Hope Returns to Afghanistan in Landmark Presidential Election

By John Haltiwanger

Afghanistan, a nation marred by violence and poverty, has been given little cause for optimism in recent times.  This past weekend, however, hope returned to the hearts of the Afghan people as they came forth to cast their votes in the presidential election.  The election marks the first-ever democratic transfer of power for Afghanistan, making it an exceptionally historic event for a nation often defined by turmoil.

Despite concerns of fraud, threats of violence from the Taliban, and general intimidation, a record number came out on April 5th for the vote. According to the BBC, 7 million out of an estimated eligible 12 million voted in the election for the new president, making it an enormous and largely peaceful success for Afghanistan.  Accordingly, the election also displays the immense courage, integrity, and determination of the Afghan people.

The Taliban threatened to thwart the vote, pledging to attack the election and anyone involved with it, but it is apparent that they failed in this endeavor. Unfortunately, however, there were still reports of violence in the country on Saturday. According to the Kevin Sieff, “At least 23 people were killed on election day and the prior day, mostly soldiers and police officers, the government announced.” Additionally, eighty-nine Taliban militants were also killed, and 179 other fighters arrested.

Yet, there were no large-scale attacks in Kabul, and the day was decidedly more peaceful than many predicted.

In an exclusive interview, Sam Schneider, the English news editor for the Kabul based TOLOnews, stated:

The campaign season went pretty well, though a lot if it was theater rather than substantive. But in a country where just over 40% of people are literate, that’s not all that surprising. The main themes of the lead-up were definitely Taliban violence, government interference and voter fraud. There was a slue of attacks in the two weeks before the vote, with attacks on election officials, security personnel and journalists nearly everyday. Most expats were evacuated by their companies over election weekend, pretty much only journalists remained. Democracy International even pulled out the observers it was going to use. All of this contributed to an overwhelming gloomy outlook peddled in western media. But when Election Day came and went with less violence than most average days see, the build-up fell flat on its face and gave way to a ubiquitous sense of accomplishment and pride across the country.

In 2009, during the last presidential elections, the story was much different as there were widespread allegations that the election was rigged in favor of the incumbent, President Karzai.  Now, however, Karzai must step down as the constitution limits him to two terms.  Thus, this election is arguably more egalitarian and democratic.

Furthermore, as Helena Malikyar notes for Al Jazeera, “It will take a few days to know approximate numbers of voters and vote distributions and two weeks before Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission announces the final figures. But, many observers estimate that around 7 million eligible voters cast their ballots on April 5. That will make a turnout of close to 60 percent, while in 2009 about 4.5 million had voted.”  Hence, it is apparent that this election was a vast improvement from Afghanistan’s previous presidential election, and a huge step forward for the country.

However, there were still widespread concerns of fraud leading up this election, largely as a consequence of the nature of the election in 2009. As Emma Graham-Harrison notes for The Guardian, “After more than a decade under President Hamid Karzai, there have been widespread fears that the election would be sewn up in favour of a chosen successor, or that people disillusioned with corruption and mismanagement would stay away. In 2009 the vote that returned Karzai to power was marred by widespread fraud, with more than a million ballots thrown out.”

While these fears and concerns were well founded, it appears that the anti-fraud measures put in place for this election were largely successful. As Sam Schneider puts it:

Regarding the allegations of fraud, there was undoubtedly some ballot box stuffing and attempts by voters to use fraudulent voting cards or recycle ones that had already been used, but early reports from Afghan and non-Afghan observers have suggested that it was significantly less of an issue than it was in 2009… In the 2009 vote, Karzai still had sway over most local officials, which the constitution allows the president to directly appoint, which gave him an advantage in leveraging interference in his favor… The big question regarding fraud now is whether or not the ballot shortages that were seen all over the country surprising early in the day were related to ballot box stuffing or simply the fact that more people showed up to vote than expected… By the end of the day, there were thousands of people in provinces like Herat, Kabul and Balkh (which saw the highest turnout) that did not get to vote despite waiting in line because there were not ballots left for them.

It will take at least 6 weeks for the results to come in and a final result to be declared. Hence, as Schneider notes, “What matters most moving forward is how the vote counting process goes, and whether or not people see the result as being legitimate… The next few weeks and months are going to be just as important, and vulnerable, as the last few were.”

