You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan/South Asia
No Agreement Reached on Afghan Elections
2004-07-07
That title doesn't look out of place, does it?
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghan and U.N. officials failed Tuesday to agree on a date for national elections, further muddying the timetable for the oft-delayed vote designed to anchor Afghanistan's recovery from decades of war.

A vote for president looks likely in late September or October, despite a string of attacks on election workers and voters that have been blamed on Taliban militants. But Afghan officials say worries about logistics and intimidation by warlords could yet push the election of a 249-seat parliament - a far more difficult vote to organize - into next year.

President Hamid Karzai and members of the U.N.-sponsored electoral commission emerged from a meeting at the presidential palace in Kabul without a final deal. "We can have the presidential election," said Agriculture Minister Hussain Anwari. "But the commission says it needs six months for the parliamentary vote."
I'd ask why, but then I think about the Palm Beach butterfly ballot.
The election was originally set for June, but was postponed to September to allow more time to register voters and demobilize unruly militias. With more delay looming, Afghan officials now talk of holding the vote in the Afghan month of September, which runs from Sept. 22-Oct. 21 under a solar calendar.

Originally, voters were also to concurrently elect a new parliament as they choose a president. But officials say that the two votes may now be separated. Anwari said the government wanted both polls wrapped up before November - before the harsh winter sets in - crowning a two-and-a-half-year drive to stabilize the country after a U.S. bombing campaign drove the Taliban from power at the end of 2001. But the United Nations is concerned that if the parliamentary vote is held too soon, anti-Taliban warlords who allied with the United States will consolidate their grip on the country after the failed drive to disarm them.
And they can't have that, can they?
Only about a quarter of the militiamen supposed to disarm by the end of June have given in their weapons. No new deadlines have been set. Electoral officials also have no census data to calculate the distribution of seats in parliament, and there are no laws yet on campaign finance or media access for 2,000 expected candidates.
Yeah, how can they have an election without an Afghan version of McCain-Feingold in place?
Said Mohammed Azam, spokesman for the electoral commission in which the United Nations holds half the seats, declined to give details of Tuesday's talks. He said the timetable should be settled "quite soon" - although it wasn't immediately clear if more talks were scheduled for reaching a final decision.

So far, about six million Afghans have registered to vote, out of an estimated 10 million eligible. Registration has also been uneven, with election teams still unable to enter parts of the Pashtun-dominated south rocked by a series of Taliban attacks apparently designed to disrupt the process.
So they don't get to vote. Then we tell all the people there why. And let them solve the problem.
Posted by:Steve White

#3  At least they're not on strike.
Posted by: tu3031   2004-07-07 2:32:49 PM  

#2  They're supervising and lending their superb advice LH. What more do you want?
Posted by: Shipman   2004-07-07 10:49:41 AM  

#1  the real outrage here is the failure of NATO to come through. Come on guys, y'all claim that Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan? So why dont undistracted French and German troops take over here? Only a few hundred French? What gives? Chirac is so intent on punishing the US, he'll do it at the expense of the people of Afghanistan? Feh!
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-07-07 9:45:01 AM  

00:00