Afghanistan’s state-building process has reached a crossroads. With a constitution ratified and the country’s first elections in decades scheduled for June-July 2004–although the continued deterioration of security conditions have placed this target in doubt–the Bonn political process has entered its final phase.
One year after the start of war in Iraq, the peace movement in the United States faces an unusual predicament. Critics of the invasion had many of their key arguments vindicated in the past year, as President Bush’s case for war has collapsed. Likewise, activists can take substantial credit for emboldening Democratic criticisms of the Bush administration and for keeping war-related scandals in the spotlight. Yet even as we sense that greater space for progressive activism in the country is opening, it has been hard to maintain a sense of unity and purpose within the peace movement itself.
On January 4, 2004, 502 delegates agreed on a Constitution for Afghanistan , an act many have described as a positive step toward democracy. U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad wrote: “Afghans have seized the opportunity provided by the United States and its international partners to lay the foundation for democratic institutions and provide a framework for national elections.” 1 Judging by who was allowed to participate, their manner of participation, and the document itself, the foundation set by the delegates and their foreign overseers was precisely antidemocratic.
Africa Policy Outlook 2004 By Salih Booker and Ann-Louise Colgan Salih Booker is Executive Director, and Ann-Louise Colgan is Assistant Director for Policy Analysis & Communications, at Africa Action ( www.africaaction.org ).
(Editor’s Note: The failure of the Cancun WTO ministerial may eventually come to be viewed as marking the end of the current global trade agenda. Given the existing lack of multilateral consensus, the immediate future promises a shift of negotiating strategy toward bilateral agreements. This shift is a transitional moment, which brings with it opportunity and risk. The opportunity is to craft an historic new progressive multilateral trade agenda based on a North-South grand bargain involving agricultural trade policy reform in return for trade-related labor and environmental standards. The risk is that bilateral negotiations could be used to weaken existing labor protections and introduce undesirable investment rules that create global lock-in. For this reason, the debates over FTAA, CAFTA, and other country agreements matter very much, since they will impact the space for future multilateral agreements. As part of its commitment to provide prescriptions as well as timely critiques of U.S. foreign policy, Foreign Policy In Focus is producing this discussion paper by economist Thomas Palley. We welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions and responses. Please send them to FPIF co-editor John Gershman <john@irc-online.org>.)
The U.S. has shown the Iraqi Governing Council the door, not just because of the need to speed up the transition to self-government, but because the council has become a little too independent for its own good. With the council to be replaced by another set of U.S.-installed Iraqis, the search is on for a new batch of collaborators.