Log in

View Full Version : Afghan recount because of fraud charges



Communist
9th September 2009, 04:30
Afghan recount ordered because of fraud charges (http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx/world/0/APNews/General-World-News/20090909/U_AS-Afghan-Election?pageid=1)

AP - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 6:57:29 PM By JASON STRAZIUSO and HEIDI VOGT

http://ll.vimg.net/imagesoa/cms/images/APNews/General-World-News/20090909/AS-Afghan-Election-98076776-3d10-4cd5-b687-55b8bddd167a.jpg?width=300&height=2048&type=fm&watermark=&detectface=1&faceratio=&watermarkloc=
photo by AP

A U.N.-backed commission found "convincing evidence" of fraud Tuesday in Afghanistan's presidential election and ordered a recount of suspect ballots in at least three provinces, a process that could take months.

At the same time, Afghan officials released new returns that give President Hamid Karzai 54 percent of the vote with nearly all ballots tallied, enough to avoid a run-off unless large numbers of tainted ballots are ultimately thrown out.

The separate announcements from the complaints commission, which is dominated by U.N.-appointed Westerners, and the election commission, which is filled with Karzai appointees, could set the stage for a showdown.

The image of a crooked Afghan president rigging the vote threatens to discredit the entire U.S.-led mission here at a time when NATO casualties are mounting and American, European and Canadian voters are fatigued and disenchanted with the war.

"The perception of fraud will shorten the length of time that one can expect foreign support," said Ronald E. Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. "People will just get disgusted. They'll say, `Why do I sacrifice my son for a leadership that cannot rally the country fairly?'"

Four more U.S. troops were killed Tuesday during what the military labeled a "complex attack" in eastern Kunar province. August was already the deadliest month of the eight-year war for both U.S. troops and the entire NATO force at the hands of a resurgent Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama is facing increasing resistance to the war at a time when he has little political capital to spare, and many supporters are urging him to scale back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to the country this year with the immediate goal of ensuring a safe and credible election, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal will soon ask him to send thousands more. Those favoring an increased U.S. presence argue that the American troop buildup has not been given enough time to succeed.

Also in need of much more time is the process of sorting out the many allegations of vote fraud. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday it could take months -- but that the most important thing is for the allegations to be addressed in a way that gives ordinary Afghans confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome.

New results released Tuesday gave Karzai more than 50 percent of ballots cast for the first time since officials began releasing partial returns following the Aug. 20 vote. With results in from almost 92 percent of the country's polling sites -- representing 5.7 million votes -- Karzai has 54.1 percent, and will likely finish the preliminary count with a majority.

The standing of top challenger Abdullah Abdullah has dropped dramatically as more results have come in from the south -- Karzai's stronghold -- in recent days. Abdullah now has 28.3 percent.

If, as expected, the Afghan election commission soon announces that a final count shows Karzai won a majority of the vote, the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission will begin its investigations of fraud.

The commission took its first step in that direction Tuesday, ordering a recount at polling stations where it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud."

Daoud Ali Najafi, chief electoral officer of the Afghan-run election commission, said recounting votes could take "two months or three months."

Afghanistan's electoral law gives the U.N.-backed complaints commission broad authorities. It can nullify any votes it deems fraudulent, order a re-count of votes or order a new vote entirely. The commission is made up of one American, one Canadian and one Dutch national -- all appointed by the U.N. -- and two Afghans appointed by an Afghan human rights organization and the country's Supreme Court.

The U.N. commission did not indicate how many polling stations would require re-counts, but said it had so far identified some with questionable results in Ghazni, Paktika and Kandahar provinces -- all southern areas dominated by Karzai's ethnic Pashtun group.

If it voids huge blocks of votes in the south, that could drop Karzai's total below 50 percent and force a run-off with Abdullah -- a contest which Karzai would be favored to win.

The commission said it was also launching investigations in other provinces after receiving more than 720 major fraud complaints throughout the country.

The results announced Tuesday do not include potentially tainted ballots that the Afghan-run commission had already quarantined from more than 600 of the country's 26,000 polling stations. The U.N.-backed commission will investigate and determine whether they can be counted or be discarded.

Western officials say ballots have been submitted from hundreds of fake voting sites, especially in the south. The Afghan-run commission has tallied dozens of voting sites where Karzai won neatly rounded blocks of ballots -- 200, 300 and 500 votes -- results that one Western official labeled "illogical." It was unclear whether they were among the ballots that the Afghan commission has set aside.

Polling stations showing 100 percent turnout or with a candidate receiving more than 95 percent of the vote will need to be audited and recounted, the U.N.-backed commission said. Stations with fewer than 100 ballots will be exempt.

Grant Kippen, chairman of the complaints commission, said other irregularities include ballots not being folded -- meaning they would not fit in a ballot box slot -- identically marked ballots and overly large counts.
Kippen said he saw a box with 1,700 ballots in Kandahar, even though the maximum should be 600.

