Arman-e Melli: The ECO meeting and Dr Spanta’s continued illegitimate hold on office

Afghan paper slams government for foreign minister standoff, October 21

Independent Afghan daily Arman-e Melli criticizes government for insisting on keeping Foreign Minister Dr Spanta despites parliament’s no confidence vote. The paper also questions Germany’s support for the FM, claiming foreign countries seek their own interest rather than strengthening institutions in Afghanistan. The paper also says that MPs’ participation in parliamentary sessions is in decline as MPs have lost image and moral. The following is the text of an article headlined “The ECO meeting and Dr Spanta’s continued illegitimate hold on office” published on 21 October; subheading inserted editorially:

Political crisis in dependent countries like Afghanistan reflect not only internal challenges, but also diverse regional policies. This problem can be solved only if policy makers display proper political skills and aptitude to balance policies aimed at tackling internal problems with policies of foreign countries vis a vis Afghanistan.

Policy makers and those at the helm of affairs have, unfortunately, been unable to make sure that policies aimed at ensuring national interests are not in conflict with external considerations.

Insistence on keeping [Foreign Minister Dadfar Rangin] Spanta in the cabinet despite the fact that the majority MPs is against his continuation in office is an example of a lack of political aptitude in the government.

This problem has been compounded by reports that Afghanistan will be the ECO’s [Economic Cooperation Organization] chair over the next year. The announcement came during the ECO [foreign ministers] meeting in Herat.

The situation got even worse when the Foreign Ministry’s spokesman said that Dr Spanta would be the ECO’s president for the next one year. He did not mention that Afghanistan would be the ECO’s chair.

This comes at a time when Afghanistan’s Wolasi Jerga [lower house of parliament] has given vote of no confidence to Dr Spanta, thereby rendering his role as foreign minister illegitimate. Countries in the region are also aware of this standoff between the government and the parliament.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must speak on behalf of Afghanistan, not on behalf of Dr Spanta who may not remain in office next year. The lower house has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of his role in office.

Parliament undermined

The standoff between the parliament and the government over the removal of Dr Spanta or his continuation in office explains the snobbery of a small group in power, insisting on continuation of a minister who has been striped of his authority. This status quo also casts serious doubts on the will and capacities of elected public representatives in the parliament.

Although, the confrontation between the parliament and the government over a minister (who has hardly had any achievements) [bracket as published] seems to be phoney, it has harmed the prestige of the parliament as an institution monitoring the government’s activities as well as the credibility of the government, thereby destabilizing the state as a whole. Standoffs between a government and a parliament are common issue in any country, but it has never led to demeaning of a government in public opinion, and a gradual dissolution of a parliament (without the government directly dissolving it).

Why Mr Karzai uses Dr Spanta as a shield?

Mr [Hamed] Karzai knew that if the Wolasi Jerga succeeded in removing the minister of foreign affairs, sooner or later it would have been another minister’s turn. This would have made a crack in the government ranks and would have curtailed the government’s power to appoint or remove ministers, even if not leading to complete capitulation of the president’s team. Consequently, the government team in the presidential palace would have left the scene for new political movements. Hence, it was deemed necessary to violate the law to ensure the hold of one team on power.

The government is aware of its own actions. The people also know that, contrary to its slogans of meritocracy, the government brought people into power on compromise as it deemed necessary. People know the figures that have been brought into the government in this manner. There is no need to mention their names, because it is enough to say that if political games are played at the cost of people’s expectations, it will sooner or later spark a social tragedy. It must be borne in mind that political games are also bound by certain principles which if violated will backfire.

Untouchable ministers

It appears from MPs’ comments that after Dr Spanta the house intended to take on other ministers, such as Zarar Ahmad Moqbel [minister of internal affairs], who have no effectiveness.

However, the government’s stiff resistance made this task unattainable. The government, thus, totally denied the parliament its role as a monitor and reformer. The government which has never showed such determination on even a single national issue seems to be determined to stand on Dr Spanta at any cost. Why the government did not take the same stance on former Minister of Refugee Affairs Akbar Akbar?

Germany wrong to support FM Spanta

What does it mean when Germany insist on Dr Spanta remaining in office [Dr Spanta is a German citizen]? If Dr Spanta works for Germany or other foreign circles, why on the earth should this issue cause a political crisis in the country at a time when it needs stability and national trust more than any other time in the past.

