Dear Mr. Barack Hussein Obama,

We, members of the “Afghanistan’s Students Movement” congratulate you for your success in the Presidential elections of the United States of America, which we consider a sign for a better future. Your presence in the political arena of the world will rearrange many political equations and will create a different system that we hope can bring about the opportunity for global peace. We are optimistic that you, not only as an aware political organizer, but also as a charismatic and wise leader, will be the initiator of another generation of powerful leaders committed to human values that the world has been waiting for.

Let us admit this honestly: We have all lost hope. The flame of hope that had been lightened in our hearts after year 2001 in Afghanistan has been transformed to a blind knot of doubt and darkness due to the misleading policies and political disability in Afghanistan. The hope and will to live has decreased in last six years while terrorism and drug production has increased. The highest rates of mother and infant mortality are in Afghanistan, (MMR 6500 in Badakhshan). For every four kids, one dies before reaching age five. (Afghanistan Human Development report 2007 p.27).

Poverty, social disorder, kidnapping, violence against women and children and many of other problems have struck the heart of society in Afghanistan. We think that your attention and focus in Afghanistan should shift from the Taliban’s terrorism to Afghanistan’s society. Our society is in such a painful and deteriorating situation that it has inevitably become a cradle for terrorism and fundamentalism. We should not forget that Afghanistan has been a victim of the West’s struggle against communism, a struggle that continued for two decades with the resistance of people of Afghanistan and saved the countries in region and world, a resistance that left nothing for Afghanistan’s people but a malfunctioning social system, more than two million dead, five million emigrants, three illiterate generations, fundamentalism and wide poppy fields.

We have no doubt that the neglect by the international community and USA after the departure of Soviet forces, and the fall of the Communist state led to civil war and then emergence of Taliban in Afghanistan. This neglect provided an opportunity for development of the most dangerous and darkest fundamentalist regime on the globe in Afghanistan in less then seven years.

The attention of the international community and especially the United States should shift to Afghanistan’s society. A society that is sick and on the brink of death can only be saved by a well thought out and efficient method and a collaborative international effort. Fundraising and providing loans alone can not prevent a crisis; there is a need for coordinating the country’s political direction. We believe that if the future leader of the USA continues the mistakes of George W. Bush, and fights the world with the ideological simplification of good and evil, we will soon witness the fall of Afghanistan’s government which is a symbol of global governance and influence, and the sad result will be that an unforgivable and irreversible catastrophe will shadow the region
and the world.

You must know that although branches of terrorism are in Afghanistan, its roots are in the depths of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia and the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. The free tribal regions in Pakistan can be a safe shelter for development of fundamentalist power equipped with nuclear armament in near future. The future US administration should also know that the Taliban had reasonable opportunities in the last seven years that, intentionally or not, were provided for them by the West and the Government of Afghanistan. The Taliban that the USA will be fighting in 2009 are not the Taliban of 2001. The empowered Taliban now have modern armaments, know the tactics of organized war, and have a budget, financial power, and more support in the region. The Taliban are now more organized and have attracted many local militia groups. Experience shows that negotiation and power-sharing with the Taliban will not change the situation, but will help the injured snake of Taliban fundamentalism become a seven headed dragon.

We believe that the contradiction between the structure and essence of government has led to political failure in Afghanistan. The structure of Afghanistan’s government contradicts its nature. The government has a modern and democratic structure, but a tribal and traditional essence. This hypocritical incompatibility has caused increasing political and economic corruption and has led to destruction of society. The tribal structure of government has led to rechanneling the American reconstruction aid to the Taliban’s terrorism. This structure has allowed for the presence of heads of political parties, members of Taliban, Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami (Islamic Party), and ex-communists in parliament, government and smaller branches of power. In fact, these people are the main decision makers in the political process of country.

