13 December 2019

RSS Facebook



Friday November 22, 2019
Kabul (BNA) An effective peace process is possible and desirable in Afghanistan. Success, however, will require a careful, step-by-step course to test bona fides, build confidence, reduce violence and encourage the difficult negotiations in which Afghans themselves determine the political future of Afghanistan.
U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad has been working to re-engage the peace process in visits to the region, in meetings with international players, and in fostering the just completed detainee swap — two kidnapped professors from American University of Afghanistan in exchange for three Taliban prisoners in Afghan government custody.
The detainee release is a welcome sign that the Afghan government and the Taliban are interested in continuing efforts toward peace, and it signals hope for a fresh approach to confidence-building. However, the complicated process to accomplish the swap and the finger-pointing along the way underscore the serious challenges to seeking an end to the 40-year war in Afghanistan and the 18 years of major U.S. engagement.
Earlier approaches pursued by the Obama and Trump administrations were based on rational analysis of how to get the parties to the table. Efforts starting in 2010 sought to enact a difficult set of confidence-building measures to convince the Taliban to meet with the Afghan government. After a sequence of actions was agreed between the Americans and the Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai objected that his officials must meet with the Taliban before other measures took place. That scuttled the process for over a year.
In 2013, an effort was made to achieve progress by opening a Taliban political office in Doha.  The U.S. assured the Afghan government that the Taliban office would not look like an embassy or use the name “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.” When the Taliban staged an ostentatious opening ceremony that violated these assurances, Karzai was outraged, having already suspected American motives, and progress was halted.
Hopes for a peace process increased in 2018 with a three-day Taliban-Afghan government ceasefire, after which the Trump administration, led by Ambassador Khalilzad, initiated talks with the Taliban. 
During these negotiations the Afghan government, at Taliban insistence, was sidelined. In response, rumors swirled in Kabul that Khalilzad hoped to create an interim government, with Afghanistan’s national security adviser making public accusations against Khalilzad.  Talks seemed frequently punctuated by mass-casualty Taliban attacks. Yet, after nine rounds, negotiators crafted a deal in which the Taliban offered assurances on counterterrorism and an agreement to begin peace talks with the Afghan government in return for U.S. military withdrawal. The agreement still needed approval by the U.S. and Taliban leadership.
President Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David to ink the accord and begin their talks with the Afghan government. When Taliban attacks killed a U.S. soldier, however, President Trump canceled the process. Relief in Washington and Kabul was palpable among those who doubted the agreement would lead to serious Afghan-to-Afghan peace talks. Since then, fighting has intensified and casualties have increased.
This difficult history illustrates what behavioral scientists well know — that when the stakes are so high, decisions are often based more on emotion than objectivity. Afghans have been at war for over 40 years. Hundreds of thousands have died. Emotional scars run deep.
Confirmation-bias entrenches viewpoints. For those fearful of the Taliban, statements attributed to Taliban commanders about defeating the Afghan government and denying women’s rights carry more weight than Taliban official statements about counterterrorism, human rights and peace. Those favoring a rapid peace process tend to draw opposite conclusions. Reasoning does not easily change minds.
To enhance chances for success, a peace process must account for the animosity and mistrust. The United States should make clear that Afghanistan’s future must be decided by Afghans alone and that there will be no separate U.S. peace with the Taliban. It is important to recognize that the Afghan government perceives that it has the most to lose. Requiring large concessions from them is likely to spark unrealistic demands for the Taliban.
The U.S. approach needs to test credibility and build trust via a step-by-step process, and, if successful, work toward reductions in violence and toward Afghan political negotiations.  Efforts may best advance by initially pursuing simple measures that do not require large concessions and building from there. These could include coordinated statements of peace principles, shared disaster hotlines, joint civilian casualty investigations, etc. If the Taliban fail to partake in such steps, then the futility of additional efforts will be clear. Both sides need to demonstrate and build credibility, however.
As each party meets initial credibility tests, the confidence-building measures should gradually increase in specificity and tangible action. When problems occur, there can be a return to simpler measures. The key is that each party make and keep credible commitments, while working toward direct Afghan government participation and a sustainable peace agreement.
Success in this process should build momentum toward violence reduction. Reduction of violence could begin with time-limited restrictions on military activities — a temporary local ceasefire for polio vaccinations, for example — and work toward commitments that are larger in scope and duration, to include a general ceasefire.
The vital process of political negotiations should overlap these efforts. Informal intra-Afghan dialogues, such as the one convened in Doha in July 2019, should continue and deepen, while the other confidence-building steps are under way. The more Afghans discuss their political future, the more realistic political negotiations become. The support of neighboring and partner countries in encouraging and hosting dialogues will be vital. U.S. envoy Khalilzad has been working to rally international engagement, just as he fostered the detainee swap. 
This work can continue with fresh vigor fueled by the releases, but it will take time. Building trust will not come easily, and it will need to continue after any agreement is reached.
One can deeply empathize with Afghans who want to live peaceful lives, U.S. veterans who want the war to end, humanitarians who want to protect gains in human rights, Americans who want U.S. troops home, and security experts who seek counterterrorism certainties.
A step-by-step trust-building process has been more successful in past conflicts than have  secret, elite deals. This approach could enable President Trump to responsibly end the seemingly “endless” war in Afghanistan. 