Afghanistan is nation with deep ethnic divisions, which will play a large role in the outcome of the election. It is notable that the two campaigns consistently leading in the pre-election polling have crossed ethnic lines to form their tickets. There are eight candidates in total, and in order to win one will have to score over 50 percent of the vote in order to avoid a run-off with his nearest rival.  Some are concerned that this could lead to violence in a country that desperately needs strong and stable leadership.  As Al Jazeera notes, “There are a number of efforts underway to prevent such crisis by bringing most, if not all, of the top candidates together under a form of a coalition government.”

The top three contenders are Ashraf Ghani, Zalmai Rassoul, and Abdullah Abdullah.  Ghani was the finance minister under Karzai, while Abdullah was Karzai’s foreign minister.  Abdullah also ran in 2009, but dropped out in protest over widespread voter fraud.

While Karzai has not formally endorsed Rassoul, it is widely argued that he is the establishment candidate.  Accordingly, Schneider notes:

I think a major sign of whether or not the vote was compromised, and meddled with by the Karzai administration, for example, will be how well Zalmai Rassoul does. Most experts recognize that he is not nearly as popular nationwide as Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, and surveys leading up to the vote support that view, but he was endorsed by Karzai’s brother, Qayoum, and is generally regarded as being the favored candidate of the palace. If he somehow manages to place second, or first, that would seem pretty fishy.

If there is no winner, a run-off election will occur on May 28 between the two front-runners.

One of the biggest concerns with this is that a delay could impact the completion of a pact between the US and Afghanistan that would keep up to 10,000 US troops in the country beyond 2014. In February, President Obama announced a complete withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by the end of the year, while simultaneously stating his preference for keeping residual forces in the country in order to prevent terrorists from gaining a foothold there.  Karzai refused to agree to this and his relationship with President Obama and the US has become quite strained recently, but the top three candidates have all pledged to sign it.

President Obama has congratulated Afghanistan for its election and has pledged to work closely with Karzai’s successor – whoever that may be.  The US military has been present in Afghanistan since 2001, in what has been the longest conflict in US history – the War in Afghanistan. Furthermore, Afghanistan has been a constant point of frustration for the Obama administration. Thus, it is not surprising that Obama and the US government are watching this election and its outcome closely.

The future of Afghanistan is still up in the air, but the world can congratulate it for holding a successful and peaceful election after 13 tumultuous years in which at least 16,000 Afghans have died.  Hopefully this positive trend will continue, and it is reassuring that the Afghan people seem determined to come together and regain control of the fate of their country.

 

About the author: John Haltiwanger is the Editor-in-Chief of One World, Many Voices – A Global Conversation. John is 25-years-old and grew up in the Washington DC area. He earned a BA in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland. In Dec. 2013, John completed an MSc in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. At present, John works as a Communications and Project Support Officer for the Scottish Global Forum, an independent research institute. John aims to research and write in the areas of international politics, human rights, social justice, defense and security, conflict resolution, and war and media studies. He enjoys traveling, writing, football (soccer), music, and film.

The Clash Within Civilizations And The Changing Dynamics In The War On Terror

By Will Follmer 

Over the past decade the “Clash of Civilizations” theory, which dominated the 90s and early 2000s, has largely been debunked and the present trend has moved towards a “Clash Within Civilizations”. What has essentially happened is that the world has become more multipolar than in the past, with regions throughout the world reaching a closer equilibrium with the West.  However, in many ways this has been to the West’s advantage, which is not surprising.

The old model was that different regions, and the developing world, were united as a counter balance to the West and which was necessary to reach a closer sense of a power balance. Regions often showed a strong sense of solidarity on global issues (although there were seeds of the internal regional conflicts even during that period, they are just intensifying).

As many regions are quickly becoming more influential on the global stage and Western powers are losing influence, there has been an increase in the emergence of regional hegemons and a jockeying for regional influence.  In southeast Asia, China is increasingly at odds with its neighbors, Russia is reasserting itself in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, Brazil and Mercosur are being challenged by the Pacific Alliance as a model for the future of the hemisphere, and within Africa South Africa’s traditional place as the giant of the hemisphere is being challenged by Nigeria and other fast growing states.

As the U.S. and a few other Western states still have the unmatched ability to project power throughout the globe (although less so presently relative to the past) regional actors who used to show solidarity against Western influence are increasingly looking to partner with Western powers (though on more equitable terms than in the past) in order to counter balance the regional hegemons. However, the West (especially the U.S.) benefits in that these emerging states are more able to better contribute to shared defense rather than relying heavily on U.S. resources.

As the West recovers economically and the emerging states begin their economic cool down, this pattern will likely continue. This will be more partnerships than vasselships than in the past.  This pattern is the most acute in Asia, and it is also apparent that in Africa countries that are more willing to bring in French aid than in the past.