Most of the members of the parliament do not have the least legal literacy and have come to power through a process that has a legitimate cover (elections), but is in nature undemocratic. Decision makers in provincial councils, parliament and cabinet are representatives of ethnic and linguistic divisions and interests of leaders of various factions. The procedure for election and functions of Senate (Upper House) are similar to that of an ethnic Jirga. The members of provincial councils, Parliament and cabinet have come to power depending on support of ethnic and linguistic fractions and are not committed to formation of a stable, sustainable and encompassing national value system.

The concept and position of political parties is ambiguous and vague in Afghanistan’s power structure, and the leaders of parties in the government use the opportunities and public resources for strengthening their parties. The leaders of parties like the Afghan Millat Party, the Republican Party, the Wahdat (Unity) Party, and a few other parties have seats in important government branches from the ministries to the presidential office and this has created a conflict of interests and inefficiency within the power structure. Decision making and effective action at a national level requires cooperation between different government organs, but with the current state of power imbalance, coordination and cooperation is almost impossible. Each party tries to please its own supporters and its loyal sub-groups and this has led to increasing corruption and has created obstacles for reconstruction. Without an efficient and implementable reconstruction program, poverty and the reach of fundamentalism will expand and increase.

In addition, the modern state with a free market economy, which was a direct suggestion of President George W. Bush for Afghanistan, has led to poverty and increasing class disparity. The current economic model in Afghanistan has created a breeding ground for economic mafia. All the governmental (public) sectors and national mines and resources of Afghanistan have been handed over to private companies that are managed by a network of corrupt politicians and politically influential business owners. We believe that the information that is given to you from the official sources of Afghanistan’s government and even their partners in power (The National United Front) is usually incorrect and misleading and is packaged to create a vague and unreal optimism. In fact, the international community has not been able to create the most primary form of stable and influential government in Afghanistan despite a huge expenditure of aid. Each election carries the risk of a coup.

Complicating matters, a misleading image of the situation in order to justify the Western “war against terrorism” and the expenditure of billions of dollars. The military budget of the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, derived from the taxes of American citizens, and which was supposed to bring security, health and prosperity for Afghanistan’s women and children has instead provided the Taliban with modern armaments that kill dozens of innocent people everyday. We are certain that Afghanistan’s problems will not be solved only with militarism and sending more troops. With the current state of affairs, this plan is far more certain to worsen the situation.

Our suggestions:

1 - Change in political structure: Ratification of the presidential system in constitutional Loya Jirga in 2003 prevented formation of a strong central government with the natural participation of all ethnic groups. By suggesting another convention of Loya Jirga, you can create an atmosphere of trust and ensure the presence of all ethnic groups in the Afghan government and a shift from a presidential system to a parliamentarian system. That will allow all Afghanistan’s citizens to feel equal belonging and responsibility to the political system of the country for the first time. This will also create the opportunity for abolition of ethnic quota that only benefits the former Jihad leaders. It will allow people from all different ethnicities to participate freely and equally.

2 - The parliamentarian government and federal system has proved efficient in Iraq. Participation of all ethnic groups and parties in the federal system has ensured the rights of minority groups and their participation in formation of a stable system. You should also suggest the federal system for Afghanistan. Five zones of Afghanistan can be five independent states which will help formation of strong local economies, and the non-concentrated political system can be more coordinated and efficient. In Afghanistan, formation of a concentrated powerful government system is very difficult due to its geography and limited resource. The almost homogenous
ethnic, linguistic and religious population of each state (zone) can prevent conflicts.

3 - Strengthening civil society: We believe the situation could be improved dramatically by decreasing the military budget and investing more in the social sector. There is no doubt that this shift will have a more positive influence, be an easier strategy, and will result in quick and long lasting outcomes for ensuring peace and stable society in Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs social change and this is only possible by strengthening civil organizations, not by increasing the military force.

4 - Stabilizing the issues related to political geography of Afghanistan. The 2700 Kilometer southern border of Afghanistan with the free tribal regions of Pakistan has helped terrorism to have a continuous movement in the region.

