• They will not allow this ridiculous vote rigging to be successful
• They will put Karzai into his place and subject him to the electoral law – to any law for that matter.
• They will not let someone who has no respect for anyone but himself and his bought cronies to play with everyone else
• They will not allow to let Afghanistan slide ever deeper into a crisis
• They will rescue the democratic process so as to give at least a bit of weight to the hollow institutions they installed
• They will rescue themselves

With “They” I mean the international community who has imposed their ways onto this country without much consideration of the circumstance they were meddling with. “They” are the ones who now have to take a stance and not become a culprit in this unprecedented, shameless and in-your-face election fraud.

If they have an ounce of integrity left – that is what they do. But do they?

Corruption is the fundamental evil which stands in the way of a reliable and effective governance in the name of the people. Instead it has become an executive often working for its own benefit only. As a result the people do not experience this government as beneficial and support for it is withdrawn. Lacking a viable alternative the shortcomings created by such an inefficient government are filled by undesirable, backward-looking but solution-promising forces like the Talilban.

A corruption free government and civil service is also an essential precursor for the implementation of the rule of law which is otherwise consistently undermined

It is therefore of fundamental importance that corruption be eradicated.

A widely corruption-free society starts with the government institutions setting a stellar example of incorruptibility. This is currently not the case:

The ordinary Afghan experiences corruption at  most contact points with the civil service and government institutions and employment in it is distributed by criteria of nepotism rather than meritocracy.

Over twenty years of lawless existence have instilled a mind-set of shortsighted advantage-taking in Afghan society and the absence of an effective rule of law compounds this. I am concerning myself with the latter in another blog entry.

Due to this engrained thinking it is vital to tackle the problem from two angles:

1.        engaging those who ask for and take bribes

2.        engaging those who are forced to pay bribes and who thereby fuel the system

1. This step requires radical civil service reform and a mighty heart to see it through.

A civil service reform requires:

• Streamlining of all government and civil service organizations. Streamlining is required to ensure efficient work processes and yet ensure enough division of labour and responsibilities so as to minimise direct contact with the public which means minimising corruption opportunities. This streamlining needs to be visible and swift
• Re-training and re-education of the civil servants. - This needs to accompany the streamlining exercise. It is likely  to succeed best with younger personnel. A major retrenchment exercise is therefore necessary to both eliminate excess workforce as well inflexible minds. In order to avoid social hardship this measure needs to be accompanied by a sufficiently stocked pension fund which may have to run for no less than 20 years. The donor communmity should be address for funding this pension program.
• Increment of civil servant salaries and introduction of fringe benefits. - A lean civil service will allow the salaries, pensions and other fringe benefits of the remaining staff to be raised significantly and will eliminate a major cause for corruption: an insufficient livelihood. Subsequent increments and additional benefits should be performance-based.
• Introduction of a strict civil service and anti-corruption code accompanied by an equally strict sanction system, implemented by a reformed special force of the police integrated into a anti-corruption task force. In this regard the government of Singapore should be consulted who has demonstrated with extraordinary success in the 1960 / 70s how to rid a country of corruption.

2. This step tackles the culture of corruption from its other angle. It includes both discouraging offering bribes as well as encouraging legal behaviour.

In order to achieve that the first must meet the full force of the above suggested anti-corruption law and in order to achieve the second legal behaviour must be actively rewarded.

The anti-corruption law must not hesitate to punish those who offer bribes together with those who take them; they should be exempted, however, if they assist in uncovering a corruption plot.

Post-conflict countries attract the most eclectic bunch of people:

The tree-huggers, the humanitarians, the economists, the pioneers (those that have no other choice and those who dare to come), the returnees and the carpetbaggers. The latter feed on other peoples misfortunes, treat the poor as servants and slaves, nurture corruption and tend to be trouble makers by and large.

The carpetbaggers can never be avoided in such post-conflict countries and times. But it must be the goal of any political leadership to eliminate them from influence and make those people's personal attitudes and mind-sets the bar by which they are judged and employed, not their family name or relatives' influence. Unfortunately the current Afghan government has been less than successful at that.

Contrary to the current administration I would like to call on the upcoming Afghan President to select a team of upright Afghans who do exist - I know some of them personally - and start putting the political and societal framework of this country right.

Above and beyond that there are a number of essential reform projects which need to be tackled swiftly in order to put this country onto sound foundations. I will be adding a post on each  topic to this space.

• Eradication of corruption
• Rule of law

As the reader might notice "security" is not one of them. The reason for this is that if the above can be achieved security will come as the support for the insurgency will drop automatically as they are deprived of oxygen. It is essential for the central government to win the trust of the people - then the Talibs will solve themselves.

It has been proven very difficult to eliminate the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Large military involvement has failed and political efforts to stem the flow of trained Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters out of Pakistan have not yielded any results either.

Implementing a political system which installs good governance has failed so far as well because of the shortsighted and culturally tainted decisions made on behalf of Afghanistan by politicians with "cut and paste" solutions.

