POMED Notes: “The United States and Turkey: A View from the Obama Administration”
March 17th, 2010 by Chanan
The Brookings Institution, in collaboration with Sabanci University, held the sixth annual Sakip Sabanci Lecture with Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs, to discuss the Obama administration’s perspective on Turkey, its relationship with the United States and the European Union, and its role across the Middle East and throughout the world.
For POMED’s notes in PDF, click here. Otherwise, continue reading below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, DC Event Notes, EU, Iran, Iraq, Islam and Democracy, Israel, Middle Eastern Media, Pakistan, Political Parties, Turkey, Uncategorized, sanctions | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Iran at a Crossroads: Assessing a Changing Landscape”
March 10th, 2010 by Chanan
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) hosted a morning-long event to discuss the prospects for democracy in Iran and to evaluate the current state of U.S.-Iranian relations.
Following some brief welcoming remarks by Trita Parsi, president of NIAC, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) delivered the opening address by stating that “Iran is at a crossroads like no other.” As members of the Green Movement fight and die for more basic freedoms, “the world is watching how this popular movement plays out.” Eshoo, whose district has one of the largest Iranian-American populations, expressed appreciation for the role played by technology in combating the government’s abuse of power, specifically citing Facebook’s creation of a mobile application that could not be blocked by Iranians and the decision by Twitter to delay maintenance to help dissident Iranians communicate during last summer’s protests. She also criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq for emboldening Iran and expressed skepticism about the value of sanctions in achieving U.S. goals: “We have to work very hard to educate our colleagues of the very failure of sanctions because they will end up hurting the people we want to help.”
For POMED’s notes in PDF, click here. Otherwise, continue reading below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, DC Event Notes, Elections, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, US foreign policy, Uncategorized, Women, sanctions | Comment »
POMED Notes: “U.S. Policies and Programs for Global Development: USAID and the FY 2011 Budget Request”
March 3rd, 2010 by Josh
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing this morning to address President Obama’s FY2011 budget request for global development and international aid. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah provided testimony about particular goals and objectives for USAID moving forward, and answered the committee’s questions regarding a variety of development trends and projects.
For POMED’s notes in PDF, click here. Otherwise, continue below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congressional Hearing Notes (House), Diplomacy, Foreign Aid, Hamas, Iraq, Palestine, US foreign policy | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Promoting Security through Diplomacy and Development: The Fiscal Year 2011 International Affairs”
February 26th, 2010 by Josh
In a hearing on the administration’s recently released budget request, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs invited Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to give testimony on particular budgetary items relating to U.S. diplomatic and development efforts abroad. Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) opened the hearing with an affirmation of the value of investing in international diplomacy; not only to promote American values, but also as a method of prevention in order to mitigate the forces that cause international instability. Berman pledged to work with his colleagues to maintain or even increase the overall level of funding – approximately 1 percent of the entire Fiscal Year 2011 federal budget request – but ranking Republican committee member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) disagreed, using the poor economic environment as the basis to call for “selective freezes.” In particular, she questioned the wisdom of unconditionally funding the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), both of which she accuses of stealing hundreds of millions in foreign aid.
Click here for POMED’s notes in PDF, or continue reading below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congressional Hearing Notes (House), Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Hamas, Hezbollah, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Multilateralism, Palestine, Protests, Sudan, Syria, US foreign policy, Western Sahara, Yemen, sanctions | 1 Comment »
POMED Notes: Foreign Policy Priorities in the President’s FY2011 International Affairs Budget
February 25th, 2010 by Chanan
The Senate Committee of Foreign Relations hosted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the FY2011 International Affairs Budget for the Department of State. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, commenced the hearing by thanking Secretary Clinton for her hard work and travels. Citing a range of issues from the need to fight HIV/AIDS to the importance of supporting diplomats in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, Kerry acknowledged that he “can’t think of a time in our history when we’ve had a greater need for energetic diplomacy to make the case for America globally.”
For POMED’s notes in PDF, click here. Otherwise, continue below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congressional Hearing Notes (Senate), Egypt, Foreign Aid, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Oil, Saudi Arabia | 1 Comment »
Afghanistan: Reconciliation, Reintegration, & Mediation with the Taliban?
