Here are key points of this new constitution. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3367569.stm This link does not specifically say if women have the right to vote.
I think they have agreed to real constitution, not a "framework." Meanwhile, according to the Times article this morning, women have "equal rights and duties" as men, and are actually accorded a fixed precentage of seats in the so called People's Jurga. While this has gotten front page play on the Times, I don't think folks really appreciate what a landmark event this is. All the key "factions" in Afganistan participated (except the on-the-run Taliban, obviously), everyone had to compromise, everyone worked together to get this done. And from what I gather, we, the USA, provided consultation, but basically kept out of the process. There is a long long way to go. The country still needs to be disarmed, security is bad in lots of places and there is always the looming thread of factionalization (hmmm..sound familiar?) Lots could still go wrong; but this is a key step in having things turn out right. Those in the USA who are isolationists, and pessimists and patronizers who think that Islamic states aren't "ready" for democracy, have taken a body blow here.
Put me in the skeptical category. Just because women are equal to men on paper doesn't mean it will be in practice starting tomorrow. Factions compromising while we are providing consultation will probably not compromise as readily after we withdraw our services and the guns that back them up.
Isnt that a bit too early to say? what crystal ball are you looking into Nostradamus? I would like to see more results than a piece of paper before i get a hard on afghanistan is not exactly a stable country at the moment and doesnt look like one in the near future. If this is to succeed we need to expand Nato troops to the areas outside the capital Kabul- but there is no political will in the US or EU to do that. If this doesnt happen Karzai will still be an impotent ruler with no power
Say the word "pessmism" and the pessimists come out of the woodwork. Look, I know it's not going to be easy. It wasn't easy when WE put together our "piece of paper." It could all fall apart, and yet... It's a good sign, with the factions getting together and hammering out compromises. That some of these included warlord-led factions strikes me as hopeful. So, I guess what sets me apart is that I imagine the hopeful and postive...while others imagine the hopeless and negative. To each his own.
It remains to be seen whether Afghanistan will become a stable country. Although, I'm glad they didn't have you around when they were rebuilding Germany and Japan.
If we had had Bush around when we were rebuilding Germany and Japan, we'd have only placed troops in Berlin and Tokyo and left the rest of the country to our vanquished foes.
It obviously isn't worth trying to convince the jerks on these boards that any news is good news for the U.S. This is a fabulous story, but they'll never admit it. Their hatred of Bush is a given. What's truly sickening is the ill-will they wish for the country, contrary to what they claim. The ridicule they constantly heep on the United States in international matters clearly shows the contempt they hold for this country.
Realist is more my taste. Realisticly it will not succeed because the West (not only the US) dont have the balls to expand the peacekeeping force- If we find the balls to do so I will clap my hands. But right now the implementation of this new constitution is left to the various warlords whom I dont trust- if that makes me a pessimist so be it. But I guess you trust em ?
SLAP! Serously, where do you get your information? Do you know anyone actually in Afghanistan, or is this NYT Syndrome? Constitutions are generally good; ones that ensure democracy is even better. This one focuses upon a sort of republic, and is not democracy at all. Now, is that a "bad" thing? Don't know, but it is true...let's start with that. for you to submit "...All the key "factions" in Afganistan participated (except the on-the-run Taliban, obviously), everyone had to compromise, everyone worked together to get this done..." is absolute UN-truth and you need to stop. Women for Afghan Women are a (maybe THE) meaningful constituency; I know Masdua Sultan, well. Are you prepared to say that WAW was one of the key factions that "got this done?" The link above refutes your claim; dialoguing with individuals like Masuda, and not glancing at the NYT, refutes it further. DO your homework. This is a Constitution with no guaranteed specified rights for women, particularly lacking given the local cultural history... From WAW press release: "...We are worried that conservative elements entrenched in the sacred processes of nation-building are gaining political strength and that the ongoing constitutional process of ratifying the document through a 500-member Loya Jirga will further erode the rights accorded to women. Our overriding concern is that the draft constitution with its heavy reliance on Islam, leaves the law of the land vulnerable to extremist religious interpretations that are in opposition to women's human rights..." While you rest replete in the self-satisfaction that the US has "done it again" in re-making Afghanistan, Masuda's family will be living with the truck-driven holes in this document that allow - and now LEGALISE - Talibanesque sentiments toward women. Oh yeah, and the Taliban? They're everywhere but Kabul and Kandahar...wake up.
In Addition... WHAT SOME DELEGATES SAY: ...“I am not going to sign this constitution. It has been imposed by the government on us,” said Rohullamin, a Pashtun delegate from Ningarhar province. “We wanted to bring changes to certain articles but no one listened to us. To keep warlords happy they accepted Uzbeck as an official language, which is laying the corner stone for federalism. Now there are several official languages ... We should have one national language spoken by majority of the population and that is Pashtu.” Dr Moahmmed Kabir Rangebar, also an ethnic Pashtun, said: “I won’t sign this constitution because this is an ideological and political constitution. There is a close tie between religion and the state.” Delegate Nadir Khan, from southeastern Paktika province, told AFP: “We still support the constitution, although it does not reflect all our demands.” —AFP
You're a fool, and by the above indicate you know nothing about it other than that which corporate mass media has deigned to tell you. I don't know about "we"...what I wanted - and what I want still - is a Constitution that codifies and guarantees meaningful rights, for all, especially those most disadvantaged...this simply is not that. To just say it IS, b/c others have an agenda in doing so, is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty...not only foolish but disgraceful.
The vast majority of dictatorships over the past hundred years have been backed by democratic constitutions. It's understandable that those under educated in 20th century history would be so optimistic. What's curious, though, is your bait and switch between Afghanastan and Iraq. We "isolationists, and pessimists and patronizers" have never argued that the Taliban should not have been overthrown and democratic parameters put in place in Afghanastan. But again, for those of you under educated about the Islamic world, it's probably not worth making a distinction between the two countries.
*I* admit it. But my problem is with the silly notion that something is over. It ain't. It's beginning. It's like if you have a friend who has had a rough time of things, and you go to their wedding to a great POTOS. You're hopeful, but only children whose parents read them fairy tales confuse a beautiful wedding with a successful marriage. We'd have a better chance of pulling this off if Bush didn't pull out half our special ops people a year ago to prepare for the stupid pointless war.
If I wasn't so lazy, I'd look for the text of the Cuban constitution. If it wasn't tragic, it'd be hilarious how far the ideals of that document are from the real state of things in Cuba.
Yeah, funny that. It'd almost be like the U.S. Constitution explicitly stating in Article I, Section 8 that: "The Congress shall have power to... ...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. AND THEN have the Executive trample all over that power, and the Congress allow a Monarchical Executive Branch... Oh and btw, in case anyone wanted to argue that the Founders wanted to allow that type of flexibility: Alexander Hamilton: "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. . . . It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, -- all of which by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (The Federalist, 69, 1788.) ". . . .'The Congress shall have the power to declare war'; the plain meaning of which is, that it is the peculiar and exclusive duty of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war. . . ." (C. 1801.) * * * Thomas Jefferson: "We have already given in example one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body. . . ." (Letter to Madison, 1789.) "Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided." (Message to Congress, 1805.) * * * James Madison: ". . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." (1793.) "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature." (Letter to Jefferson, c. 1798.) * * * William Paterson framer and Supreme Court justice): ". . . It is the exclusive province of congress to change a state of peace into a state of war." (United States v. Smith, 1806.) * * * George Washington: "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." (1793.) * * * * * James Wilson: (framer and ratifier): "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. . . ." (To the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, 1787.) The difference between the document and the reality: you don't have to hate on Cuba; look to your own backyard, and no further.