If, on the other hand, good governance were to be established in Afghanistan, the largest majority of Afghans would be supporting this government in the name of sustained peace and development. Whether they can make a cross on a piece of paper every four years or not will become at least secondary. So, as a first step, a political system which suits the country's level of development needs to be introduced to curb the influence which the Taliban exercise  over wide parts of the population - especially in the south.

But with their arrogance and heavily tilted world-view such a regime change will never be entertained much less supported by the foreign powers who pull the strings behind the scenes and thereby will stand in their own way of curing this country's ailments. I have eluded to that in more detail in my previous entry.

In their desperation the same foreign powers have now been considering for a while to arm local villagers so that those can "defend" themselves against the Taliban. Two issues need to be considered in connection with this:

• Arming the villagers - even if that were managed by the local shuras - is an admission of the central government's weakness and thus does not exactly support keeping the current regime in power.
• I refuse to believe the fact that the villagers in the south are actual victims who require assistance to resist the Taliban. I believe that this is a fundamental misconception of those suggesting this "solution". Much rather one should consider the fact that for some strange reason the Taliban has never run into much resistance in the southern Pashtun areas of the country while they found and are finding it much harder to gain ground in the non-Pashtun areas. While this is a politically incorrect question to ask, one needs to pose it: why?

Do the internationals, who are now suggesting arming the southern villages in defense against the Taliban, really believe that the people there need foreigners to arm them if they really wanted to fight an enemy? I believe not.

It has been said that re-arming of the villages would result in a resurgence of local uncontrolled militias like in the 1990s with local power holders fighting each other. This, too, I believe is a grave misconception which also assumes that arming themselves is dependant on foreigners or a defunct central government allowing them to.

By contrast it is hard to believe that whoever wants to arm himself and his following can would have difficulties to do so in Afghanistan. The borders to the neighbouring countries are wide open and any type of weapon suitable for an effective resistance can be smuggled in - with our without the support of the border police.

What is my point? My point is that if the residents of areas controlled by the Taliban wanted to resist they could resist out of their own efforts. This has been done before - just not in the south. In those days, too, in the first round of a Taliban take-over of Afghanistan, they ran into open doors down south. They could take the south easily, finding no resistance among their Pashtun brothers. And it's the same thing happening today: the bottom line is that the residents of the south are not ready to confront their brothers in language and culture against what they perceive to be a "Kafir" supported, corrupt central government.

The point is not that we have poor suffering southern villagers begging for grassroots assistance in the fight against the Taliban - there is no resistance to begin with. Much rather are the people sitting on the fence - waiting for who wins the conflict in order to them. And anyway: supporting Muslims is always preferred over supporting Kafirs - even if that means prolonged suffering and poverty.

And this leads to another misconception among the donor community: if the south is given the majority of the donor support, by i.e. building roads, airports etc the residents will sway their opinion with regards to poppy cultivation and support for the Taliban. I believe, they won't - for the same reason they don't source their own guns to fight the Taliban.

So, as a result the donor community will not only be ineffective in the south they will also lose support in the rest of the country by withdrawing funds from those areas which have not engaged with the Taliban much or at all. This will make the situation worse as the insurgency will not be able to be confined to certain parts of the country but will spread.

The conclusion, hence, is that only the building of stable good governance which reaches into all corners of the country can suck oxygen from the Taliban insurgence and eventually suffocate them. And for this we need a different political system which over a generation phases in democratic structures and does not super-impose them on an uneducated populace unable to handle the freedoms which come with it. If the yearning for law and order is not fulfilled by this government there will always be others promising to fill it - and that is why the Taliban is still around - not because of the poppies, not because of their human-right neglecting suppressing rule in areas they control. It's because of the lack of law and order which a people has been suffering from for over 20 years and which it has enough of.

Tony Blair's statement made yesterday in Kabul, though probably intended as a positive one, expressed the root-cause to the main problem Afghanistan is still plagued with: the taliban resurgance.

• The underestimation of the political situation in Afghanistan in the 1990s or an unwillingness to deal with it, and
• uninsightful support for forces, which came back to haunt the west.

• toppling a government and establishing a formal system of democracy in US style will bring prosperity to a society
• the US is altruistically interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the people of the world
• The world is generally jearning for the US society model - only their bad govenrments keep them from it, hence the US interference is desidered and necessary to salvage these poor people

Bush was certainly pleased to hear that the Marshal Plan of 50 years ago still pays devidends in form of super-loyal European subjects.

By following like sheep the Euoropean politicians have once again failed to represent their people, they have failed to communicate the wide-spread public frustrations and open oppositon to US world politics and have hence missed another chance to emancipate themselves from US dependencies.

Now is the time to stand up for a softer approach to the world and to bring cultures together. The US and their policies on the other hand will deepen the devisions and set the world up for culture- and resource wars.

Do the European governments really want to ride their coat-tail? The answer should be "no" because their people - whom they are representing in a democracy which they want to implement in the rest of the world - have decided that they should not.

Or perhaps the Europeans want to demonstrate to the to be democratised world that it is the nature of a parliamentary democracy that the will of the people only counts every four or so years, while during the period of govenance it can be disregarded.

