warned about increasing instability and a severe lack of reintegration assistance in Afghanistan in the following years.

Contrarily, however, Afghan refugees have been encouraged to return home, as repatriation—voluntary or otherwise—has been viewed as a positive sign of stabilization and reconstruction progress in Afghanistan. Consequently, the fact that most returnees have ended up becoming internally displaced due to conflicts should be cause for serious concern to UNHCR and the international community. It should also be a signal to halt further premature repatriation of Afghan refugees until the conditions in Afghanistan have improved enough for their safe return home.

At the same time, the international community must honor the principle of burden sharing and provide relief assistance to states hosting large numbers of refugees. Assistance to Pakistan and Iran should aim at empowering Afghan refugees so that they will gain skills necessary both to contribute to their host societies and later to use those skills to earn an income upon return home.

Additionally, developed countries must expand their resettlement programs, taking in more Afghan refugees from Iran and Pakistan on an annual basis. Resettlement of Afghan refugees in the developed countries will go a long way in helping rebuild and develop Afghanistan. Resilience and high achievement motivation that characterize most refugees will quickly enable resettled Afghan families to adapt into their new societies, taking advantage of social and economic opportunities there to establish themselves and to continue supporting their relatives at home, as well as in Pakistan and Iran.

In the long run, most resettled Afghans will have gained wealth and higher education which they would certainly use to invest in Afghanistan, as we know from the return of many wealthy Afghans and technocrats who have made significant contributions to Afghanistan’s reconstruction since 2002.

In pondering resettlement programs, one myth must be confronted head-on: Contrary to frequent allegations that Afghan refugees are a burden on their host countries’ economies, the opposite is most often true. The millions of refugees in Pakistan and Iran are assets to those countries’ economies. Many Afghans in both states fill a glaring need in the labor sector, working casual jobs at wages much lower than that paid to locals who may not even be willing to accept such jobs because of social taboos associated with casual labor. Other Afghan refugees use their special skills—such as carpet weaving—to produce quality Afghan rugs, which local firms purchase below market price, brand them made in the host country, and then sell them in developed countries with manifold profit. Most importantly, a significant number of Afghan refugees have found success as entrepreneurs and have risen to operate midsize and even corporate-level businesses in Pakistan, Iran, and the Gulf states, making notable contributions to those countries’ economic growth.

Other allegations that terrorists recruit from Afghan refugee camps are baseless and a political excuse on Pakistan’s part not to cooperate sincerely in the war against terrorism. Afghan refugees are actually victims of violence and terrorism, but abusing their status as a scapegoat is clearly a violation of their rights under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Countries that are party to the Geneva Convention and other international human rights regimes are obligated to respect refugee rights as human rights and safeguard them by providing refugees with protection from violence, persecution, and human insecurity that collectively make it impossible for most refugees to return home voluntarily.

Almost 2,500 years ago, Euripides wrote that “there is no greater sorrow on earth than the loss of one’s native land.” Indeed, for most Afghan refugees no foreign land can ever replace their homeland where they will return as soon as they feel secure to do so. It is obvious that the real durable solution to the Afghan refugees’ problem is voluntary repatriation, which can only be guaranteed by security in Afghanistan. Hence, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan’s other neighbors can and must cooperate with the international community to stabilize Afghanistan first.

Durable stability and prosperity in the country would automatically attract Afghan refugees to voluntarily return home. At the same time, the international community must honor the commitments they will make at the upcoming International Conference on Afghanistan in Kabul on July 20th to provide the Afghan government with long-term resources to implement the objectives of the Afghanistan National Development Strategy—a key priority of which is to help reintegrate returning refugees and internally displaced persons into their communities.

A former refugee, internally displaced person, and UNHCR field officer, M. Ashraf Haidari is the deputy chief of mission and political counselor of the Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington, DC.

The above article originally appeared in the Diplomatic Courier. Reprinted here with permission from the author.

June 30, 2010

The recent discovery of nearly $1 trillion in minerals in Afghanistan by the US Defence Department was neither “recent” nor a “discovery”.

From the days of Afghan shepherds stumbling on gold, emeralds, lapis lazuli and other precious rocks and minerals to the first round of geological surveys of the country by the former Soviet Union, Afghans have known of our immense natural wealth. The disclosure of this wealth, though hardly new, helps Afghanistan attract much needed foreign investment and aid.

While rich in natural resources, it should not be forgotten that Afghanistan is rich in human resources, too. Unlike countries where the “youth bulge” may be a source of socio-economic instability, my generation of Afghans, which represent more than 70 per cent of the population, is at once resilient, enterprising, self-motivated, and eager to learn.

Unfortunately, decades of war have not given Afghanistan a chance to take advantage of both resources to build a productive economy and provide jobs for our energetic population. The result is that some Afghans have inevitably turned to the Taliban to eke out a living while others have joined factional militias merely for food and shelter. Still others have engaged in opium poppy cultivation to ensure the survival of their families.

It should be remembered, however, that this represents less than 15 per cent of the Afghan people. Nearly 85 per cent work under very harsh conditions to make ends meet. These Afghans overwhelmingly support international presence in Afghanistan and hope that together with the international community, our country can gradually integrate into the global economy and speed Afghanistan’s long-term development.

Moreover, President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan people firmly believe that Afghanistan’s isolation, as experienced under the extremists’ totalitarian rule in the 1990s, is no longer an alternative. Afghans seek a future with democracy and utterly reject extremism, which has no place in Afghan culture or Afghan Islam. This is spelled out in our progressive constitution.

The Afghan government is acutely aware of the daunting task it faces in attempting to meet the basic expectations of our people for peace, justice, and prosperity. We can address these demands only with the help of foreign aid and private investment. Our mineral wealth, as well as the infrastructure required to tap it, are promising ventures for both Afghans and foreign investors.

Next month, the government will host the first International Conference on Afghanistan in Kabul, at which the priorities of our national development strategy will be presented. It will focus on poverty reduction, job creation and sustainable development.

Key to achieving each of these objectives is the extraction and export of Afghanistan’s minerals and other natural resources to global markets.

At next month’s conference, Afghanistan’s ministers of finance and mines will discuss the government’s plans to ensure that the institutions and procedures handling foreign aid and investment are transparent and accountable.

Last week, Afghanistan’s ministry of mines and industries hosted a gathering in London during which laws governing the natural-resources industry were discussed. In an interview with the BBC, Wahidullah Shahrani, Afghanistan’s minister of mines and industries, addressed concerns that a massive influx of investment in Afghan minerals could lead to increased corruption.

“We have improved our legislation, the procedures have been upgraded and we have been getting a tremendous amount of support from our international partners,” Mr. Shahrani said, adding that all mining contracts will be disclosed to the public in full.

Although bureaucratic bottlenecks sometimes impede business in Afghanistan, investors enjoy one of the best investment climates in the region. China, for example, has won a $3.5 billion bid to develop Afghanistan’s giant Aynak copper mine, while India has invested $1.3 billion in transportation, health care, education, hydroelectricity and electrical transmission.

Domestic and foreign corporations do not have to compete with government-owned and government-subsidised businesses and can maximise profits in a free and open market. The Afghan Investment Support Agency serves investors as a one-stop shop for licensing and corporate support across the country.

Foreign investors can and must play a major role in helping us tap our natural wealth so we can secure and rebuild our homeland. Afghans are proud of our historical tradition of commerce and cultural exchange, dating back 2000 years to the Silk Road. With each economic opportunity that is fulfilled, the people of Afghanistan move one step closer to reconnecting with our heritage and securing a bright future for our country.

M Ashraf Haidari is deputy chief of mission and political counselor of the embassy of Afghanistan in Washington