The demonstration election held in Afghanistan turned out to be a total farce, Around the world people are asking how the regime of Hamid Karzai could have any legitimacy. Our political leaders, the military and the mainstream media say the low turnout of 35% was due to the threat of the Taliban insurgency. But it was no higher in Kabul. For the majority of the Afghan people, the political structure created by the U.S. government and its allies has never had legitimacy. From the time of the occupation of Afghanistan in October 2001 all major political decisions have been made by the U.S. government, and the people of Afghanistan have had very little influence. Above: Afghan soldiers unload ballot boxes. Photo by Thomas Dow.
Establishing the new government
Before the November 2001 first meeting at Bonn five broad based democratic parties asked for representation. The U.S. government said no. The majority of those selected to attend the meeting at Bonn wanted the return of the constitutional monarchy with its parliamentary government. The U.S. government said no.
When it came to choosing an interim president, these representatives overwhelmingly chose Abdul Satar Sirat. The U.S. government said no. It had to be Hamid Karzai, who had received no votes. At the June 2002 Emergency Loya Jirga, 60% of the delegates signed a petition calling for the restoration of King Zahir Shah and the democratic system of constitutional government that had been created in 1964. The U.S. government said no. The Afghan people wanted all war criminals, war lords and drug lords banned from the political process. The U.S. government said no. From the beginning they have held high places in Karzai’s government; they dominate the parliament. The U. S. government, its NATO allies and the administrative arm of the United Nations drafted the new constitution with its powerful president and centralized state. The general public was never allowed to see or debate the proposal. At the Constitutional Loya Jirga in December 2003 there was strong opposition to the draft, and 48 percent of the delegates walked out in protest. With no vote taken, Interim President Karzai declared the constitution had been adopted “unanimously.” Afghan political parties petitioned for an electoral system based on proportional representation. The U.S. government said no. In the subsequent elections of 2004, 2005 and 2009 the U.S. government vetoed the participation by all political parties. They preferred elections dominated by ethnic alliances. Throughout all this process our Liberal and Conservative governments stood behind the U.S. government. Ready, aye, ready. The leadership of the NDP tagged along. U.S. geopolitical goals in Central Asia How can we make any sense out of this? The U.S. government officially became involved in Afghanistan in July 1978 when President Jimmy Carter signed a National Security Council directive to give full military and economic support to the armed rebellion of the radical Islamists against the leftist PDPA regime. This was before the Soviet government agreed to send military forces. Overall policy was formalized in the Carter Declaration of January 1980 which proclaimed that the U.S. government would use all means at its disposal, including military force, to defend its access to oil reserves in the Middle East, one of its “vital interests.” In 1991 the U.S. government, following the recommendation from its advisors, the American Petroleum Institute, declared that this policy included the control of the oil and gas resources in the region of the Caspian Sea. Thus President Barrack Obama is in a tough spot. He and the Congressional Democrats declared the war in Afghanistan to be the “good war.” But the people of the United States are growing weary of war and its costs. The armed resistance to the NATO occupation is growing. While the Afghan people detest and fear the Taliban, recent polls show that a strong majority want a negotiated settlement to the war. George W. Bush’s administration promised that there would be no Vietnam-type quagmire in Afghanistan. The Shanghai Co-operation Organization, led by China and Russia, has formally proposed to NATO that a regional conference he held to settle the war and rebuild the country. This is the logical option. But for President Obama and the Democrats, this would mean surrendering long term U.S. geopolitical goals in Central Asia.
John W. Warnock is retired from teaching political economy and sociology at the University of Regina and is author of Creating a Failed State: The US and Canada in Afghanistan. (Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2008).
NOTE: I submitted a slightly shorter version of this piece to the Leader Post. In the past they have always printed my guest editorials, around three per year. However I was informed that under the new CanWest policy, they would now only focus on provincial and municipal issues in guest editorials.
There are very few outlets for non-mainstream views in the Regina and Saskatchewan media. That is why it is so important for all of you readers to demonstrate that not everyone in this province agrees with the world as seen by big business. Get to your computers and write some material for Act Up. We need you!
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