What does this have to do with the War on Terror? A lot.  The West and Israel are no longer the central focus of the Jihadists, but are utilized for influence within the region and as part of an increasing proxy war between state actors.  Although they still remain primary antagonists in the narrative of the Jihadists, it is apparent that this relationship and the makeup of the Middle East has transformed.  The divides are between Shias and Sunnis, secular vs Islamists, different regions and even within former coalitions. The landscape of the War on Terror has completely changed, and has somewhat more intensified.  Thus, U.S. objectives are becoming more nebulous (shifting from an active to supporting role) and oddly aligned.

Al-Qaeda in AfPak, once the nerve center of the global movement, is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Although Al-Qaeda is seemingly bigger than ever, it is in fact only in name the same organization that became infamous following the events of 9/11. Different regions have increasingly asserted autonomy from the central organization, and as a result, are more focused on regional than global objectives. AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), which actually preceded AQ during the Algerian conflict, is focused far more on gaining stronger influence within post war Libya, fighting the Algerian government, and gaining a foothold in African regions. In Egypt, the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi, returned Egypt as a flashpoint for conflict between Islamist and secularists. AQ and other groups in the Arab Peninsula are trying to assert influence in the weak Yemen state, and have developed a stronger cliental relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council (though this has already been present) in order to use them as proxies for global influence.

The U.S.’s mission in AfPak has also weakened its attractiveness as a gathering point for Jihadists (though this might change after the withdraw though they will still be distant regional), and their leadership and major operators have a difficult time organizing within the region with the drone campaign making it a less attractive home for the region. 

The Taliban might become a renewed force in the region, however, they will most likely have little appetite for involvement in the global jihadist movement as regional influence is more important for them. Moreover, once the U.S. leaves they will have little desire to cause renewed U.S. attention in the region as they do not wish for a repeat of the 2011 invasion which was triggered by the presence of AQ’s and their involvement in 9/11.

Syria has of course been the largest catalyst for this changing dynamic and the centerpiece of the Jihadist movement. The West takes a back-burner role for these fighters, whose main targets are now Shia actors such as Hezbollah, Maliki, Assad, and Iran  

Even within the Sunni movements there is a new struggle for influence that is breaking out in open conflict. Al-Nusra (backed by the central AQ structure) and the ISIS (AQ recently threw them out) have turned against another, and it is not even clear how much influence the central AfPak leadership even has in their decision making.

As the objectives switch, so does the nature of Jihadist operations. Al-Qaeda no longer has terrorism has it main focus, it takes up only perhaps 5% of its current resources. Instead its focus has shifted to more conventional warfare and insurgent training. These tactics reflect a switch in adversaries. Against the West these sort of tactics are nearly completely ineffective as it has overwhelming military superiority against any open force, terrorism is there best chance to inflict damage. Against the Western states, there is no conceivable scenario in which they can hold territory or become a governing body, however, this opportunity is presenting itself in new autonomous regions.

Meanwhile the U.S. is also dealing with the shifting global landscape. It has gained new global priorities in Asia and Eastern Europe in which the environment makes their involvement more conducive and does not involve open conflict. With the change in the strategic objectives of the Jihadist movements there is less of a need for the U.S. to assert itself to protect the homeland and its allies, and it is not even clear what factions they should be fighting. The assertion of Russia’s influence southward and China’s westward makes it possible that in the near future they could become new targets for Jihadists, they are both more accessible due to proximity and have resistive Islamic populations. The U.S. is likely to and should provide counter-terrorism support even to rivals such as Russia and China, but it is less likely to take the same hands on role as it did in the last decade (especially as its energy interests are less dependent on the region and the public is war weary).

In conclusion, the clash between Islam and the West, the narrative (that in some ways was inaccurate before) of the last decade, has been replaced by an internal clash of state and non-state actors for regional influence in an increasingly multi-polar world.  Consequently, we will witness a constantly changing dynamic in the way the U.S. interacts with the globe in the coming years.  

 

About the author:

Will is a Graduate of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, Class of 2013.  He specializes in International Security & Economic Policy, and International Development.  Will has researched and written papers on international law and the use of force,  global economics and trade, international politics (with a focus on the Middle East and Turkey), U.S. bilateral and multi lateral security partnerships, policy making processes and human rights.

 

Image credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/War_on_Terror_montage1.png

A tale of two sisters: the hijab and the nose ring

Bollywood actress Sonam Kapoor, known for being fashion forward, wore a nose ring (“nathani”) as the only piece of jewelry at Cannes Film Festival in 2013—presumably both as a style statement and a declaration of her “Indian-ness”.

