Kenya Votes “Yes” on New Constitution
Women from the Turkana tribe line up to vote (Sigfried Modola/AFP/Getty Images)
Early results show that Kenya’s new constitution has passed with high voter turnout. Memories of the disastrous 2007 elections that left more than 1,000 people dead cast a shadow but thousands of police officers were dispatched to rural areas to maintain order.
The TEAM: Kenya star, Kenneth Maima enthusiastically shared his views of the electoral process:
“You should be here and witness what is going on. Comparing these votes casting and the last(2007) I can confidently say the Electoral Commission’s tallying technology and vote tactics have been reloaded to a whole new better level. The operation is very smooth and well-coordinated and transparent!
And the people have made the greatest improvements, both camps (‘YES’ and ‘NO’) are co-relating and co-existing and talking like there is no rivalry between them what-so-ever. You should see them.
The Team Kenya and Search For Common Ground and other related organizations have a very remarkable job and this is sweetly overwhelming!
I just hope and pray that it could always stay like this.”
The New York Times has a great write-up and photo spread of the elections.
A role for the US in Afghan national reconciliation?
by Shukria Dellawar
Washington, DC – In June, at the latest loya jirga (a grand assembly comprised of tribal leaders) meeting in Kabul, 1,600 local Afghan leaders endorsed a social reintegration programme for low-level Taliban insurgents willing to renounce violence, accept the Afghan Constitution and return to their homes with potential incentives, such as employment, vocational training or development projects for their communities.
The jirga was a significant step forward in consensus building and national reconciliation among Afghans. The programme is designed to attract Taliban insurgents who have no ideological commitment to the Taliban and are part of the insurgency for monetary compensation. However, reintegrating Taliban foot soldiers is only one dimension of a broader reconciliation process.
Although the United States supports and funds reintegration of foot soldiers, it still refuses to endorse talks with senior Taliban leadership, in essence creating a major roadblock towards Afghan-led reconciliation efforts. This strategy continues despite the fact that the majority of NATO allies, and senior Afghan and US officials, have publicly acknowledged that this war cannot be won by military means alone. If Afghanistan is to move towards lasting peace, the United States’ overall strategy must be changed.
The United States and the Taliban leadership continue to place opposing preconditions on the Kabul government which prevent a national reconciliation process from going forward. For example, the United States wants the Taliban to stop fighting and accept the Afghan Constitution. The Taliban, meanwhile, wants foreign forces out of Afghanistan as a precondition to joining the government’s political process. Furthermore, senior Taliban leadership is open to dialogue with the United States, but only under the condition that there are no other preconditions for holding talks.
To break this stalemate, build trust between both sides and facilitate reconciliation, Karzai’s administration has pushed the United Nations in recent months to remove certain Taliban commanders from its terror list. And Kabul and Islamabad are rumoured to be luring top Taliban leadership into Afghanistan’s political process. However, US Army General David Petraeus’s recent decision to blacklist the Haqqani Network – an insurgency group in Afghanistan and Pakistan closely allied with the Taliban – as a terrorist organisation may jeopardise these initiatives.
US President Barack Obama has declared that his country’s objective in Afghanistan is to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda” while breaking the “momentum” of the Taliban. The counter-insurgency strategy pursued by the United States seeks to weaken the Taliban insurgency before endorsing formal dialogue between the Karzai Administration and insurgent commanders. The strategy to meet this goal needs to be reassessed.
First, there are only 50 to 100 active Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, according to Afghan and US officials, which means that a huge military force to deal with this number of operatives is wholly disproportionate. Second, the only way to break the “momentum” of the Taliban lies in assisting an Afghan-centric reconciliation process, which heavily supports talks with senior Taliban commanders.
After all, there have been nine years of fighting an insurgency without serious engagement in dialogue to bring these elements into the political fold – and the Taliban have only become stronger, not weaker. Thus, the stability of Afghanistan rests on re-examining the ineffectiveness of a hard power approach and an eventual transition towards the robust use of soft power in meeting long-term policy objectives. The best way to help the Kabul government stabilise the country is to support their full reconciliation strategy, which includes reaching out to senior Taliban commanders.
Third, all major players – including the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United States, and NATO allies, amongst others – need to put an emphasis on socio-economic development, reconstruction, institution building, education and human rights in Afghanistan.
Finally, the exploitation of ethnic divisions for political interests by regional players and internal actors must be contained by the United States. Both Afghan majority and minority leaders must work together to bring peace to their war-torn nation.
Continued violence and long-term military engagement will only lead to further destruction of Afghan society. Supporting Afghan efforts to reconcile differences among themselves and strengthening Afghan state institutions will pave the way for long-term stability. Neither the Afghans nor the international community can allow Afghanistan to become a safer haven for terrorists.
###
Read the original publication of this article and others like it here at the Common Ground News Service.
Protesting the mosque (washingtontimes.com)
By Sydney Smith
I have often wondered why the idea of ground zero mosque inspires such bile and negativity. I think our natural tendency to simplify is a large part of the problem. Even calling it the ground zero mosque, for example, is misleading. But I suppose the mosque planned to be built near ground zero doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily—even if it is more accurate. Some of the loudest voices against the mosque seem to come from people who otherwise deride New York as a city of East Coast Elites and speak as if its inhabitants are out of touch with the heartland of America (yes, I’m talking to you Sarah Palin).
It seems that anyone can become an “us” and anyone a “them” whenever it’s convenient. Another oversimplification. And a dangerous one.
Like Joseph Hill, who has an excellent article on the debate, my anthropological background has trained me to ask questions of views I don’t agree with or understand before criticizing, but that’s often a much harder task than it seems. Before reading this article it was easy for me to dismiss the anti-mosque voices as reactionary, xenophobic and racist. But if I do that, I am playing into the “us-them” dichotomy and I’m siding with people who think of in the world in terms of clashing civilizations.
Hill’s article is a stirring call to abandon the clash of civilizations theory which is used by people the world over to mobilize groups against each other. He writes:
“Cosmopolitanism isn’t mushy-headed ‘tolerance’ or ‘open-mindedness’ (or ‘multiculturalism,’ as right-wing politicians never tire of saying). It’s the insistence that we all share a common humanity and the refusal to allow culture to be used as a weapon or a facile explanation. Likewise, anti-cosmopolitanism (the ‘clash of civilizations’ narrative) is not simply a culture of closed-mindedness. It’s a tool that powerful people use to convince ordinary, well-meaning people that ‘we’ are fundamentally different from ‘them.’”
Read the rest of the article here on Salon.
Saudi Arabia and UAE to limit BlackBerry Messaging
UAE and Saudi Arabia have made plans to ban BlackBerry messaging usage, citing security concerns. Data sent via BlackBerry is encrypted and sent to offshore servers so it cannot be tracked by local authorities. There is some concern that what the gulf state governments are really after, is less security and more about encroaching into private lives. In Saudi Arabia the vast majority of BlackBerry users are individuals rather than enterprises and the device is often used to facilitate interaction between members of the opposite sex.
Read more about it here.
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!– An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.–
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
—Wilfred Owen
A cinquantenaire performance Tanya attended
Bukavu — June 30th is not just any other day in DR Congo. And June 30th 2010 was certainly not just any other day in DR Congo. It was the country’s 50th birthday. To mark the event, the government and the Congolese people went all out. They threw a birthday extravaganza that included parades, singing, dancing, theatre, and fireworks.
I had the privilege of being in Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu province in Eastern Congo for the celebrations. But I won’t remember June 30th 2010 as the anniversary of Congo, but as the day I thought I was caught in an outbreak of war! read more…