5 - Be firm with the Taliban. The US and international community’s soft policies against Taliban has led to strengthening fundamentalism in the region, and especially in Pakistan, and will continue to do so. The possibility of terrorists’ access to nuclear armament does not seem far away anymore.

6 - The bureaucratic system in the country is still run in the communist style and is inflated. It needs to be reduced, and there needs to be a move towards more regulation and transparency.

7 - The economic system should shift from the uncontrolled free market economy. Formation of monitoring governmental bodies can prevent waste of national resources. A mixed economy system is the best option and economic model for a country that does not have anything. In the current situation, the government and ministries have given over their responsibility to private sector that has weakened public services’ ability to serve the poor.

8 - Any big aid package to Afghanistan’s government should be conditioned on lack of corruption. Corruption is one of the biggest reasons for discontent among Afghanistan’s population. Request transparency and just and equal distribution of aid. The unjust distribution of international aid has led to estrangement of different groups of Afghanistan’s population from government and the international community. This critical issue, if not remedied, could, in the long term, further encourage people of these regions to support armed opposition of government.

Mr. President, we have hope that you will not let humanity be disregarded in Afghanistan.

In Solidarity and Cooperation,
Afghanistan’s Students’ Movement - The overseas office

13.02.2009
Shaharzad Akbar
BA student (senior year)
Anthropology and Development
Smith College in Northampton, Massachusett
Email: shaharzadakbar[at]yahoo.com

Sayed Asef Hossaini
MA Student
Erfurt School of Public Policy
Germany
Email: s_asefhosaini[at]yahoo.com

“Madame Clinton is a good friend of Afghanistan, a close friend of ours,” Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta said. “But if somebody believes that our government, the government of President (Hamid) Karzai is involved as a government entity in the production of drugs, this is absolutely wrong.”

Clinton also descibed the Afghan government as highly “corrupt,” which did not charm her Afghan counterpart either.

The real problem, Spanta told the Associated Press, is that the Afghan government is not in control of Helmand province. This province is one of the most violent of the country. The Taliban are still strong in Helmand where they encourage farmers to produce opium. Part of the opium money is used by the Taliban to buy weapons and influence.

“The main production center of drugs is Helmand, and we are not in charge. Helmand (is) not under control of my government,” Spanta said. “If the international community is serious about fighting drug production and drug trafficking, they have to bring Helmand under our control.”

He added that Kabul only controls the province’s capital and some “islands” of territory around the rest of the region.

There are two sides to Clinton’s remarks; firstly, Afghanistan is a narco-state because the far majority of the world’s opium is produced in this war-torn country. Secondly, the other side of the story is that the Afghan government is no promoting opium production. It has in the past been willing to destroy opium farms but it simply lacks the strength and means to a sizeable part of the country’s opium farms.

Clinton and Spanta should both also keep in mind that opium is the only product farmers in Afghanistan can grow and make a profit. The country is nearly unfriendly to human life. Farmers are not growing poppy because they want to but because they have no alternative.

Rather than destroying these farms and taking their livelihood away from Afghan farmers, Kabul and Washington have to use Afghanistan’s opium for medical purposes. World opium and medicine organizations and businesses have long complained that they cannot get their hands on enough opium for medicinal purposes. Using Afghanistan’s opium for these purposes would help the world and Afghanistan itself.

Lastly, although Afghanistan is the world’s number one opium producing country, Clinton should express herself more carefully. She is no longer campaigning; she will be America’s secretary of state, which means that she will have to improve the country’s relationship with enemies and friends. Insulting them is not helpful.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Dear Kay,

You are right to mull it over. There are big issues to be addressed, from celebrity to Afghanistan not to speak of the recession. But not immediately. I had a shock about 36 hours afterwards. I'd known - I'd put it as strongly as that - since January that Barack Obama could win and that in his case his race would not prevent this. I suppose I must have been too confident that he would. It was only afterwards that I suddenly saw how close it was. Obama needed Lehman Brothers to turn all the "palling around with terrorists" junk into froth.

