International Crisis Group
-
“For their part, the Taliban do not seem prepared to launch a political party. Despite recent announcements to the contrary… the insurgents’ primary mode of political expression in the near future will remain fighting, not party politics.” — from Crisis Group’s recent briefing, Afghanistan’s Parties in Transition -
“Irrespective of political parties’ technical progress, if there is again manipulation in the manner of the 2009 and 2010 elections, the 2014 winner may lack the credibility and legitimacy the new era will require.” — from Crisis Group’s recent briefing, Afghanistan’s Parties in Transition -
“Any profound disruption in Kabul politics would leave an opening for the armed insurgency.” — from Crisis Group’s recent briefing, Afghanistan’s Parties in Transition -
“Political parties are developing slowly in Afghanistan, discouraged by electoral laws and fragmented ethnic politics, but starting to shed their legacy as armed groups.” — from Crisis Group’s recent briefing, Afghanistan’s Parties in Transition -
Afghanistan’s Parties in Transition
Kabul/Brussels | 26 Jun 2013
Afghanistan’s political parties must exercise restraint as they jostle for power in the final months of President Karzai’s mandate. For its part, the outgoing administration should also resist calls to excessively regulate the parties. A commitment to pluralism, by all players, is key to the legitimacy of Kabul politics – and an important advantage against armed insurgents.
In its latest briefing, Afghanistan’s Parties in Transition, the International Crisis Group examines the plight of Afghanistan’s nascent political parties, provides an overview of their current positions and analyses their ability and willingness to shape the transition to the post-Karzai era, after a decade of government efforts to restrict the functioning of political parties.
-
All change | The Economist
Some confidence in the security transition, and a belief that Western governments will not abandon Afghanistan after 2014, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a more or less successful political transition. Foreigners can help, but most of the responsibility lies with Afghans. A report published this month by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based NGO, described the road to the 2014 elections as long and hard. “In the current environment”, the report said, “prospects for clean elections and a smooth transition are slim. The electoral process is mired in bureaucratic confusion, institutional duplication and political machinations…There are alarming signs Karzai hopes to stack the deck for a favoured proxy.”
Photo: ISAF Media/Flickr
-
NATO chief calls for free elections in Afghanistan | Reuters Africa
By Adrian Croft
MAZAR-E SHARIF, Afghanistan (Reuters) - NATO’s chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged the Afghan government on Friday to strive for free, fair and transparent elections in the 2014 presidential poll, saying they marked a critical juncture in the country’s quest for peace.
His words came a day after President Hamid Karzai suggested foreign members be removed from the election watchdog, in a step that could be seen as bolstering his grip on power.
“I think it is essential for building trust and confidence between the Afghan people and the Afghan government that the presidential elections take place in a manner that is free, fair and transparent,” Rasmussen said in an interview with Reuters on the airstrip at Camp Marmal, a sprawling military base near Mazar-e-Sharif in northern Afghanistan.
Photo: payorivero/Flickr
-
A regional cooperation conference on Afghanistan is set to begin in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.
The two-day gathering will bring together the presidents of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Iran.
It’s the fifth such regional conference focusing on security in Afghanistan and the region.
The conference is expected to follow up on the decisions to strengthen regional economic cooperation reached at the last gathering in Istanbul.
It comes as a fresh report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) predicts attempts by the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai to negotiate with the Taliban are unlikely to lead to a lasting peace.
The Brussels-based group says any deal that appears to give the Taliban preferential treatment could spark a backlash from the Northern Alliance, Hezb-e Islami, and other major factions.
The ICG also says the West is eager to pull out of Afghanistan “with or without a settlement.”FULL ARTICLE (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)
Photo: President Karzai, Officer/Wikimedia Commons
-
The West wants to pull out of Afghanistan “with or without a settlement” and attempts to negotiate with the Taliban are unlikely to lead to lasting peace, a report by a respected think-tank said Monday.
In a hard-hitting document the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) condemned “desperate and dangerous moves” by Hamid Karzai’s government to bring Taliban, the allied Haqqani Network and other insurgents to the negotiating table.
If a deal appeared to give the Taliban preferential treatment it was “likely to spark a significant backlash from the Northern Alliance, Hezb-i Islami and other major factions”, it said.
Without a sustainable settlement, after international forces pull out “all indicators point to a fragile political order that could rapidly disintegrate into a more virulent civil war”, it said.
Photo: Karzai and Gates, Cherie Cullen, DoD/WikimediaCommons
-
KABUL—Afghan President Hamid Karzai asked the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Afghan villages and to confine them to bases following a shooting rampage by a U.S. staff sergeant on Sunday, the presidential palace said, in a move that dramatically changes the outlook for the war.
The demand, which Mr. Karzai’s office said was made during a meeting on Thursday with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, would—if accepted—essentially end the U.S. combat role just as the annual Taliban spring offensive begins. There are now some 90,000 U.S. troops in the country.
Within minutes of Mr. Karzai’s statement, the Taliban also declared they are suspending their negotiations with the U.S. because the U.S. “turned back on its promises,” such as the release of Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Mr. Karzai’s surprise demand was greeted with shock by some Afghan politicians. “We totally don’t understand Karzai’s decision. He doesn’t have any strategy. He is committing treason,” said Abdulrahim Aybi, a lawmaker from the southern Kandahar province where Sunday’s massacre occurred. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Badura, said the coalition was aware of Mr. Karzai’s request, and that it would be dealt with through diplomatic channels.
While the Taliban left the door open to resuming the dialogue, Mr. Karzai’s move had potentially more far-reaching ramifications. “Not a single foreign soldier should enter Afghan homes, and the entire attention should switch to the country’s reconstruction and economic assistance,” the Afghan president’s statement said.
Under current plans, the U.S. and its allies are supposed to withdraw most combat forces by the end of 2014, transferring security responsibilities to the Afghan army and police.
Mr. Karzai said on Thursday that “Afghanistan is right now ready to completely take all security responsibilities, so we demand a speedy transition and the hand-over of responsibility to the Afghans.”
Some analysts speculated that Mr. Karzai made the statement as a bet to strengthen his hand in negotiations with the U.S. over a strategic partnership agreement. If so, he may have badly miscalculated, said Candace Rondeaux, a Kabul-based senior analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank. “Karzai in some ways has overestimated his hand,” she said. “There is extreme frustration on both sides and the trust deficit will only widen as the result.”