February 2nd, 2010 by Jessica
Following the Afghanistan conference in London, President Hamid Karzai returned to his country optimistic, as reported in an article for The Christian Science Monitor. Outcomes of the conference included an increase in governmental control of Western aid from 20% to 50% and NATO support for Taliban engagement, with $140 million pledged towards the dual goals of reconciliation and reintegration. The $140 million was announced by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown as, “an international trust fund to finance this Afghan-led peace and reintegration program to provide an economic alternative to those who have none.” The fund is slated to provide Taliban fighters with jobs on the condition that they renounce extremism. The U.S. has pledged to support this approach as long as the aforementioned conditions are met, in addition to embracing democracy. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have also jointly agreed to fund debt relief from major creditors up to $1.6 billion dollars.
During the conference, President Karzai called on Saudi Arabia to help with Taliban reintegration efforts. Following the London conference, Karzai met with Saudi leaders in a bid for assistance with the Taliban. An article for the Huffington Post reports the conditions under which Saudi Arabia will act as an intermediary between the current Afghan government and the Taliban. The Saudi position was made clear by Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the London conference, “So long as the Taliban doesn’t stop providing shelter for terrorists and [Osama] bin Laden and end their contacts with them, I don’t think the negotiations will be positive or even able to achieve anything. They must tell us that they gave this up, and prove it of course.” While Karzai is amenable to discussions with the Taliban, he remains adamant in his decision to expel members of Al Qaeda from the reconciliation efforts, saying that terrorists have no role in the future of Afghanistan.
The Taliban are not without their own requirements for accepting Karzai’s invitation to begin negotiations, recently reiterating their demand for the withdrawal of foreign troops before peace talks begin. Additionally the Taliban have demanded that in return for peace talks mediated by Saudia Arabia, the U.S. must immediately halt plans to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Karzai maintains that these conditions are unrealistic.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Aid, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, United Nations, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: The London Conference Begins
January 28th, 2010 by Josh
The much anticipated London Conference got underway this morning, with delegations from more than 60 countries gathering to tackle issues of Afghan security, governance and development, and regional support.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown opened with remarks on the collaborative effort to bring Afghanistan greater stability and prosperity. To perhaps assuage concerns over the recent rise in troop levels, Brown affirmed that “the increase in our military efforts must be matched with governance and economic development — a political and civilian surge to match and complement the current military surge.” Along those lines, he announced an initiative to train “12,000 sub-national civil servants in core administrative functions in support of provincial and district governorships by the end of 2011.” He further noted significant increases in British and German foreign aid directed toward Afghan agriculture development and infrastructure.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai hailed the conference as an opportunity to develop an “Afghan‑led, Afghan‑owned initiative” that ensures peace and stability in Afghanistan. To achieve that goal, he advocated a six-point framework: 1) peace, reconciliation and reintegration; 2) security; 3) good governance; 4) fight against corruption; 5) economic development; and 6) regional cooperation.
Among the agreed-upon conference outcomes were: Targets for significant increases in the Afghan Army and Police Force supported by the international community; the establishment of an independent Office of High Oversight and an independent Monitoring and Evaluation Mission to tackle corruption; a civilian surge to match the military surge; and an enhanced sub-national government to improve delivery of basic services to all Afghans.
A full and comprehensive summary of the day’s discussions can be found here.
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Multilateralism, Taliban | Comment »
SOTU: Reaction to the Foreign Policy Sections
January 28th, 2010 by Josh
Despite the relative dearth of foreign policy pronouncements in last night’s State of the Union, some are voicing displeasure with what they see as the speech’s simplistic view of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. IraqPundit is astonished that President Obama implied a forthcoming end to the Iraq war simply by virtue of withdrawing the remaining U.S. troops. “Surely he must know that just because he pulls some U.S. troops out of Iraq not much will change. The terrorists will continue to murder.”
Over at The Cable, Josh Rogin interprets this brief passage as Obama taking “credit for the one problem that seems to be resolving itself.”
Contrary to IraqPundit, Juan Cole views the Iraq line as Obama’s strongest foreign policy declaration within the speech, noting that it signals Obama’s recognition of Iraq as “irrelevant to the war on terrorism” and makes it “quite clear that the U.S. military is departing Iraq on the timetable worked out with the Iraqi parliament.” However, Cole is less pleased with Obama’s rhetoric on Iran, which he sees as “essentially a capitulation to Neoconservative themes on Iran, rather than retaining Obama’s central plank of keeping negotiating lines open to Tehran.” He also dismisses the efficacy of sanctions to do anything other than “keep a country weak and harm civilians.” They can not, according to Cole, produce regime change.