One American in three did not vote at all! Most Americans did not vote for Obama. He got 66 million to McCain's 58 million votes. Nearly a quarter of the US's 300 million plus population are under 18, still leaving over 230 million of which less than 130 million voted. Obama got the actual votes of barely more than one in four American adults. He and his supporters must do something about the extent of what remains, in effect, a form of disenfanchisement in the USA.

read more

There was an assumption running throughout most of the discussion that Barack Obama will win, however Moazzam Begg (ex-Guantanamo detainee) said, "surely, whether it's Obama or McCain, things can only get better".

Despite flashes of high praise for Barack Obama ("Let's recognise that Obama will be far and away the most intelligent President in thirty, maybe forty, years") there was an air of scepticism, both generally ("I don't think problems are solved by leaders no matter how good they are") and specifically - regarding his foreign policy.

Jonathan Steele summed it up, saying, "Barack Obama made a principled objection to the war - it's true that he has made concessions on that stance since becoming a candidate but I think that he does want to get out of Iraq with some kind of dignity." He then went on to criticise Obama's pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq within sixteen months of attaining office as only referring to combat troops. A large number of troops would remain to train Iraqi troops (Steele points out that UK forces are doing this already, and that it doesn't have to be undertaken within the country) and defend the embassy (one of the largest in the world). There is also the problem that all of the troops taken out of Iraq would be sent to Afghanistan, and that Obama could send some into Pakistan. There was further criticism that "he still seems to be talking about a military solution not a political one."

The general consensus was unremarkable in concluding that an Obama victory would be the best thing for Iran, herald some change in Iraq, while raising major concerns about the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

read more

Al-Masri was Al Qaeda’s chief of propaganda. He was born in Egypt but worked for the terrorist organization in Iran, until the moved to Pakistan’s tribal area in 2005 or 2006.

He was killed yesterday when he was on the move with two fellow Al Qaeda members. A U.S. drone fired missiles at the truck the three men were traveling in, all were killed.

The US State Department’s Rewards for Justice website explained that al-Masri “is in charge of Al-Qaeda media and propaganda. He may also be the chief of external operations for Al-Qaeda.”

The U.S. considered al-Masri a prime target, putting a $1 million bounty on his head.

“The strike was aimed at a vehicle carrying Abu Jihad and two others. The target was successfully hit and all three people were killed,” a senior Pakistani security official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

It is the umptiest time in only a few weeks time that the U.S. has acted against terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and even Syria in recent weeks. One gets the distinct impression that the U.S. is stepping up its attacks against Al Qaeda, so shortly before the elections and before a new president takes office.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Current's Collective Journalism came up with The View from Over There, in which Americans travelled around the world asking people about America's standing in the world:

The team travelled to 14 countries, where they listened to people who shared their views on what they think of America. According to Current:

Has America's image been tarnished by the last eight years? Democrats seem to think so, and increasingly so do some Republicans. Collective Journalism contributors around the world work to gauge America's image abroad, as US policymakers struggle to maintain positive feeling in spite of ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In response to this post, Amber-Doll2011 writes:

Luckily they aren't the one's voting for our President. Anyhow, you notice that most middle-eastern people would vote for Obama, or the one's who haven't done much research want him. But anyway, America is the one who'll vote, and we'll just see how our reputation will look after either one of them take office. I'm sure we'll hate the President then too because we care too much about what others think. We just need to get over ourselves. Haha.

Steev disagrees, saying:

Maybe everyone in the world should get to vote for the U.S. president. Since the U.S. pretty much runs the world, perhaps they should all get a say. Otherwise it's really an empire, not a democracy, no?

For more reactions, click here.

PBS‘ Frontline World is also carrying an election special entitled: The World in Watching.

