Talks with Taliban

Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, attended the Saudi meeting and said there was no discussion of peace talks. Taliban has not yet admitted of talks with the government. Zaeef said Karzai's government missed an opportunity when it failed to engage the Taliban in talks three years ago. Since then, he said, the Taliban has grown stronger. He added, the Taliban had no hope that the American rule would collapse in Afghanistan but now they do. While Taliban forces appear to have gained the upper hand across large swaths of Afghanistan, they are not yet a unified force and by no mean they want to talk with Kabul. Dissension and dissatisfaction on both sides and among western countries could provide an impetus for talks.
Karzai's government held secret talks with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former mujahedin leader now labelled a terrorist by American and Britain, through members of his family who regularly visit Kabul.
As a mujahedin commander against the Russians, Hekmatyar was supported by the CIA and Pakistan. In the civil war which followed the Soviet withdrawal, he continued to be backed by the Americans and Pakistanis despite being blamed for atrocities. The warlord later fell out with the Americans and based himself in Iran, from where he directed attacks on Afghans and Nato.
Pakistan has a central role in Taliban talks, the session in Saudi Arabia included several Pakistani officials, including former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Sharif, who now leads the largest opposition bloc in Pakistan’s Parliament, has been a vocal advocate of negotiating with Taliban commanders in his country. he is not alone many other Pakistani fictions has urged Afghan government and western allies to enter dialogue with Taliban. Pakistan see Taliban as an instrument to insert influence over Kabul.
Britain is stepping up pressure for a political and diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan, a move set in sharp relief by the commander of UK troops who warned that the war against the Taliban was not going to be won.
The message is being delivered with increasing urgency by British military commanders, diplomats and intelligence officers, to Nato allies and governments in the region.
The deepening concerns reflect what British defence chiefs are saying privately. The conflict with the Taliban has reached "stalemate", they say. They also express increasing frustration with the weakness and corruption of President Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul.
British officials are exasperated with the Karzai administration, the slowness in building up a national army and corruption in the Afghan police force.Violence in Afghanistan has risen to its worst level since 2001, when US-led forces overthrew the Taliban.
Aid agencies say the Taliban and associated groups are controlling more territory and it is increasingly difficult to provide the population with their humanitarian needs, let alone physical security.
The US has also changed its position on talking to the Taliban. Soon after Mullah Omar's regime was overthrown in 2001, the then US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, declared that it would never again be allowed to seize power in Afghanistan. "Those who have been defeated would like to come back but they will not have that opportunity" he said. Since then, with the Taliban resurgent as the US-led "war on terror" shifted to Iraq, American officials have been much more receptive to the idea of talking to the Taliban. David Petraeus, the US general credited with reducing violence in Iraq by winning over insurgents, is now overseeing the multi-national mission in Afghanistan. He is expected to introduce some of his Iraqi tactics into the conflict.

a letter from Obama to Ahamadinejad

Dear Mr. Ahmadinejad,

I learnt of your letter to me when my chief of staff Emanuel Rahm informed me that we had to send three dollars to the post office to cover the postage [due]. Next time, please put enough stamps on the letters you send me. I had a hard time with my wife, Michelle, over this. She asked why we had to pay postage due on a letter from someone who calls us 'the Great Satan' and collaborates with the likes of Hugo Chavez. You know that in the States, it's the wives who have the last word. It's not like in your country, where one can shut them up by giving them a sharp whack over the head.

Dear Mahmoud, I hate to tell you that your letter caused us quite a bother. The White House translators couldn't or wouldn't translate it, saying it was a job for the department of religious propaganda. Eventually we had to ask for the help of our friends the Israelis who know Persian better than us and even maintain trade relations with you guys on the quiet.

In your letter, you congratulated me on 'taking' the majority of the votes in the election, which I found quite puzzling. You should know that, in the U.S., presidential candidates do not 'take' votes but receive them from the public. People here do not go to bed on the night [of the election] and then wake up in the morning to find out who has seized the presidency... I have been told that, in one of your elections, a candidate took an afternoon nap, only to discover that, [while he was sleeping,] he had been eliminated from the running and someone else had won the election. Is that a true story?

Mahmoud, darling, in another part of your letter you asked my country to pursue a policy based on 'justice, respect for the rights of human beings and nations, friendship and non-intervention in the affairs of others.' Frankly, this surprised me, because if you are alluding to executions, you guys execute as many people as we do. However, in this country, a capital case is debated for 17 years on average, while in your country, 17 is the age of some of those who are executed... As for intervention in the affairs of others, [you have a point:] We Americans do invest considerable funds [in Afghanistan] in order to enable the children there to attend school. [We also invest funds] in order to prevent Russia from imposing its will on Georgia, and so on. But you guys also intervene in the affairs of others – only instead of sending children to school you strap explosive belts around their waists. A few days ago, the media reported that a three-month-old baby had joined an [Iranian] suicide squad.