Commenting on the Obama’s priorities, Laura Rozen isn’t surprised with the “downgrading of foreign policy emphasis in the speech.” She relays a revealing conversation she had last week with a Democratic strategist who predicted that by early mid-summer, it will only be Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan on the president’s agenda. “The president is now a war president and an economy president,” the strategist said.
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Diplomacy, Iran, Iraq, Neocons, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
Afghanistan: Human Rights Violations Must Be Addressed
January 28th, 2010 by Maria
Navi Pillay writes in the Daily Star that today’s conference on Afghanistan in London will be best-served by tackling human rights concerns in the country, where “even the modest human rights gains achieved in the last eight years are under threat.” Pillay argues that groups like the Taliban have benefited from an environment of lawlessness which has enabled them to organize and intensify their operations. Afghan disillusionment with democratization is not surprising, says Pillay, as more and more Afghans are perceiving government processes and structures to be “undemocratic, unfair, and unable to deliver the most basic services or the most fundamental protection.” Pillay believes that these human rights violations are “neither accidents of fate nor unchallengeable occurrences. They are rather the blatantly violent and unmitigated manifestation of how roles are structured…and how power is distributed in Afghanistan.”
Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted an event on Monday to preview the conference in London.
UPDATE: Democracy Digest reports that there is some speculation that a “forgive and forget” policy might be implemented for some members of the Taliban in order to incorporate the group as part of a legitimate government in Afghanistan. However, advocates of democracy and human rights are pushing against such a move, arguing that human rights shouldn’t be traded in for the sake of security.
Posted in Afghanistan, Human Rights, Taliban | Comment »
State of the Union: Excerpts on Foreign Policy
January 28th, 2010 by Josh
President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address last night, focusing mostly on domestic issues such as job creation, alternative energy investment, and the budget deficit. Although foreign policy took a back seat, the speech did include a few notable passages, including one on the potential for Iranian sanctions should Iran’s leaders continue their diplomatic belligerence:
Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That’s why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions — sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That’s why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.
Obama’s only mention of Iraq and Afghanistan came in the context of troop deployments and deadlines. For Iraq:
We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
For Afghanistan:
In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans - men and women alike.
With regard to universal principles of justice, Obama briefly alluded to America’s history of supporting those who seek empowerment:
America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores… That’s why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran… For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. Always. Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals.
We will highlight commentary on the speech and its significance throughout the day.
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Freedom, Iran, Iraq, US foreign policy | 1 Comment »
Afghanistan: May Elections Postponed
January 25th, 2010 by Josh
Yesterday, in an announcement sure to be welcomed by many western leaders, the Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) postponed the country’s parliamentary elections until September 18, a delay of nearly four months. Explaining the IEC’s reasoning, commission member Zekriya Barakzai cited “problems and constraints to get the proper budget,” as well as “security concerns, logistical obstacles, and the need to improve electoral procedures.”
One international diplomat hailed the news as a “pragmatic and sensible decision which will allow time for reform of the key electoral institutions to enable cleaner parliamentary elections,” referencing the pervasive fraud in last year’s presidential contest which many blame for undermining popular trust in the transparency and competence of Afghanistan’s nascent democracy.
Although many actors had hoped for a longer electoral delay, Kai Eide of the United Nations mission to Afghanistan praised the IEC for its “solid decision” which he believes will “satisfy” the international community in advance of the London Conference scheduled to begin on January 28.
Posted in Afghanistan, Elections, Reform | Comment »
Obama: Criticism of the President’s Handling of Human Rights in His First Year
January 21st, 2010 by Maria
President Obama’s first year in office has many offering an analysis of the administration’s peaks and lows throughout the past year. Many are paying particular attention to the president’s foreign policy strategy and are criticizing his performance on human rights issues.