Although Karzai was practically the toast of the Bush administration, U.S.-Afghan relations cooled significantly when Obama came to office in January. The Afghan leader has angered Washington by pardoning drug dealers and cozying up to warlords, actions that he evidently thought were necessary to ensure his re-election.

It would now appear that those very same Afghan power brokers have fueled the hundreds of apparent incidents of fraud to help re-elect Karzai and thereby retain the patronage jobs and other benefits they've reaped by allying themselves with his government.

=====================================

Communist
9th September 2009, 04:44
This is a bit old but interesting as a 'prequel' to the above, and with a socialist perspective.
--------------------------------------------------->
============================
======================
=================
============
=========
======
===
=

Afghans opt out of phony election (http://www.workers.org/2009/world/afghanistan_0903/)

By John Catalinotto

Published Aug 26, 2009 3:31 PM


The fraud-filled and inconclusive Afghan presidential election exposed the weakness of the U.S.-NATO occupation regime. President Barack Obama’s defense of the phony election and of the U.S. intervention failed to cover this up at a time when the people in the U.S. are growing increasingly unhappy with the Afghan war.

The top Pentagon brass admit to weaknesses of the occupation and the Afghan puppet regime, but do so in order to make the case for more U.S. troops. The generals are putting the administration in the position of taking responsibility for a U.S. defeat if it doesn’t send more youths to kill and die in Central Asia.

No election under foreign occupation can be considered “fair.” It is automatically a violation of that nation’s sovereignty to have foreign troops presiding over polling places. But Afghanistan’s Aug. 20 presidential election was corrupt from every angle.

The resistance forces opposed participation in what they rightfully considered a foreign-imposed election. In the many areas under control of the resistance, voting was minimal. “In a broad southern region—provinces like Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan and Zabul—turnout was as low as 5 percent to 10 percent, [a Western] official said, effectively disenfranchising the region viewed as the most crucial” in the latest U.S. offensive. (New York Times, Aug. 22)

In provinces where the resistance is weaker, local military figures—usually called “warlords” in the Western media—controlled the voting places. Most of these figures were lined up with incumbent President Hamid Karzai, who even pulled off a last-minute deal with Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, bringing him back from exile in Turkey in an attempt to deliver votes from the Uzbek ethnic group.

One of the more absurd aspects of the election was the alleged high participation of women voting in certain areas. It turned out that men who were “heads” of families could hold the voting cards of all the women in the household and vote for them. Sonali Kolhatkar, co-author of the book, “Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence,” said on Democracy Now! on Aug. 20 that “thousands of women have been registered to vote by their husbands or by male relatives, and voting has apparently been done in their name.”

Whether Karzai was able to win a clear victory—requiring more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round—is still in doubt. There were over 40 candidates, but only a few were really in the contest. Karzai’s main rival, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, claims Karzai’s forces stuffed ballot boxes and stole ballots in the south. Outside election observers agree there was vote manipulation which aided Karzai. Both Abdullah, who also cooperates with the occupation forces, and Karzai claim to have won the election.

Karzai’s rivals have filed over a thousand claims of election fraud. The result is that the election, which the U.S. and NATO hoped would somehow add legitimacy to the occupation regime, has only discredited it further.

Pentagon wants more troops

An Aug. 23 New York Times article said that U.S. commanders in Afghanistan are reporting gains by the resistance forces and requesting more U.S. and NATO troops. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is now supposed to be working on new requests to the administration to be filed in early September. The media are hinting that McChrystal will ask for more troops.

In addition, on CNN’s “State of the Union” program on Aug. 23, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Adm. Mike Mullen said that “the Afghan situation is serious and it is deteriorating,” despite the recent addition of 17,000 U.S. troops.

The Pentagon is apparently about to increase pressure on the Obama administration to send more troops to Afghanistan even before any have left Iraq.

Meanwhile, unlike in Iraq, the U.S. president has taken political responsibility for the war in Afghanistan. He reiterated his campaign position before a meeting of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix on Aug. 17, calling the war in Afghanistan “fundamental to the defense of our people.” Obama added, “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.”

Allegedly, this is “a war of necessity” because al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are the main targets. In reality, both have almost disappeared from the media and from Afghanistan. The Afghans themselves, Taliban included, had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

People in the U.S., especially those who voted for Obama, are growing more and more hostile to the Afghan war. A new poll shows that a majority of the people in the United States “now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country.” (Washington Post, Aug. 20)

According to the poll, seven out of 10 Democrats “say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels.” Most of those who still support the war in Afghanistan are Republicans, who are against the Obama administration on all domestic issues and oppose his presidency in general.

Republican Sen. John McCain has publicly asked for more troops, and will pressure the administration to send them should the generals request more forces, as is expected.

________________________________________________
________________________________________
__________________________________
____________________________
_______________________
_________________
___________
______
___
_






Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.