Dear Mahmoud, I have no patience to read nonsense and respond to it, so next time you feel like talking to me, please call me on the phone – only please don't make it collect.
Your
Obama

Free expression can’t be conditional: A Response to a Commenter

In my previous post titled ‘There is no limit, it is coming for us!’ I wrote about the unquestionable power extremist has been given by Islam; I was writing in the context of the latest parliamentary decision to ban music from parties and wedding ceremonies. My argument was primarily concerned with the freedom of expression; I contended unless we raise our voice the transgression of few self-called leaders into our lives is going to continue. I believe Islamic extremism will bully us no matter who we are and irrespective of our willingness to confront the phenomena or not. A reader wrote the below comment:
“kabul was isolated from the rest of the country in the 70s and 80s culturally. The answer to your anger towards a potential ban to music is not to diss what most afghans cherish, regardless of your stance. your just creating an aristocratic secularism that most disagree with. most people would disagree with a ban on music, and most people would disagree with your stance. amanullah's rule came to an end because he lacked respect for people. changes need to be made by steps, not by people who feel their countrymen are susperstitous bumkins.”
It is clear from the argument structure and the English writing of the comment that the commenter is a western Afghan if not a westerner; but interestingly the comment is very similar to what I hear on daily basis from Afghans from politician to people on the street, the need to progress step by step and not to ‘insult’ ‘people’. I would like to respond by explaining the central point of my argument, the free expression.
I believe it is necessary for Afghans to keep evaluating their progress, to connect with its pain and to its past. And thus to cultivate a sense of humility and empathy; much needed in a society raged by anger created by Islamic violence. The fallibility of human nature means that the simple Afghan principles of generosity, compassion and modesty are sometimes discarded in favour of outward appearance, wealth and the quest for power. I feel that distortion in practice must be confronted. Moreover, only by challenging fixed ideas of correct and incorrect behaviour can institutionalised hypocrisy be broken down. Often, those who err from the norm are condemned and marginalised, regardless of right or wrong, so that the community will survive. However, such survival is only for the fittest, and the weak are sometimes seen as unfortunates whose kismet is bad. Much store is set by ritual rooted in religion – though people’s preoccupation with the external and not the internal often render these rituals meaningless.
We need to be provocative and relevant. If one expresses opinions freely it provides courage and self confidence, irrelevant of the society the individual live. We can present truths and dare to take risks whilst living with their fears. We lack free expression in Afghanistan that is why the most talented youth and the future of the country have become idealists and romanticists. I am annoyed often by Afghan’s over-optimism which I think is a byproduct of their unwillingness to challenge hypocrisy. Free expression enable us to tell life is ferocious and terrifying, that we are imperfect and only when we embrace our imperfections honestly can we hope.
We shouldn’t be so afraid of offending people, that is what democracy is but there is a fine distinction between offending and harming, to speak at all these days, to attempt to tell any kind of truth means offending someone. The words which carry no offence of any kind may carry as little meaning.
Contrary to what the commenter suggests healthy society is not formed when member reach anonymity or when all individual are equipped with the best idea. Society is a melting pot where conflicting groups put ideas forward, revise idea, are knocked off and then they seek new ideas. We need courageous people who are not afraid to speak their minds and can upset the rest of the society by challenging their principles as well as practices. This does not automatically lead to aristocracy as suggested by the commenter. I am not part of the government to drive the change and determine the steps and the speed of the change neither I intend to be; I believe modern government in Afghanistan is a failure and given the sociocultural structure of Afghanistan it is going to be a failure. The failure of well resourced western intervention to build a state in Afghanistan explains the difficulty of building a government in Afghanistan. I genuinely believe that the exchange of offensive ideas and the confrontation of offensive ideas is what make a vibrant society. The only type of regime which can subdue Afghanistan is a Taliban style Emirate but that is not acceptable for international community. Taliban managed to bring the country under control and tackle corruption. I do not diss the values Afghan cherish but I diss the liberals in Afghanistan, the self dubbed leaders and the Islamist fanatics. I oppose hypocrisy and corruption in principle and I believe the self proclaimed leaders, the Islamists and the liberals who make up the technocrats of the government are corrupt and hypocritical. Step by step change means nothing, the Islamists and the leaders claim a step by step progress so they can justify their corruption. The Islamists can continue their rule if they keep change at bay and silent protesters by painting them as a group which opposes steady change. The liberals are collaborators with the Islamists and so are the westerners, they are hypocritical and they oppose people who cry for justice and truth.
We need to explore our emotions behind religion. Society need to find ways to explore ideas seen as dangerous such as misgivings about Islam and the leaders. Even the very open minded people in Afghanistan oppose free expression which offends the so called leaders. Malali Joya, a strong critic of warlords, has been strongly criticised by open minded liberals. Afghanistan needs to establish a stream or channel which is inherently provocative, it is often called free media in the rest of the world and I am angry to see how it is curbed in Afghanistan. Free media actively prompt the humanist point of view to a society still gripped by religious absolutism.
Authorities also discourage change by urging to adopt a ‘STEP BY STEP’ approach. There is something potentially dangerous about a large number of people, a communal group, charged by the immediate need to change. Free expression and free hearing might move the group to go behind the traditional reasoning imposed by Islamic fanaticism, to affect them emotionally, to inspire them by love and hope, by ideas which subvert the arrangements which hold the state together. Or simply they rearrange the speed of the pace they want change.

There is no limit, it is coming for us!

The Afghan parliament has passed a bill making it a criminal offence to play music in parties and wedding ceremonies. For awhile a couple of years ago I believed that the battle for music was won by emergence of up to a hundred radio station across Afghanistan playing regional and Afghan music, but after the legislation I was disappointed. A latest article in Kabul weekly tackles the voyage of TV programs into entertainment domain. Barely 10-15 per cent of shows aired on the country's stations are about the major problems facing Afghanistan today. The airing of a single "Round Table" and one serious report per week on any popular Television station proves that television stations in this country are becoming ineffective. This change is materialising under the pressure from authorities and religious figures. There is no limit for the sphere of life where Islamists will adamantly venture. Something experienced under Taliban. Once disguised Islamists in Karzai administration brought women and media under control then they will address how to build our houses and how to walk in public.

For those of us who grew up in Afghanistan or for this mater any other conflict zone, during the years of wars; the shadow of that slaughter has remained as a dreadful warning of what men will do in the name of God. Communalist politics have become a powerful force, in the form of the extremist Islamic ‘Trivialism’ which is wrongly nicknamed ‘Fundamentalism’, there is nothing fundamental about the Islam practiced in Afghanistan, it is primary concern is with footwear, beard and things of such calibre and they don’t have any fundamental value; things like love, respect, happiness and freedom are fundamental to me. The ignorant youth recruited by Sayyaf, Mazari, Massood and Gulbodin killed, destroyed and tortured the public indiscriminately. For several years the capital was deprived from reaching any residents’ basic needs from food and water to electricity. Residents had to travel on bicycles or on foot to the outskirts of the city where the warlords had established their bazaars. On the way back anything could happen from getting captured by another ethnic group and being used as PoW to do hard labour; but that was if the commander of the checkpoint is a nice person which was rare, warlords in an attempt to intimidate their rivals were recruiting the most brutal commanders who would use methods such as dead dancing which is cutting of the victim head and then pouring hot oil on sever neck. Travellers often were caught in fires from two belligerents aimed at them. One wonders whether any lessons have been learned.

No, in the depressing condition of Afghanistan people turn to religion for the answers to the two great questions of life: where did we come from? And how shall we live? But on the question of origins, Islam and all other religions are simply wrong. No, the universe was not created in six days by a superforce that rested on the seventh. Nor was it churned into being by a sky-god with a giant churn. If you look around everything is a creation of science today and science clearly disproves God and religion and Islamist make equal use of science as those who believe in science. And on the social question, the simple truth is that wherever religion, with their narrow moralities gets into society’s driving seat, tyranny results. The Inquisition result. Or the warlord of the early 90s or their slightly better version the Taliban.

And yet Islam continues to insist that they provide special access to ethical truths, and consequently deserve special treatment and protection. And they continue to emerge from the world of private life, where they belong, like so many other things that are acceptable when done in private between consenting adults but unacceptable in the town square, and to bid for power. I sometimes wonder if the idea of private does not exist in Islam, there are things which exist and things which don’t exist. Ideas and beliefs do exist and Muslims will not hesitate to display their belief in the form of banner or poster on their car. Things which don’t exist, such as sex. it is never talked about and never referred to, as though it doesn’t exist.

I know plenty Afghans who are champions of freedom and have dedicated a lot to the cause but they can’t come out with a criticism of the root problem so is the problem with the western support. The west supports democratic values but not dares to scrutinise what Islamic politics mean. The government and their fanatic authorities’ paint up a democratic face to the west but explain their tyrannies by Islamic justification. At the end we are all playing with the politics of communalism and by it is nature it is doomed to failure. Whether you want to confront religion or not, it is coming for you and it is good to be prepared and start thinking about our response.