Independent Minds has an piece by Kate Allen, the UK Director of Amnesty International, who writes that the president’s first year has been one where “the rhetoric and value statements have been fine” but “the reality has been anything but,” claiming that the U.S. has been “far too muted” in its advocacy for democratic freedoms around the world. Joe Stork echos these thoughts in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s recent Arab Reform Bulletin. He says President Obama used all the right words to encourage human rights and freedom in the Middle East in his June, 2009 Cairo speech, but that the administration’s “promotion of human rights with abusive Middle Eastern governments, however, has been ambiguous and, in some cases, negligent, raising concerns that the U.S. is still operating under a universe of double standards…” Several news sources are also citing an interview the president gave earlier this week, where he says reviving peace talks in the Middle East have been “really hard” and admits his administration might have overestimated its ability to persuade meaningful conversation in the region.
As criticism over the administration’s treatment of human rights issues surfaces, Democracy Digest is reporting on Human Rights Watch’s annual report which indicates that authoritative regimes “have deliberately targeted and intensified attacks against human rights and democracy advocates over the past year.” The report cites several Middle Eastern countries accused of these violations including Iran, Egypt and Afghanistan.
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Egypt, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Mideast Peace Plan, US foreign policy | Comment »
Afghanistan: Taliban Intensifies Attacks in Advance of International Conference
January 19th, 2010 by Jessica
Dexter Filkins of the New York Times reports in an article entitled, “Kabul Attack Shows Resilience of Afghan Militants,” on the attack made by Taliban militants early Monday morning in the city of Kabul. According to Filkins’ article a total of five people were killed during the course of the attacks with another 71 being injured. The assault, consisting of a group of militants and two suicide bombers, took place in a busy city center in the middle of Kabul. The primary of target of the attacks was the Central Bank, though the Presidential Palace and the Ministry of Justice, both located in Pashtunistan Square, were in close proximity to the area under assault. In response to the attacks several hundred Afghan soldiers were deployed.
Filkins reports that the assault is the most recent operation in a series of incidents designed to instill a sense of panic among the citizens of Kabul. Filkins also comments that urban centers were targeted due to the concentration of U.S. troops in the rural countryside, and that this concentration as led to a recent upsurge in assaults concentrated in urban locals.
The assaults lasted approximately 5 hours, leaving a popular Afghan shopping area in ruins. Of the seven Taliban carrying out the attacks, 2 were suicide bombers, the remaining 5 were killed during the course of the following conflict. Spokesmen for the Taliban greatly exaggerated the number of militants carrying out the assault, reporting that approximately 20 suicide bombers had been dispersed to the city’s center and that some 40 plus government officials had been killed.
Taliban representatives stated that the attacks were in response to American and Afghan proposals to “reconcile and reintegrate Taliban fighters into mainstream society.” This proposal, an essential tenet of Obama’s plan for peace in Afghanistan, was meant to be revealed later this month at the International Conference on Afghanistan in London. The conference is designed to bring Afghan leaders and the international community together in order to discuss the strategies for democracy and development in Afghanistan. Policymakers will develop milestones for improving the Afghan government with followup conferences to take place Kabul designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the aforementioned milestones.
Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesperson for the Taliban, is quoted in response to the proposed policy as saying, “We are ready to fight, and we have the strength to fight, and nobody from the Taliban side is ready to make any kind of deal.”
Evan Hill in his post entitled, “Taliban Launches Raid in Kabul; Gov’t says 5 dead 38 wounded,” urges that the January 18th assault not hinder U.S. and Afghan plans to reintegrate members of the Taliban back into society. Hill comments, “It might be a slap in the face, but it doesn’t seem to me as if an assault by a few dozen fanatics undermines the entire effort to bring certain Taliban back into society.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Taliban, Terrorism | Comment »
Jordan: Islamists Challenge Government over Role in Afghanistan
January 14th, 2010 by Josh
Via the New York Times, Jordanian Islamists recently issued a statement titled, “It Is Not Our War,” in which they decry Jordanian participation in, and cooperation with, U.S. military operations in the Afghan theater. In addition to calling for the withdrawal of Jordanian forces from Afghanistan, they demanded “an end to the policy of what is called cooperation or security coordination with the Zionist enemy or the American intelligence agencies.” The Times noted that the deadly suicide attack on CIA operatives carried out by Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor, spurred a round of heated internal debate as various segments of society found themselves caught between two national interests: Jordanian pride and American partnership. In fact, political analyst Hasan Abu Hanieh described a largely confused population who “[did] not even know that there are Jordanian forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Zaki Saad, a former director of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing in Jordan, blamed the government for initiating policies that drove “radical young people into the arms of Al Qaeda.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Diplomacy, Islamist movements, Jordan, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Terrorism | Comment »
Afghanistan: Reaction to the Afghan Survey
January 12th, 2010 by Josh
In response to the just-released Afghanistan survey (see our previous post here), Max Boot from Commentary digs through the data to reveal what he believes is positive news. While conceding that a strong minority subscribes to the position that Afghanistan is moving in the wrong direction, Boot takes heart in the finding that 63 percent of Afghans are supportive of the continued presence of U.S. troops. More important than this public base of support, however, is what Boot terms the “public revulsion against the enemy [U.S. troops] are fighting, the Taliban.” The survey finds that only 8 percent of the population support the Taliban fighters, leading Boot to conclude that “there is a considerable base of public support that our troops can tap into.”
