UN is celebrating peace day:

I just saw some correspondence from UN office in Afghanistan, they are trying to encourage Afghan media to celebrate peace day. The UN’s motto is “what are you doing for peace” in a few posts I will try to see how much UN has done for peace in Afghanistan. I believe the UN has been the biggest threat to Afghan peace and it hasn’t done enough to ensure peace or even when it has intervened, UN middling has been total political and resulted in worsening the situation.

 

UN and the Soviet Invasion:

 

In 1979 Soviet troops intervened to assist the Afghani leaders and his faltering dictatorship in the regime’s struggle against rebel forces, which was comprised of the Mujahideen, a rebel force consisting of domestic and foreign Islamic extremists. The USA, motivated by the desire to prevent the expansion of the Soviet Union, became

involved with other regional states, particularly Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to support the resistance. Pakistan possessed the strategic position and intelligence capabilities to channel military resources; Saudi Arabia was willing to provide a large source of funding for the rebellion. As a result, the Mujahideen forces, which were essentially a group of diverse warlords lacking any cohesive element beyond a common enemy, became a substantial force, armed by foreign countries. While each of the USA.s regional allies argued for supporting a different Mujahideen warlord, or group of warlords, the USA preferred a strategy that spread the military resources between several groups to ensure a wider distribution of military aid and therefore more opposition. The Americans then used their influence to enforce this strategy, and so instead of arming a smaller group of cohesive warlords to form the main opposition, a larger, more varied group of warlords each received a smaller amount of military aid. This caused three results that would have a future impact on Afghanistan. First, the simultaneous, rapid, and large-scale arming of opposing forces brought a major portion of the population under arms in the 1980s. A second result was that while enough weapons were being shipped into the country to arm the majority of individuals, monetary finances were spread between too many factions. then, the warlords developed alternative methods of financing their campaign, such as drug trafficking and predatory tactics on civilians. Third, because the arms were being shipped to all of the warlords equally, no one group possessed the capabilities to overthrow the government. This prolonged of the conflict since when the Mujahideen coalition began to falter, no one element was strong enough to defeat the government, even though the general war continued due to the overall strength of the Mujahideen.

 

can terrorists join the war on terror

The United Nations drew a list of international terrorist in 1999, the list included high ranking Taliban official, from top leadership to deputy minister level, as well as their international collaborators of alqaida group. The list included slightly under 500 Afghan Taliban. The Afghan government and international community is looking for a large number of people on the list but at least 19 Taliban officials have reconciled with Karzai's government and some holds government offices. The list is attached. The UN Security Council has been slow to adjust to the changing political realities in Afghanistan.

 

Abdul Hakim Monib, the governor of Afghanistan's Uruzgan province, has drawn praise from U.S. military commanders as a partner in the battle against global terrorism, lending crucial political support for international relief and reconstruction projects in territory contested by Taliban insurgents. But Monib, who served as deputy minister of frontier affairs in the prior Taliban government, is also on a U.N. list of suspected international terrorists, and Russia has repeatedly blocked U.S. and NATO efforts to take him off it. Monib's case underscores how U.S.-sponsored sanctions in the United Nations can backfire, placing American and NATO commanders in Afghanistan in the awkward position of potentially violating U.N. resolutions by funding programs that benefit Monib. "We try to engage almost all the governors and elected officials, even if they have somewhat undesirable backgrounds," said Col. John Thomas, a U.S. spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. There are some "reformed Taliban in the government that are quite helpful."

The U.N. Security Council first imposed sanctions on the Taliban in October 1999 for providing a safe haven to Osama bin Laden and for refusing to surrender him to face trial in New York for masterminding the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. Monib and more than 100 other Taliban leaders were placed on a sanctions list in January 2001, a year before he broke ranks with the Islamic movement and joined forces with Hamid Karzai, the Washington-backed president of Afghanistan. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States ushered through resolutions that expanded the list of sanctioned people to suspected al-Qaeda members. The measures included a travel ban, an arms embargo and a prohibition on the direct or indirect provision of funds or economic resources to Monib and 489 other people and groups.

Richard Barrett, chairman of the U.N. Security Council's Al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions panel, which monitors compliance with the resolution, said that the ban on financial assets and economic resources raises troubling legal questions. "Does giving him a ride in an armored car or an airplane or giving aid through him to some sort of program within Uruzgan province constitute a breach of the sanctions?" Barrett asked. "Some of the legal advice that states have been getting suggest that it may."

In March 2006, the United Nations instructed its staff in Afghanistan to steer clear of Monib over concerns that they might breach the sanctions. But the prohibition was partially lifted after U.S. and European officials objected. U.N. staff members are now allowed to interact with Monib but not to engage in activities that could be construed as violating sanctions, such as flying him in a U.N. aircraft. However, one U.N. official in Afghanistan said the mission has been privately urging donor countries to increase aid to Uruzgan. Monib is "seen as being a relatively capable governor," but his designation on the list "does present difficulties," said Adrian Edwards, a U.N. spokesman in Afghanistan. "We have to abide by" U.N. resolutions, he said.

