• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

'Widespread fraud' in the Afghan elections

Pardalis said:
No, but I prefer him for a while than Mullah Omar.
Click to expand...
correct, we have replaced one undemocratic regime with another we prefer....And you support that so you must want the terrorists to win and hate the USA or some such stupid conclusion?
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6853123.ece

the Obama Administration has conceded that Mr Karzai will be President for another five years on the basis that even if he were forced into a second round of voting he would almost certainly win it.

[...] Mrs Clinton told Rangin Dadfar Spanta, the Afghan Foreign Minister, that she and her Nato colleagues — including David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary — had reached a consensus that Mr Karzai would remain President even if investigations now under way cut his share of the first-round vote to below 50 per cent.
Click to expand...

They're just recognising the way things are. Poor powerless people.
 
Last edited:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100202855.html

Peter W. Galbraith said:
... in my view, the fraud was a fact that the United Nations had to acknowledge or risk losing its credibility with the many Afghans who did not support President Hamid Karzai.

[...] Afghanistan's presidential election, held Aug. 20, should have been a milestone in the country's transition from 30 years of war to stability and democracy. Instead, it was just the opposite. As many as 30 percent of Karzai's votes were fraudulent, and lesser fraud was committed on behalf of other candidates. In several provinces, including Kandahar, four to 10 times as many votes were recorded as voters actually cast. The fraud has handed the Taliban its greatest strategic victory in eight years of fighting the United States and its Afghan partners.



[...] Peter W. Galbraith served as deputy special representative of the United Nations in Afghanistan from June until last week.
Click to expand...
 
A week is a long time in politics...
Karzai under pressure to accept a second round of elections or a "programme of national consensus":
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6879515.ece

The country’s Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) had been due to announce yesterday that Karzai’s share of the ballots was being cut from 54.6% to about 47% as a result of the inquiry, triggering a second round of voting. But the announcement was delayed amid diplomatic efforts to convince Karzai to abide by the decision.

[...] The American senator John Kerry met the president for the second time in two days to emphasise “the need for a legitimate outcome”, an embassy official said. French diplomats said a surprise visit by their foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, was also intended to defuse “tension created by the repeated delays in announcing the election results”.

Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has telephoned Karzai twice in seven days, while Hillary Clinton, the American secretary of state, spoke to him late on Friday night.
Click to expand...
 
2nd round of elections on Nov 7th:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/asia/21afghan.html?_r=1&hp

Mr. Karzai said he would accept the findings of an international audit that stripped him of nearly one-third of his votes in the first round,

[...] And there is still a chance that the two candidates could reach a power-sharing agreement, which would cancel the need for a second round.

[...] A panel of experts appointed by the United Nations issued findings on Monday that showed that fraud was so pervasive that nearly a quarter of all votes were thrown out, and that Mr. Karzai had not won the Aug. 20 election outright, according to an analysis of the findings by The New York Times. Nearly a million of Mr. Karzai’s just over three million votes were discarded.
Click to expand...
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8317509.stm
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said the UN wants more than half the top officials involved in Afghanistan's election replaced.

...

To ensure that mistakes were not repeated, he said the UN would advise the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) not to re-recruit officials who may have been involved in fraud.
Click to expand...

This amuses me.

Karzai fixes the election, gets caught, and the UN's solution to make sure no one fixes the election is ... not to use the same guys Karzai used to fix the elections last time.

Gee. I bet I know one official whose removal would prevent an election rigged in favor of Karzai. I bet it isn't on the UN list though.
 
Abdullah (bis) quits

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/01/afghanistan.election/index.html

I guess there is no point in holding a second attempt at the elections anymore. I understand his reasons, but I think this will in the long run discourage Afghans even more from voting.

The critics of the elections were right it seems, but at least making them exercise their right to vote was something.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is the plan in Afghanistan? Interntional security or the plight of the Afghans? It seems that this can never be defined.
 
I guess what gets my goat the most is the endless rationalization that it's done for democracy. And yes, it includes such stuff as Korea and Vietnam where a corrupt unelected puppet government was installed in the name of democracy, or couping Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 to reinstall a corrupt dictator, or backing up a dozen tin-horn generallissimos all over the place... all in the name of democracy.

It seems to me like backing a corrupt dictator for democracy, is like screwing for virginity.

How much more of this crap has to happen before we all abandon the pretense of bringing democracy to some poor oppressed people, and just call it what it is: imperialism? I think I could actually respect an honest imperialist more than I can respect a hypocrite.
 
Rika said:
It's not really imperialism. It's more forming a hegemony. About as bad.
Click to expand...

I thought that there isn't that horribly much of a difference between hegemony over other states, and imperialism. Both involve essentially putting another state, or several other states, in a subordinate position, by means ranging from outright couping them to just pulling one's economic weight to impose unequal trade relations.

The only difference I can come up with off the top of my head, is that imperialism has acquired a pejorative connotation, whereas hegemony sounds all greek to Joe Sixpack.

But, ok, let's call it hegemony then. I can live with that. Just as long as we stop pretending that it's all about bringing democracy to the world.
 
And the fact that al Qaeda was harbored by the Taliban had nothing to do with the invasion?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
What exactly is the plan in Afghanistan? Interntional security or the plight of the Afghans? It seems that this can never be defined.
Click to expand...
Indefinitely propping up a favourable dictator instead of letting an unfavourable dictator come to power seems to be the plan.
 
Peephole said:
Indefinitely propping up a favourable dictator instead of letting an unfavourable dictator come to power seems to be the plan.
Click to expand...
If that achieves the supression of Al Qeda, it's not that bad a plan, even if it isn't a great plan. :p Since the lines on the map, at present, are part of the problem, no plan is going to meet your ideal solution set. (And given your position, your ideals are irrelevant to the situation there). One can only shine that turd so much. It's still a turd. Muddling through: possibly the only approach that can hope to achieve a better. There is no best.

In other news, the challenger to Karzai has thrown up his hands in dismay/disgust/frustration, and Karzai is now the winner of the election.

And there was much rejoicing blowing of raspberries. SSDD.

So, what does he do next? Reach out to the opposition or declare a mandate of the people? :confused:

DR
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom