Nearly a year ago on April 18, Afghan and Egyptian religious scholars gathered in Kabul and publicly proclaimed the use of suicide bombing as specifically forbidden by Islam, joining other scholars from around the world – including from Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories and Jordan – who condemned the militant tactic at a March conference in Istanbul. The pronouncement drew massive public support, including Afghan parliamentarians and socio-political mainstream.
More than 10 months down the lane, the killing in March this year of an Afghan journalist along with his wife and two children on the eve of the presidential election in a coordinated Taliban attack on Kabul’s Serena Hotel provoked the Afghan media into effectively boycotting the coverage of the militants. The killing of a Swedish photo-journalist and serious injuries to another colleague Kathy Gannon further reinforced the Afghan media’s resolve against militant violence.
About a month later, on April 26, the Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) announced the preliminary results of the April 5 presidential elections, with Dr Abdullah Abdullah in the lead with 44.9 percent of the votes, followed by Dr Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, who obtained 31.5 percent, and Dr Zalmai Rassoul, who won 11.5 percent. To secure an outright victory, a candidate must win more than 50 percent of valid ballots. As of now, it looks nearly improbable for Abdullah Abdullah to get to the 50 percent mark and a run-off looks imminent, likely to take place on May 28.
[quote]By refusing coverage to the Taliban, more than 100 newspapers, over 150 TV stations and about 150 radio stations of Afghanistan unanimously demonstrated their rejection of militancy[/quote]
Dr Abdullah Abdullah told the media in Kabul on April 28 that “if the invalid votes were separated from valid ballots, there will be no need for a second round of elections.” However, he also undertook to accept results “if the election process is legal.”
Back in 2009, following a diplomatic intervention by John Kerry, then President Obama’s trouble-shooter, Abdullah had quit the race after finishing second to incumbent President Hamid Karzai in the first round of the presidential election.
Regardless of whether a run-off takes place and which of the two candidates emerges victorious in the end, a few trends are quite instructive both for Pakistan and the United States.
Firstly, nearly 7 million Afghans of some 12 million eligible turned up to vote in the elections, defying Taliban threats of violence. It marked the country’s fifth election as a whole - third presidential and second parliamentary - since the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001 – a major stride in Afghanistan’s transition from war to civility. The big turn-out also amounted to rejection of President Karzai’s legacy (pronounced through poor showing of his favourite candidate Zalmay Rassoul).
Secondly, a mere seven percent votes for Professor Sayyaf, and less than three percent for Qutbuddin Hilal – both former mujahedeen leaders – also underscored the rejection of symbols of obscurantist religious ideology, warlordism and violence – all of whom are perceived to have drained billions of dollars from the nation’s coffers. Between late 2001 and 2009, the international community spent about $300 billion (17.2 trillion AFN) in Afghanistan, according to a Global Humanitarian Assistance report released in early 2011, but most of it has gone to fixing problems brought on by the Taliban instead of improving the social sector, officials say.
Third, by refusing coverage to the Taliban, more than 100 newspapers, over 150 cable and TV stations and about 150 radio stations unanimously demonstrated their rejection of militancy.
Fourth, hundreds of thousands of youth as well as female voters, particularly in the urban centres such as Kabul, Mazare Sharif, Jalalabad, and Herat, also got the opportunity to speak through the ballot. One tends to assume that most of the youth and female vote in these urban power centres possibly went either in favour of Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani, because the proliferation of print and electronic media has helped highlight the ills of the past decade.
Fifth, a run-off will invariably delay the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement that President Karzai refused to sign thus far. Yet, during his recent Pakistan visit, James Dobbins, the US special envoy, sounded quite optimistic on the BSA (because all presidential candidates had supported signing it).
Dobbins ruled out in a PTV interview the “zero option”, saying: “It is not an option for us… [but] if they do not want us we would not stay, we are certainly not going to force ourselves. However, we are encouraged that the Afghan people, the Afghan political class and the Afghan presidential candidates have all endorsed a continued American and a contingent international role. I think the international community is going to remain committed, I think it is the likely outcome.”
Dobbins made some very important points in regard to Pakistan’s Afghanistan challenge. “I think Afghanistan should be prepared to sit down and work with Pakistan to arrange a more orderly and regulated regime along [the Durand Line] even as the larger legal issues are perhaps postponed until sometime in the future.”
Dobbins also acknowledged the “infiltration from and to Afghanistan” as an undeniable fact and underlined the need for Pakistan and Afghanistan to sort it out bilaterally. The special envoy also reminded Pakistan of its commitment to eliminate “not just the violent extremists who attack Pakistan but the violent extremists who operate from Pakistani territory and attack neighboring societies”.
Although delivered gently, the messaging from the American diplomat was hardly different from what we have been raging since over five years: come out of denial, give up duplicity and fix severe governance and rule of law issues.
Lastly, the Afghan elections offer a window of opportunity for Pakistan. It needs to realize that Narendra Modi’s likely rise to prime ministership in New Delhi and Afghans’ overwhelming rejection of forces of status quo (ie the Karzai legacy) on the one hand and of proponents of violence and extremism on the other, underline the emergence of new realities across western and eastern borders.
Expedience dictates that Pakistan should also break off with these groups and persons – who most Afghans consider as the root-cause of their miseries. By doing so, and re-tailoring its Afghan and India policy, Pakistan will most probably draw unqualified support from the United States and this will also likely ease up its acrimonious relationship with India and Afghanistan.