By Tanvi Misra 

Some women choose to wear the Islamic veil because it’s an expression of cultural identity rather than a symbol of patriarchy for them. It’s not exactly the same, but it’s quite similar to why I choose to wear a nose ring.

A lot of people, even South Asian women who have nose piercings, may not know the significance of a nose stud in Hinduism. A lot of people say it’s associated with goddess Parvati—the lady up there in charge of matrimony. Some apparently also believe that a piercing on the left side eases the pain of childbirth—something about it being linked to the reproductive organs.

Some women in India probably still do it for the above reasons; I don’t know any of them.

My friends and I got our noses pierced in high school. We did it because it was the safest form of rebellion for us—it wouldn’t alienate our teachers and parents because we could pass it off as traditional. But if we mixed it with western clothes, it felt like we were being subversive.

It seemed to be quite appropriate choice for our breed of post-colonial lost children with our Hinglish slang and Indo-western fashion trends. We were privileged enough to experience the “clash of civilizations” in our backyards, and we proudly wore the spoils.

For a lot of us girls especially, traditions were like hand-me-down clothes, we tried on what suited our personality and stuffed the rest at the back of a proverbial closet without knowing or caring about the context.

I myself have discarded several traditions without a second thought. The nose ring is not one of them because till today, it reminds me of my composite identity—of the peaceful coexistence of my Indian-ness and rebelliousness.

So when I look at Iranian hijabi women in this street fashion blog or that video showing American Muslimahs chilling to Jay-Z’s “SomewhereinAmerica,” I can relate.

I know the two aren’t the same, but there are undeniable parallels. They both have had a religious significance in a non-Western culture. They can both be viewed as endorsing historically patriarchal systems. They’re also both almost exclusively worn by women.

Now, to be clear, I don’t advocate being forced to wear a veil just like I’d really hate it if someone were running around forcibly piercing the noses of all South Asian girls. But I’d also be pretty annoyed if while working in London or France, some sort of self-righteous piercing police was trying to ban wearing nose rings in public.

What I do strongly advocate is that women be free to express themselves and their identities any way they choose—no matter where they are in the world, what their religion or skin color is.

For many of these women, the hijab is an association with the Muslim culture, customs or faith than with oppression and patriarchy. It exists in different avatars around the world, many of which are a part of the traditional dress of a region.

But the West has a hard time understanding it. Why would anyone wear it voluntarily? Because I wouldn’t, it might be easier for me to explain it away: they must be forced, and so the solution is to force them not to. I’m making so many assumptions about people in this case and offering a simplistic, logically flawed, solution. The actual reasons behind why women wear the hijab are much more complex and varied.

Laila Shaikley, one of the women behind the “Mipsters” (Muslim Hipsters) video, grew from an awkward, young skateboarder, to a trend-setting world-traveller. She worked with the organizations such as the UN and NASA, helped establish TEDxBaghdad and involved herself in social entrepreneurship around the world. In this article in The Atlantic, she talks about her decision to wear the hijab.

As I grew and changed, I faced one particular choice again and again: To represent my Muslim identity or to leave it for the easier world of religious anonymity.  I chose to maintain my relationship with hijab.

This was Layla’s choice, just as it is my choice to wear a nose ring—just as it’s my college roommate’s choice to not wear a traditional white wedding dress and accompanying veil at her wedding.

This roommate, a white woman from North Carolina, explained to me the reason behind her choice.

It’s a little to do with the white dress and veil combo reinforcing patriarchal systems, but mostly, she doesn’t like the idea of weddings being these over-the-top celebrations of Disney values that little girls fantasize about.

“I have no interest in feeling like a princess. So it is a little about patriarchy, but also just an expression of my values and personality, which relate to my personal identity,” she said.

Why she has decided not to wear the dress and veil combo, is why a lot of women in the West—a lot of them feminists—decide to wear it. It ties them to tradition perhaps, and it’s compatible with their personalities.

Traditions, customs and rituals are changing as cultural contexts are evolving. Any element of expression—be it a word of a few meters of cloth— needs to be seen in the context it is used.

 

About the author:

I’m a journalist. I am currently writing features for BBC’s online news magazine and trying to graduate from the Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. I hope to be a successful adult soon after—so I’d love it if you offered me a job. I got my Bachelor’s degree in political science and French from the University of Pennsylvania—my parents are still wondering why. I am originally from New Delhi, India. One day, I will travel all over the world and do great things. But for now, I okay with wasting my time on the Internet while eating cheese. I used to be a dancer, but now I like to run—usually away from things. The last book I read was Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and it made me cry. At the moment, I am listening to a Modern Lovers album and pretending I don’t care about what you think.

