The audit to select the next President of Afghanistan has stopped, and started, and stopped, and started, and stopped, and started, and stopped, and started.
To help in this movement towards Afghan sovereignty, delegations of foreigners are arriving.
“The arrival of a large contingent of international observers, in addition to the domestic observer groups, and UN experts is a powerful and tangible expression of the international community's commitment to Afghanistan,” said Ján Kubiš, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative and head of UNAMA.The United Nations would like to stress, once again, that about their participation in the audit to select the next President of Afghanistan, look, they were asked.
As agreed by the two Presidential candidates, Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, on 12 July, the audit will be conducted by the Independent Election Commission (IEC) in the full presence of international and domestic observers, candidates’ agents, the media and UN advisors.And also to point out that they were asked.
Under the 12 July technical agreement reached by the two candidates, the UN was asked to propose the manner for the international supervision of the audit, which involves the entirety of the approximately 23,000 ballot boxes from the run-off.And also to ask the guys who had asked them, to agree to what they had agreed on.
Mr. Kubiš called on the two presidential campaigns to honour their agreement to take advantage of the extensive international mobilization and goodwill through their participation in the fully transparent audit of every single ballot box which they themselves requested.The United Nations does not ask the guys who had asked them, to agree on what they had agreed to. This is probably diplomatic, and perhaps more in John Kerry's court.
About whether the audit to select the next President of Afghanistan is currently stopped or started, there seems to be some dispute.
An audit of Afghanistan's presidential election has resumed without the support of one of the leading candidates, Abdullah Abdullah, undermining a process designed to ease suspicions about fraud."Half-started" might be best.
Here is something unusual, compared to the standard election process. An op-ed endorsing a candidate, published after all the voting has been done. The author supports Ashraf Ghani in the audit for President of Afghanistan, because Abdullah has brought Afghanistan to the brink of civil war.
And only one has threatened to undermine the fragile Afghan democracy.Besides,
His name is Abdullah Abdullah, and he is quickly becoming more dangerous to Afghanistan’s democratic promise than Mullah Omar or any Taliban resurgence.
His rival, Ashraf Ghani, probably got more votes in the second round in June.Ghani probably won.
John Kerry had an op-ed in Tolo last Wednesday. The Secretary of State did not endorse any candidate in the audit. He had a section that looks directly targeted at Ghani supporters, though.
It's not for outsiders to describe the contents of the political framework both candidates accepted a few days ago. But I was there in the room, and I can tell you what is not in that one-page document.It is not true, John Kerry says, that the United States, in 48 hours of emergency back room negotiations to avert civil war, had given away the store. There is still the process of agreeing about what had been agreed on. And of rigging up a jirga, which would depend on who wins the audit.
It does not violate the Afghan constitution – it respects Afghan institutions and the role of the president as the head of government. It does not establish a parliamentary system – it creates a new position of chief executive who will report to the president until the president convenes a loya jirga to determine whether a permanent change is in the best interests of the country.
The Washington Post has some anonymous official background on the op-ed, which looks targeted at New York Times readers, and stories they might have read.
Kerry’s intervention came amid a crescendo of what a senior Obama administration official called “misinformation and background noise” about the terms of the still-secret accord they reached in their July 12 emergency talks with him.
Daily Beast has some anonymous Afghan officials. John Kerry is not continuing to save the day, one says.
“Both camps [Ghani and Abdullah] are puzzled and full of speculation,” the former top Afghan official said. ”It indicates the U.S. has very limited interest in following up the deal it brokered. Whatever the reason for Kerry’s cancellation, the impression is that U.S. does not want to invest the time to resolve this issue. It is very risky for U.S., Afghanistan and the region to give that impression at this critical juncture.”More endorsements made after voting is finished. Unanonymous American security establishment figure Bruce Riedel supports Abdullah Abdullah, because Ghani has brought Afghanistan to the brink of civil war.
[Ghani] and his vice presidential candidate [Abdul Rashid] Dostam are pushing Afghanistan to the edge,” Riedel said.Besides,
Ghani’s numbers for the second round don’t washAbdullah probably won.
In addition to delegations of foreigners arriving, a new audiotape has come out. The voice on the audiotape is said to be of First Vice President Karim Khalili.
Supporters of Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister, released an audio recording they said was Vice President Mohammad Karim Khalili encouraging vote-rigging in favour of Ashraf Ghani, the other contender in the race.The United States was supporting Ashraf Ghani in stealing the election, the voice on the audiotape said, exclamation point.
“Our international friends have promised us that by using any means and using any opportunity, the election outcome must turn in favor of this team, even if these opportunities, even if these means are against electoral mechanisms,” the voice said.I think the New York Times headline is fair in saying that we have got, at this point, a dispute. The audit to select the next President of Afghanistan is in some danger of perhaps going a bit derailed.
I found, deeply buried in the internet, a Swedish government review of the Afghan Analysts Network website. Afghans already know what Afghanistan Analysts Network says. They recognize the site is aimed at explaining Afghanistan to an international audience. But they find the cynicism a bit condescending.
"Condescending" is better than being called "sanctimonious". Condescending poll follows.