This article, for instance, sheds light on how Mexicans view the election:

Mexicans are watching the U.S. presidential race, with polls showing a split along socio-economic lines that mirrors that of Mexican society itself. But the vast majority of Mexicans surveyed recently say they support the Democratic Party, with many saying initially preferred Hillary Clinton as the nominee. But the same polls say Barack Obama now enjoys tremendous support in Mexico.

More coverage can be found here.

From Kazakhstan, Zhuldyz Jumadilova wants Americans to think more about international issues, like the war on Iraq and the war on terror. She explains:

I think American people are concentrating on their local problems, local issues, and sometimes maybe they don't think more about international problems. I think if the American people think about international problems in the elections of 2004, George W Bush would not be (in that) presidential election.

From Italy, this man shares similar sentiments. He says:

One thing I'd like you to think about while casting your vote is to bear in mind that the person you're going to vote for is going to represent the most power country all over the world. He is going to decide on very important issues on the international policies. Your last administration, in my point of view, was quite unfortunate from the point of view of international relations since they managed to create a real mess in the Middle East.

For more of his views, check out the video:

This young woman, from Mumbai, India, urges American votes to elect someone who is not into “interfering in other countries business.” Here's what she says:

Dr Abdulla Abdulla, from Afghanistan, says the US needs to take a democratic approach towards dealing with global issues, rather than being a lone wolf on the world scene.

And finally, Seung-Min Lee, from South Korea, hopes the US “will be able to help North Korea come out to the world.”

He also says:

I have been paying attention to the US election in the media because any change in the US affects Korean society, directly or indirectly.

Here's his video message:

The girl comes from a poor, single-parent home in Afghanistan, and was adopted by another family that forced her to marry at the age of 13.

Mohammad Atahee, her husband, is a 37-year old lawyer. The U.S. government does not, and rightfully so, recognize the marriage.

‘Atahee and three of the family’s members were already living in the south Seattle suburbs when the girl’s adoptive mother, Nasima Yousuf, 70, brought her from Afghanistan in 2006, as part of what prosecutors say was a plot to enslave her. Yousuf’s husband, Mohammad, 84, had filed an immigration petition to bring the girl to the U.S., claiming his wife was her biological mother,’ CNN explained on Saturday.

One hopes that U.S. prosecutors will do everything in their power to punish those involved as harshly as possible. The behavior is, of course, utterly unacceptable. The only way for Western countries to prevent other immigrants from following the same course is by showing that such behavior will not be tolerated; accept American laws or be prepared to serve decades in jail.

Europe made the mistake to deal with these issues as ‘cultural differences,’ of no to little consequence. They are not; they are major cultural differences, moral differences and, more importantly, the law is the law. People may live differently in other parts of the world but when they come to the West, they should change. And rapidly so. If they do not, punish them more severely than they ever expected.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Jude Kenan was arrested in the Charsadda district of the Mohmand Agency in North Waziristan, said Pakistan Police Station House Officer Qayum Khan.

Kenan was arrested when he tried to leave the tribal area.

Authorities said Kenan had a camera, laptop and dagger with him when he was arrested. When asked about his purpose in the tribal region, Kenan said he was there to meet one “Habibullah.”

Habibullah was the name of an Afghan militant who died in U.S. custody in 2002. The name also has a religious meaning: it means “God’s beloved” or “God’s favorite” in Arabic, giving one the impression that Kenan may very well be a convert to Islam, who traveled the tribal region to join forces with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Pakistani authorities refuse to give details about the interrogations, however, meaning one should be cautious and not jump to conclusions. He could also be a student with an exaggerated taste for adventure, or a wannabe journalist.

©2008 PoliGazette . All Rights Reserved.

In a motion made to U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade earlier this month, the Bush administration asked that Mazon be denied the right to argue the most fundamental issues driving alleged corruption in the handling of war-related contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mazon is a victim of the corruption and Halliburton’s drive for greed. But Halliburton is attached at the hip to President Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney, the architect of the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is the former CEO of Halliburton.