The Netherlands and Australia -- which also has troops in Uruzgan -- insist that they have not breached U.N. sanctions because they have channeled aid through the government, not through Monib's private accounts. "We do talk to Monib, which is not prohibited," said a Dutch official who tracks the issue. But "we do business with the province of Uruzgan." An Australian spokeswoman insisted that "Australia has strictly complied with the sanctions." She added that "Australian personnel in Afghanistan will ensure they do not engage in any dealings with Monib which would be contrary to Australian law" or Security Council resolutions.

Monib's dilemma underscores a broader failing of the U.N. role in the battle against terrorism, said Eric A. Rosand, who oversaw U.N. counterterrorism efforts for the United States until 2005. He said that the council has not responded to evolving terrorist threats and that many countries have stopped cooperating with it. For instance, the council has not added a new Taliban figure to the list since 2001. That included the movement's military commander, Mullah Dadullah, who was killed by allied forces in May. "The whole thing is broken," said Rosand, who now tracks the council's terrorism efforts for the Center on Global Counter-Terrorism Cooperation. "Everyone knows that most countries are not even implementing the sanctions."

The council, meanwhile, is also facing a political backlash from European governments, courts and human rights advocates, who say it offers inadequate legal protection for people on the list. The council has introduced new measures to strengthen due process, including the establishment of a U.N. office to hear complaints. But the new office lacks the authority to recommend that the council remove a person from the list, and a single member of the council can still block the delisting process. "This is a perfect case where time has passed, things have changed, but the committee hasn't and the list hasn't," Rosand said. "The list is so poorly managed that no one has confidence in it anymore, and nobody puts forward names."

 

 

خانم سوزی

يك خانم جوان باشنده  ولايت بادغيس  شب چهارشنبه  خودش را اتش زده وبزندگيش خاتمه داد.

 

اين خانم  30 ساله ؛ به اساس مشكلات خانوادگي كه با مادرشوهرش داشت باریختن تیل بروجودش خودش را آتش زد .

 

محمدي مي افزايد كه  این خانم در اخرین لحظات زنده گیش گفته است  که مادر شوهرش با وی در تمام کارها ناسازگاربوده كه اکثرا به مشاجره می انجامید و ناگزیر شب گذشته  پس ازگفتگو لفظی با خشویش تصمیم به حریق كردنش وجودش  گرديد.

 

 این واقعه در حالی صورت گرفته که فعالان حقوق بشردرولايت هرات ازعدم خاتمه اين عمل غيراسلامي اظهارنگراني نموده و بیشتر عامل  ا ینگونه وقایع را فقراقتصادي ؛ موجوديت ازدواج هاي اجباري وعدم سازگاري بين زنان خانواده ميدانند.

 

هرچند بگفته مسئولين رياست امورزنان ولايت هرات گراف خودسوزي ها دراين ولايت نسبت  به سال هاي گذشته كاهش يافته اما هم اكنون تعداد خودسوزي هاي زنان درجريان سال روان به 40 مورد رسيده كه اكثريت شان نسبت به سوختن فيصدي زياد درشفاخانه حوزوي هرات جان داده اند .

 

change the minister

We have formed a committee to protect free expression. The aim is campaigning to change the current minister of information and culture, Kareem Khoram. I was told that some people in the government want us to calm down in the endeavor because the president is planning to replace the minister. Some sources close to Hewadmal, karzai’s advisor on cultural affairs, told a friend of mine that Khoram will be removed soon.

I have also heard from sources in the parliament that he will be replaced by Ismail Yoon, this is indeed going to be catastrophic. Ismail Yoon has lately been promoted by Karzai, he played a major role in the peace jirga as the secretary of Afghan executive committee. Ismail is very dangerous; he is an obvious fascist with anti minority beliefs. His formal arrival in afghan political scene would mean the final departure of any democratic value.

Even if he is going to replace Khoram, the current minister of information and culture, i think journalists shouldn’t quit efforts for the sake of saving the less evil.

 

First of all because, that is exactly how puppet regimes discourages informed citizens from playing an active political role.

Secondly, I believe journalists and civil society is based on fallibility, the civil society constantly battles the government to consider other options. Government tends to make decisions and claims to do the right thing. Since the right thing is behind any human reach and especially in Afghanistan we have never done the right things, for decades governments have only made mistakes. I think the current government or any other government is bias in doing the right thing, the right thing only serves their power purpose. The idea of doing the right thing in Afghanistan is distorted. Civil society need to constantly provide a coherent view of affairs; we need to constantly affect the government view. If Ismail Yoon is appointed to be the minister we should still campaign. i was told today that no matter what media is never going to be happy with any government official, I do think that is right. a supporter of former minister for information and culture, Raheen, told me that media was also critical of the liberal minister. I think that is ok. That is what we do, it’s a process and that is what democracy is it’s never about a result.