Published on October 19, 2005

The latest “no comment” response to journalists from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when asked what she thought of the numerous warlords who won seats in the Afghan parliament after the September 18 election, is symptomatic of what locals believe to be America’s Janus-faced role in Afghanistan.

Local media in Kabul have repeatedly asked why so many warlords who fought against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, only to go on to destroy one-third of the capital between 1992 and 1994 as a result of infighting that killed an estimated 60,000 residents, were allowed to stand for parliamentary and provincial-council elections.

There has been no answer, and one foreign election commissioner even resigned recently, because the Supreme Court allegedly ordered the reinstatement of one controversial candidate.

“The US has two policies. On one hand, they are against [the warlords],” said the leader of a pro-democracy NGO that is supported by the US, but who asked to remain anonymous. “On the other hand, they give them money to fight against al-Qaeda.”

Another Afghan, a prominent parliamentary candidate with a nomadic background, was less reserved about America’s role. “Warlords meet with the American ambassador while their men are being hunted. Americans owe these men a great favour, and they can’t break away from them,” said Hashmat Ghani Ahmadzai.

In the book, “The Rise of the Taleban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilisation, Civil War and the Future of the Region”, Afghan author Neamatollah Nojumi explains that the Americans strongly supported these warlords when they fought against the Russians in the 1980s. Although the Soviet Union no longer exists, many warlords who eventually committed human-rights abuses and crimes against their own people remain. Indeed, elections aside, some have been appointed as governors by Hamid Karzai, some even as ministers.

This may explain why one of the country’s highest-profile women said she did not bother to vote in previous elections.

“No election can guarantee a better future for any country,” Sima Samar, chairwoman of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), told Asian election observers from the Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel).

“Why should we go to vote [when] people who committed crimes stand for election? This is a result of the culture of impunity,” said Samar, who is also a former minister for women’s affairs under President Karzai. “So whom should the people trust, and why they should trust them?”

Samar said that not much should be expected from the US on the issue. “The Americans are not very supportive of human rights.” When asked why, she said, “[The Americans] don’t believe in human rights”.

Asian election observers also feel the issue of warlords running in the election cannot be overlooked. Kamal Suneth Perera, a Sri Lankan member of Anfrel who served as an observer in the troubled southern Afghan province of Kandahar, wrote a report stating that nearly 25 per cent of the candidates there were warlords.

“Among the contesting warlords, there are many who should be prosecuted, but nobody can prosecute them. Even nowadays, most of these warlords cannot be controlled by any government institution or regulation. When they go to parliament, their power simply increases, and they become more legitimate and powerful figures.”

But Perera is of the opinion that the warlords must be accommodated. “I don’t think any international group of governments can exclude these warlords, who are desperate to get political legitimacy. We simply have to accept their will to enter the democratic process. But there should be a strong mechanism and institution to monitor the activities of these warlords when they enter parliament and provincial councils,” wrote Perera. He suggested the AIHRC play an important role, not knowing what Samar, as head of that organisation, said earlier.

The Anfrel observer said the government would also have to be continually vigilant against warlords who lost the election. He added that what locals called “warlordism” was simply part of Afghan society.

But when they have ample weapons, men and money, can anyone really control them? Perera is doubtful.

“Regarding candidates who are active warlords, the question is who is going to control them if they are elected. Will they give up their illegal activities or increase them? We’ll have to wait and see.”

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Pravit Rojanaphruk was in Kabul as media officer for the Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel). This article on Afghanistan is the sixth and final in a series. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Anfrel.

Post your comment to this story here