All cynicism aside, Europe should not be a part of this - but it takes guts to stand up against the overpowering influence of the US and their economic pressure and dependencies, dependencies which are the only reason for them to engage with the parts of the world they are presently meddling with.

At the same time the Europeans would be well advised to look at the US as a declining power and to align themselves with the rising powers of the world so as not to go down with the US just because there was a Marshal Plan 50 years ago. 

In order to do so one does not have to compromise on any values. That is, if one has any to begin with. Engagement with other nations and cultures does not require to give up ones own values, particularly if one is looking for value congruence, rather than value domination.

I read this article the other day in the Pak Tribune and I could not believe someone is actually argueing this case. So I replied to the paper as per below. But first the article itself:

Do you really believe that the hard-hitting military force you call for will do the job?

Afghans are sick and tired of foreign powers telling them what to do. The English, the Russians, the Pakistanis, now the so-called coalition of the willing ... Afghans can not be "brought in line" and neither a western-leaning nor anywhere else leaning government is what it takes.

What it takes is a strong government that serves the will of the Afghan people. And that may just mean that we have to do with slightly less "democracy" and more authority of the political system so as to establish the rule of law and a central authority. I advocate this because democracy US style does not serve early developing countries because they can't handle it.
So if there was ever any sensitivity for Afghanistan - which honestly, reviewing the last 30 years, I do not see - then this is the only way to go. More military force by an external power and "my way or the highway" attitudes will make things worse.

Selflessness you say?

The US's meddling with Afghanistan since the invasion of the Russians was never governed by anything else but selfishness: the mujahedin were only supported as a proxy in the cold war Great Game, after that the resistance was dropped like a hot potato; during the so called civil war the US supported the most radical Muslim party - the Hisb-e-Islami, who committed many atrocities in Kabul and who became a vivid supporter of the Taliban and their Pakistani backers after 1996. The support for these people was justified with the fact that they were most radical islamist party and hence they were deemed to keep future communist influence best in check.

What your government did not say is that they did not bother with the intrecacies of domestic Afghanistan, they did not bother with disecting who are the right people to support - as long as the country was appeased - regardless of the price there was to pay.

It became worse thereafter: the US (Clinton & Bush administration) supported Pakistan and the Taliban for their indeed very selfish goals: peace in Afghanistan - regardless of the price - so that access to the respective Central Asian energy reserves would become that much easier. With political influence waning in Central Asia, Afghanistan was to become an outpost, regardless of whether the West's pupetrated values (human and women rights etc.) would be disregarded by the power holders."I can see nothing wrong with the Taliban" Dick Channey was proud to announce.
Even now i put it to the US government that they are only in Afghanistan for two reasons alone: to hunt down Osama (something which must be achieved in order to demostrate the effectivness of the "war on terror" towards the US public but which will not make a difference) and much more importantly stay relevant in the region, not, as you say for humanitarian or re-construction efforts per-se. BTW: can I remind you that only 20% of the 80 billion dollars spent on Afghanistan by the "coalition" has been alocated for re-construction? The rest was for military expenses!

If this ratio is not reversed things will not look good, because Afghans need to see that their country is improving. When that happens - fast - the Taliban is going to lose their base. At the same time of course Pakistan needs to be put under effective pressure to clean up their boarder areas and re-take control there.

In any case, referring to your first paragraph - what is bad about Islamic Law? Islamic Law represents one of the great legal traditons of the world. Simply because it is being abused by a minority of Muslims does not justify to condamn it altogether.

From the way you argue, you show that you do not understand Afghan culture. Al Quaida survives in the Pushtun regions of Afghanistan because they support their enemy's enemy, because they are the neglected tribes of this region - they have never had gain from any power trying to control Afghanistan. The central government in Kabul must be supported in giving the Pashtuns the right support, curbing the Taliban takes a knowledgable approach, not a military-might one.

Have you not learned anything from Vietnam? Capturing the heart and soul of the people is the way to go instead, fighting guerillas supported by the population on the ground is futile.

As one of your own US commanders, Col. Michael Catlett, chief of military operations at Bagram put it just the other day when eleborating on the present preperations for the offensive "Mountain Thrust":

"It's not in any way, shape or form about killing Taliban. We could kill Taliban all year. The only thing that matters is building a credible, responsive government that meets the people's needs."

This is the only way to "protecting America's saftey", as you put it. Brick-walling your way through international politics, committing PR blunder after PR blunder and trying to enforce your society model on other cultures will undermine the US's saftey - the "war on terror" has come too late anyway and is ineffective - that much I agree with you. But I disagree on the roots to that problem. Bottom line: societal imperialism had it long time coming.

• Personal direct involvment in the decision processes of one's country? If we were living in ancient Greece, perhaps. But even there this was a privilege of the rich elite and the men folk only. The rest of the population was not eligible to vote

• In todays democracies - and particular in the US - electorial participation levels have sunk to 25% of the eligible population. How "democratically elected" can the representatives be called?

• Putting one or more crosses in front of candidates' names on a ballot paper every four or so years?