Elsewhere, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent calls the results “eye opening” and observes a significant and positive shift from BBC’s last poll in September, 2009, when only 44 percent of Afghans believed their country was “on the right track.” Ackerman suspects that the dramatic rise in U.S. favorables could result from General McChrystal’s emphasis upon the behavior of U.S. troops, prompting Andrew Sullivan to praise the removal of “gung-ho Cheneyism” that he blames for the deterioration of “decency, humaneness and professionalism that once was globally understood as the core of the US military.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Military, Public Opinion, US foreign policy | Comment »
Afghanistan: Public Opinion Polling More Positive than Expected
January 11th, 2010 by Jessica
ABC News, in conjunction with BBC and ARD, recently released the results of polling conducted by the Afghan Center for Socioeconomic and Opinion research, entitled National Survey of Afghanistan. Approximately 1,5oo adult Afghans were surveyed across 194 polling points spanning each of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. The study sheds some light on the views of the local population regarding the political climate in Afghanistan. Polling indicates that, while blame and resentment towards the United States and the UN have eased in severity, the actions of parties such as the Taliban are viewed in a more negative light than polling had previously indicated. Approximately 70% of those polled provided positive responses to questions regarding the recent increase in troops, while approximately 60% approved of the administration as a whole.
Polls also indicated an improved quality of life for both the current and future generations, providing some proof that the policies and actions enacted by the Obama administration are viewed favorably by the Afghan people. The resolution of Afghanistan’s recent election of President Karzai has eased political tensions somewhat, increasing Karzai’s overall approval by some19 points up to 71%. Though promising in its entirety, the report includes one less favorable result: the United Nations and NATO are doing a worse job as compared with previous polls at avoiding civilian casualties. Analysts posit that this contrasting view is in response to anecdotal highly publicized incidents, rather than reflecting the actual number of civilian casualties. Overall, the United States is viewed more positively than it has been in past years, though if polling is indicative of Afghan feelings, there remains substantial groundwork to be covered in Afghanistan.
Posted in Afghanistan, Public Opinion | 1 Comment »
POMED Notes: “Can Afghanistan Afford Another Election?”
January 8th, 2010 by Josh
The United States Institute of Peace hosted an event on the 2009 Afghan elections and what they mean for the prospects of holding a fair and credible election in 2010. John Dempsey, Rule of Law Advisor for USIP, moderated a panel of three speakers: Isabelle de Ruyt, Desk Officer for Afghanistan, Electoral Assistance Division of the United Nations; Grant Kippen, Chairman of the Electoral Complaints Commission in both the 2005 and 2009 Afghan elections; and Scott Worden, Senior Rule of Law Advisor for USIP and former International Commissioner on Afghanisan’s Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) in 2009. The panel examined the nature of the 2009 electoral fraud, commented on the recent announcement of parliamentary elections this coming May, and generally explored whether Afghanistan can afford another election season without enacting a wide range of reforms that may ensure a better and more legitimate outcome.