Follow me on Twitter @Tanvim because then I’ll have more followers and that is good for my self-esteem.

Martin Schulz Causes Uproar At The Knesset In Israel…

By Sina Stieding

Today the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, spoke at the Knesset in Israel and incidentally caused for Israeli delegates to raise their voices and storm out of the building. Benjamin Netanyahu refused to applaud his visitor. A German guy in the Knesset criticizing Israel? Inconceivable. Now, I can see why some people think that the Knesset might not be the perfect stage for a German to criticize Israel in any way, shape, or form but I cannot help but get upset about how Schulz is apparently under fire for his remarks. By who? Israel? I can live with that. In fact I believe it is virtually impossible to endorse ideologies of peace and not come under fire by Israel. I would like to make these statements as a European and not a German citizen because I have always felt I don’t have a voice when it comes to this topic. As this article suggests, I have a problem with not having a voice…

This isn’t the first time this has happened to Martin Schulz, which happens to be one of my favorite things about him. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him before and if he won’t be too tangled up in this I’m set to see him on Saturday – which I’m very excited about. In Germany, we’re spoiled with political correctness and order. The speeches of his that I have been lucky enough to attend were free from attacks. However, an éclat like this is very natural to me in a place that was designed to have people from all ends of the spectrum meet for debate. In fact, entering the Knesset 9 out of 10 people who are not Israeli citizens would be of a different opinion than the delegates in there. If any of these 9 would speak their mind I am 100% sure people would walk as well. If I personally had spoken my mind I’m not even sure Mr Netanyahu would have stayed seated. Schulz spoke his mind, voiced what most of us think, and had Naftali Bennett shouting at him. But the man’s used to it: he has previously been in the media for causing turmoil with MPs and Silvio Berlusconi, of all people. Also, the guy is the boss at the European Parliament where this stuff happens all the time, I have seen it with my own eyes. Everyday business for Aachen’s finest.

Criticizing the Israeli settlements is not Anti-Semitism especially when one, like Schulz, precedes the criticism with twenty minutes of expressing regret over the Holocaust and your humility to be allowed to speak in German. And even if you don’t do these things, like I did, it shouldn’t be offensive to a world religion. It might not have been the smartest move to quote a Palestinian child from Ramallah that asked him why Israelis were allowed 70 liters of water a day, and themselves only 17. He did express he wasn’t sure about the numbers as there is evidently no way to be but looking at some of the inequality that I have witnessed in between Jerusalem and Ramallah in person I don’t have a hard time believing this number is true although I, as well, have no way to be sure. What I saw was a fence with a mansion on one side and a decrepit house on the other. What I saw was an extortionate Falafel in Jerusalem and a large pizza for two dollars in Ramallah. What I didn’t see was any rubbish in Jerusalem’s streets but plenty of it on Ramallah’s. If seeing this makes me an anti-Semite I will have to admit it. But I’m not.

I am very sick of not being allowed an opinion on this because I’m German. I have never said anything anti-Semitic because I am not and would have no reason to. If anything, I have a lack of touch with Jews because I grew up without knowing any as naturally Germany isn’t their favorite spot in the world. However, I can only speak for my personal experience, and that was constantly being told that the horrors that happened in the 1930s and 40s are our fault as the German people. I grew up believing that we owe everything to the Jewish people. Support in everything they do would naturally be included in that. However, I am not turning against the religion of Judaism or denying the horrors of the Holocaust when I criticize some of the behavior displayed by the Israeli government. Some of it is simply not right. I am saying all this as a human being, not a German. Martin Schulz did his job and was my voice at the Knesset.

Naftali Bennett saying he won’t take such abuse in the language that was used to force his grandparents on a train to a concentration camp forgets that it was not Martin Schulz who did this. And it wasn’t me either. Germany is not letting go of blaming themselves yet, and clearly Israel is not over blaming us. However, I strive to focus on the present, and not the past. As Schulz said, reconciliation is necessary for peace. Israel is dwelling in the past, which is no doubt a horrific one but they are using it to draw attention away from wrongs they’re committing themselves today. The European criticism of Israel targets the present though. And whether the Knesset is the right place for it or not, those words need to be spoken. And whether a German is the right one to say them or not, that fact won’t change.

Sina Stieding is a graduate of the University of Glasgow (2013) with an MRes in International Relations.  She is originally from Germany and currently lives there.  If you liked this article check out her blog, where she writes on various social and political topics:  http://sstieding.blogspot.co.uk/