Will Pakistani political, military and religious leaders and its media learn something from Afghanistan?
Imtiaz Gul is the Executive Director of the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies
Email: imtiaz@crss.pk
More than 10 months down the lane, the killing in March this year of an Afghan journalist along with his wife and two children on the eve of the presidential election in a coordinated Taliban attack on Kabul’s Serena Hotel provoked the Afghan media into effectively boycotting the coverage of the militants. The killing of a Swedish photo-journalist and serious injuries to another colleague Kathy Gannon further reinforced the Afghan media’s resolve against militant violence.
About a month later, on April 26, the Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) announced the preliminary results of the April 5 presidential elections, with Dr Abdullah Abdullah in the lead with 44.9 percent of the votes, followed by Dr Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, who obtained 31.5 percent, and Dr Zalmai Rassoul, who won 11.5 percent. To secure an outright victory, a candidate must win more than 50 percent of valid ballots. As of now, it looks nearly improbable for Abdullah Abdullah to get to the 50 percent mark and a run-off looks imminent, likely to take place on May 28.
[quote]By refusing coverage to the Taliban, more than 100 newspapers, over 150 TV stations and about 150 radio stations of Afghanistan unanimously demonstrated their rejection of militancy[/quote]
Dr Abdullah Abdullah told the media in Kabul on April 28 that “if the invalid votes were separated from valid ballots, there will be no need for a second round of elections.” However, he also undertook to accept results “if the election process is legal.”
Back in 2009, following a diplomatic intervention by John Kerry, then President Obama’s trouble-shooter, Abdullah had quit the race after finishing second to incumbent President Hamid Karzai in the first round of the presidential election.
Regardless of whether a run-off takes place and which of the two candidates emerges victorious in the end, a few trends are quite instructive both for Pakistan and the United States.
Firstly, nearly 7 million Afghans of some 12 million eligible turned up to vote in the elections, defying Taliban threats of violence. It marked the country’s fifth election as a whole - third presidential and second parliamentary - since the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001 – a major stride in Afghanistan’s transition from war to civility. The big turn-out also amounted to rejection of President Karzai’s legacy (pronounced through poor showing of his favourite candidate Zalmay Rassoul).
Secondly, a mere seven percent votes for Professor Sayyaf, and less than three percent for Qutbuddin Hilal – both former mujahedeen leaders – also underscored the rejection of symbols of obscurantist religious ideology, warlordism and violence – all of whom are perceived to have drained billions of dollars from the nation’s coffers. Between late 2001 and 2009, the international community spent about $300 billion (17.2 trillion AFN) in Afghanistan, according to a Global Humanitarian Assistance report released in early 2011, but most of it has gone to fixing problems brought on by the Taliban instead of improving the social sector, officials say.
Third, by refusing coverage to the Taliban, more than 100 newspapers, over 150 cable and TV stations and about 150 radio stations unanimously demonstrated their rejection of militancy.
Fourth, hundreds of thousands of youth as well as female voters, particularly in the urban centres such as Kabul, Mazare Sharif, Jalalabad, and Herat, also got the opportunity to speak through the ballot. One tends to assume that most of the youth and female vote in these urban power centres possibly went either in favour of Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani, because the proliferation of print and electronic media has helped highlight the ills of the past decade.
Fifth, a run-off will invariably delay the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement that President Karzai refused to sign thus far. Yet, during his recent Pakistan visit, James Dobbins, the US special envoy, sounded quite optimistic on the BSA (because all presidential candidates had supported signing it).
Dobbins ruled out in a PTV interview the “zero option”, saying: “It is not an option for us… [but] if they do not want us we would not stay, we are certainly not going to force ourselves. However, we are encouraged that the Afghan people, the Afghan political class and the Afghan presidential candidates have all endorsed a continued American and a contingent international role. I think the international community is going to remain committed, I think it is the likely outcome.”
Dobbins made some very important points in regard to Pakistan’s Afghanistan challenge. “I think Afghanistan should be prepared to sit down and work with Pakistan to arrange a more orderly and regulated regime along [the Durand Line] even as the larger legal issues are perhaps postponed until sometime in the future.”
Dobbins also acknowledged the “infiltration from and to Afghanistan” as an undeniable fact and underlined the need for Pakistan and Afghanistan to sort it out bilaterally. The special envoy also reminded Pakistan of its commitment to eliminate “not just the violent extremists who attack Pakistan but the violent extremists who operate from Pakistani territory and attack neighboring societies”.
Although delivered gently, the messaging from the American diplomat was hardly different from what we have been raging since over five years: come out of denial, give up duplicity and fix severe governance and rule of law issues.
Lastly, the Afghan elections offer a window of opportunity for Pakistan. It needs to realize that Narendra Modi’s likely rise to prime ministership in New Delhi and Afghans’ overwhelming rejection of forces of status quo (ie the Karzai legacy) on the one hand and of proponents of violence and extremism on the other, underline the emergence of new realities across western and eastern borders.
Expedience dictates that Pakistan should also break off with these groups and persons – who most Afghans consider as the root-cause of their miseries. By doing so, and re-tailoring its Afghan and India policy, Pakistan will most probably draw unqualified support from the United States and this will also likely ease up its acrimonious relationship with India and Afghanistan.
Will Pakistani political, military and religious leaders and its media learn something from Afghanistan?
Imtiaz Gul is the Executive Director of the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies
Email: imtiaz@crss.pk