For POMED’s notes in PDF, please click here. Otherwise, continue below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, DC Event Notes, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Elections, Freedom, Human Rights, NGOs, Reform | 2 Comments »
Afghanistan: MP Mistakenly Killed by Police
December 23rd, 2009 by Zack
Time reports that Mohammad Yunos Shirnagha, a member of the Afghan parliament, was mistakenly killed in a shoot-out with police who were attempting to ambush a Taliban transport. The New York Times reports that President Karzai has called for an investigation into the murder of his 18 year-old cousin Waheed Karzai. Waheed’s family believe he was murdered by another Karzai family member as part of an old family feud, leading President Karzai to cover up the incident for political reasons.
Mark Major in Foreign Policy discusses Lt. Gen. William Caldwell’s new strategy to whip the Afghan army into shape by focusing on the quality of the army, rather than the quantity of troops.
Gregg Carlstrom at The Majlis rebuffs Ann Friedman’s argument (see our previous post) that the mission in Afghanistan has never been about humanitarianism, especially concerning the liberation of women. Carlstrom argues that even though the military does not work toward humanitarian goals, the greater stability brought by a troop increase will engender more protection and freedom for Afghan women. He also asks that the media stop using activist Malalai Joya as the representative voice “of everyone with ovaries between Herat and the Khyber Pass.”
Lastly, Der Spiegel carries an editorial by Olaf Ihlau about Germany’s defense minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg’s change of heart and his new willingness to engage moderate Taliban elements. Ihlau argues that engaging the Taliban is the only way to adequately start a German exit strategy.
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Freedom, Islam and Democracy, Military, Reform, Taliban, US foreign policy, Women | Comment »
Afghanistan: Who Will Head the U.N. Mission?
December 22nd, 2009 by Jason
Laura Rozen explores who will replace Kai Eide as the head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. She reports rumors that Swedish diplomat Staffan de Mistura is the “top contender” for the position and is an American favorite. At the same time, there are reports that French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has expressed interest in the job, but other sources explain Kouchner is looking to serve as an E.U. envoy equivalent to Richard Holbrooke. In a follow up post, Rozen discusses the idea to have a “dual-hatted U.N./NATO chief in Afghanistan.”
Ann Friedman observes the difference in opinion between Afghan and U.S.-based women’s rights groups. While Afghan-based groups tend to call for an American withdrawal, U.S.-based groups believe that military intervention can be used to promote women’s rights. But for Friedman, “it doesn’t matter whether U.S. military intervention can be a force for humanitarianism because, in Afghanistan, it never has been and won’t become one.”
Max Boot responds to a video from Guardian films that “presents a dire picture of the Afghan National Army.” According to Boot, the video has been overblown because “we can’t expect many Third World militaries to meet the standards of the 21st century US. armed forces.” In short, “the Guardian clip presents a slice of reality, not all of reality. It should not be dismissed, nor should it be given the last word.”
M.J. Rosenberg of TPMCafe points to an Al Jazeera English video about the difficult choices U.S. soldiers face in delivering medical care to Afghan nationals. Finally, Doctors Without Borders lists Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen among its annual list of the year’s worst humanitarian crises.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Human Rights, Military, Taliban, US foreign policy, United Nations, Women | Comment »
Afghan: Cabinet Criticism
December 21st, 2009 by Zack
The Christian Science Monitor reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is defending his cabinet choices from criticism that appointees will do little to solve the country’s problems. Several of the new ministers have been accused of “wrongdoing, poor performance, and corrupt practices.” Despite these concerns, many Western governments have expressed guarded, but generally positive reactions to the choices. The choices still must gain parliamentary approval and Al-Arabiya writes that 23 of the 25 nominees will face an arduous approval process.
Nushin Arbabzadah discusses Karzai’s difficult position of balancing divergent U.S. and Afghan expectations. One major point of contention is that the Afghan people believe any minister who holds strong ties with the West, something the U.S. would prefer, will likely flee the country at the first sign of crisis. Ultimately, both groups are expecting too much, too soon.
In the ongoing military campaign, Jon Weiner argues that defenders of the war effort need to emphasize that the West has an obligation to the Afghan people to build a secular, civil society. NATO has reportedly devised a new strategy to pay Taliban-allied villages to switch sides as the U.S. ramps up its troop presence. Lastly, Daily Kos has an extensive blog post detailing the fact that even though the West continues to hang its hopes on new strategies to build the Afghan army, there is little expectation that Afghanistan will be able to maintain a cohesive, motivated military force.
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Military, Public Opinion, Taliban, US foreign policy | Comment »