To what extent have those at the helm of affairs gone in their commitment to be dictated by others? Is the opinion of a European country with some troops in Afghanistan to secure its own interests more important than the opinions of people and the Wolasi Jerga? Is the German government ready to take the responsibility of an emerging crisis and a lack of trust between the two trembling bodies of the state of Afghanistan? Is it, then, appropriate to call it the government of people of Afghanistan?

At least learn some lessons from Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who does not compromise at the dignity and pride of his nation despite the presence of 150,000 foreign troops in that country. He even dares to oppose President Bush on sensitive issues. Recently, the Iraqi government suspended operations of two known American security companies. The major problem of this [Afghan] government] is that it violates its own laws, let alone countries like Germany who (as stated by themselves) “play tricks” in Afghanistan.

If every European state begins dictating the weak government of Afghanistan, what can one expect from such a government?

Wolasi Jerga’s silence: The Wolasi Jerga first voted for Dr Spanta with optimism by overlooking his credentials, an action that raises questions in the people’s minds. Interestingly, replying to some members of parliament who said they had voted for him to make him minister of foreign affairs, he said: Why did you vote fore me? You should not have voted for me.

Every MP knew that Dr Spanta lacked social influence and national trust within the Afghan society, and that he did not have experience in the field of diplomacy, but their mysterious approach brought into office a person who became a bone of contention between the parliament and the government. He is now taking advantage of this situation to ensure his stay in office.

If the hand of a foreign country and the prospect of links and connections are not involved in this issue, how can a person who naively admitted in an interview with the Iranian, Radio Voice of Iran, that “I have no knowledge of diplomatic games and tricks” continue grabbing the ministry with his both hands?

Parliament has become irrelevant

Should meeting with a few foreigners and addressing small gatherings of Afghans abroad while being totally oblivious of the pains and suffering of Afghan society make a person eligible to be a lifetime minister?

Why the Wolasi Jerga agrees when one ministry is removed from his post while another continues to stay in office illegally? Silence after a series of warnings by Mohammad Yunos Qanuni, Speaker of the Wolasi Jerga, to shut down parliament is also a mystery. Past experiences show that there are personal dealings behind such mysteries. If Wolasi Jerga is not able to defend its decisions, and the government has intentionally limited its role, why is it engaging itself in unimportant petty daily issues? The house should know that there is hardly a difference between dissolving of a parliament or sidelining it and curtailing its role by the government.

Experts of political affairs in Afghanistan say that it was apparent from the very beginning that if the Wolasi Jerga failed to stand on its own feet, the government would try to ensure its clout over it, thus making it a tool in the government’s hands. Apparently, the house has not come under total influence of the government, but the government’s indifference towards its decisions and its legal status has brought the house activities to a standstill. This situation and the pessimism of many members of the Wolasi Jerga have almost brought the jerga to a close. The only different between this state and dissolution of the house is that in case of dissolution, members of parliament do not come in for criticize, and have no legal responsibility as they can say that they did what they could, but it was the government which violated the law and dissolved the parliament. But in the present situation, members of the Wolasi Jerga are serving. Therefore, the public opinion judges them and takes them to task. Question to be asked is that why Wolasi Jerga has chosen to remain silence against the government, particularly in Dr Spanta’ case?

According to reports, the government’s indifference towards the Wolasi Jerga decisions, particularly in Dr Spanta’s case, has left many members of parliament uncertain about the continuation of the parliament’s work. Their participation in parliament sessions has decreased significantly.

On other hand, there has been no collective motion within the parliament to correct the situation. Question to be asked is that if head of the state is only the president of Dr Spanta and some foreign countries, or is he an elected president of all people of Afghanistan? If the former is true, this must be publicly announced, but if he is the president of all people [of Afghanistan], he must respect the law, the same which granted people the right to elect him.

Law obliges the president to respect Wolasi Jerga decisions. It is wished that the government had also shown the same persistence and resoluteness in dealing with other important issues, such as prosecuting individuals involved in bribery, economic bands, and mafia groups, which have induced corruption in the government, causing people to turn to the Taleban.

How good if foreign countries had pressured the government on these issues so to prevent looming social crisis in Afghanistan. The government’s use of power tools, and the foreign circles’ use of the weak Afghan government to achieve their own objectives will only compound the trend of increasing lack of confidence among people [vis a vis the government] and will result in increased social threats.

[Description of Source: Kabul Arman-e Melli (National Aspiration) in Dari -- Four-page independent daily with broad coverage of domestic political issues, including interviews with political figures. Also carries international, science health issues, and readers' letters, some of which are critical of the government. OSC IAP20071025950037 Kabul Arman-e Melli (National Aspiration) in Dari 0000 GMT 21 Oct 07)