But many believe that once out of office in January, Cheney will return to head the company which is currently based in Houston but is moving its corporate headquarters to the United Arab Emirates, which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

It is ironic that Cheney’s company is willing to move to Dubai in the UAE, but Bush and Cheney were unwilling to allow Dubai to handle the security of American ports. It’s a great example of the hypocrisy that embraces the Bush administration’s misguided war and confirms suspicions the administration’s foreign policy are based mainly on greed.

And that’s why Mazon’s trial is so important.

The Bush administration has asked in a “Motion in Limine” made Sept. 2, 2008, that Mazon be denied the right to argue the following in this second trial:

- the defendant is being made a scapegoat by KBR, his former employer, and Halliburton Co., KBR’s former parent company, in connection with the charges against him;

- Halliburton, KBR and its executives and managers have framed the defendant or otherwise caused the government to improperly charge him;

- the government has acted in concert with Halliburton and KBR in order to improperly charge Mazon; and d) improper conduct by Halliburton and KBR in their handling of government contracts should exculpate the defendant.

The Bush administration filed this motion because Mazon sought to subpoena Halliburton’s CEO David Lesar. This motion is normally used to prohibit the submission of evidence that might hurt the defense, not the prosecution.

The government argued the issues would “confuse” the jury. But the truth is, the jury was confused by the charge. Mazon’s attorneys argued successfully that the alleged inflation of the contract Mazon controlled was in fact a simple miscalculation involving the conversion of U.S. Dollars into Kuwait Dinars.

This conversion problem has plagued many of the war related contracts. There are about 3.3 Kuwait Dinars for every dollar. When converted, the $1.6 million contract was about 5.5 Kuwait Dinars, except it was listed as $5.5 million “U.S. Dollars.”

Mazon beat the first attempt to convict him when a majority of jurors rejected the government’s argument in a trial that took place in April of this year. The jury was deadlocked.

The Bush administration will try a second time, moving the trial from Rock Island to Peoria. Apparently, the government believed Mazon’s foreign heritage – he is Ecuadorian – and his association with Arab contractors in the Middle East, would make him unsympathetic to the region’s Bible-belt constituency jury pool.

Trying Mazon in Rock Island was also an apparent attempt to take the case out of the scrutiny of the national media. It could have been tried in Washington D.C. insuring high profile media coverage.

But high profile media coverage would have refocused the issues from the weak case against Mazon to the bigger issues of Cheney, the culture of corruption that plagues Halliburton and the corruption that is the foundation of the Iraq War itself.

The Peoria trial, which begins this week, places the trial on a higher public plain. But the government had no choice after losing the first trial. The federal judge in the case, U.S. Justice Joe Billy McDade, is from Peoria and had to drive to and from Rock Island during the first trial. This second trial is convenient to McDade.

The Bush administration knows that if the second trial becomes a referendum on their failed policies in Iraq, the next jury might not deadlock. They might vote to acquit Mazon. A fair jury can conclude Mazon is being persecuted, not prosecuted, to protect Halliburton and Cheney.

Since the charges were first filed against Mazon five years ago, public attitudes about the failed war in Iraq have changed dramatically from blind support to open challenge. The public knows that Bush and Cheney, Halliburton’s former CEO, lied and misled Americans into supporting the Iraq invasion.

Why wouldn’t they also lie to protect Halliburton?

How are they protecting Halliburton? Well, if any other corporation with no national political clout had a similar track record of corruption and mismanagement and suspicions of price gouging, their contract would have been revoked within the first few convictions.

Despite 36 war related corruption convictions, Halliburton continues to enjoy a near exclusive headlock on hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.

(Ray Hanania is a Chicago-based columnist and radio talk show host. He can be reached at rayhanania@comcast.net.)

According to the U.S. military, Pakistani soldiers opened fire at two U.S. helicopters that crossed the border in order to strike against the Taliban and Al Qaeda hiding in Pakistan’s tribal region.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.