Thursday November 21, 2019
PUL-E-KHUMRI CITY (BNA) The construction work of a bridge has been completed and put into exploitation in northern Baghlan province yesterday.
Sahib Dad Ghafouri district governor of Doshi told BNA reporter, the bridge has been built at the length of 50 meters and width of 5 meters on Doshi River in AlamAli region of the district.
The bridge has been constructed with a sum of 251,000 USD funded by Karim Agha Khan Foundation, Ghafouri added.
By construction of the bridge more than 3000 families benefited in SiahQoul, LarbabaJai, GazToghi and ShaliZar regions of Doshi district, Ghafouri further added.

Kabul (BNA)

Who is considered an immigrant?
A person who leaves their home country and stays permanently in another country and is seeking to be a permanent resident or citizen. The word “immigrant” is included in the United States Constitution Law and applies to those who become permanent residents or citizens. Unlike a non-immigrant, which is someone who is an international traveler who travels for many purposes, such as, study, work and finds medical assistance.
Why do people leave their home country?
In my point of view, the main reason the Middle East makes people leave their countries is war; and we all know, war is destroying everything in the country. And due to this, people have to leave their country in order to survive. Overall, there are many reasons that push people to leave their countries. First, people are forced to leave their countries. Secondly, people are migrating to look for economic opportunities. Third, most countries are struggling with hunger and people are trying to leave because of hunger. Finally, discrimination and prejudice is a controversial issue that creates inequality in society and that makes people leave their countries. Policymakers are focusing on one part of the issue, which is civil war. This also makes people leave their countries, but we still have two important reasons. Most developing countries host these migrants, such as the USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and European countries.
From an economic perspective, immigrants have a positive effect and make net income for these countries. First, we need to realize that immigrants are not something to be scared of. Instead of that, we should be scared of poor immigration systems and processes and we need to think logically about how we can make the process better to control and manage the immigration services. As much as we put emphasis on protecting our borders, bringing changes to immigration laws and regulations, often governments end up giving negative ideas to their citizens, causing them to hate immigrants. This only makes our system worse and it is a clear violation of immigration law. Instead, we need to think rationally and come up with a good solution that does not violate human rights or the immigrant and refugee convention. I think we need to focus more on the following factors; better procedures to assist immigrants, how to manage the process of immigration, respect for immigrant rights, and the realization of how immigrants are valuable for our great nation.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Immigrants for the Host Countries.

Immigration has always been a challenging catalyst of economic and demographic growth for the development of countries. Immigrants bring new perspectives, experiences, and ideas for the local communities; most of them share their skills, values, and talents with people in the community, which can be something new for the local people. In addition, immigrants help to create a worldwide market. They are helping to contribute to a stronger economy and most of them arrive with a huge amount of money to invest in skills in order to pursue advanced education or high skills employment. They can take those skills back to their home country to improve its status as well. Also, most employers are looking for immigrant employees because they work very hard and most of them have a clean record. This can make immigrants unique. Furthermore, immigrants can make this world a better place by teaching people how to live with people of various cultures and traditions. Most policymakers believe that multiplicity and diversity illustrates power states and creates more opportunities for state and local development.
My experience as an immigrant in the United States of America has taught me to be smart and work hard. Although some people have said that immigrants rely on government assistance and they do not want to become self-sufficient, I don't think it is rational to put everyone in the same category. In fact, immigrants may only rely on welfare assistance for a short period of time, because they are new in the community. They may face many challenges which can have a huge impact on their potential, and some of them are faced with a language barrier, a lack of potential jobs, and transportation issues. These all take a while to sort out before they become self-sufficient. In my opinion, first we need to realize the above factors, then make our judgment, rather than placing all of them in one category and claiming that all immigrants are relying on welfare assistance, which only shows our characters to be unfair and unprofessional. Finally, it is even more interesting to consider the differentiation of skills and productive characteristics between natives and immigrants. For instance, in the United States and European countries, immigrants become a large part of the workforce in the home service sector. Home services include cleaning, gardening, food preparation, and maintenance. These jobs make the service more affordable, which in turn has allowed more natives to reach their goals. Also, we need to know the difference between immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. For example, those immigrants who have received a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV), have served and supported the U.S. government missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. They put their lives and their families' lives in danger and they have given many sacrifices for this country and its honorable people. Therefore, we need to think prudently before we make our judgments and place all immigrants in one category. “An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking international protection but whose claim for refugee status has not been determined. In contrast, a refugee is someone who has been recognized under the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees to be a refugee”. (UNHCR).
Absolutely, the United States of America is land of opportunities for everyone, but here is a challenge. First, we need to be honest with ourselves and we have to know that success is not easy; if it was easy everyone would be successful. In this case, we need to work hard, be honest with ourselves, acknowledge our efforts, and find out our weaknesses so that we can reach our goals and be supportive of our new community. Furthermore, immigrants create a fair level of population distribution. People come from overpopulated countries and look for new opportunities for themselves, and they believe in the “American Dream”, which is not present in most nations. Likewise, immigration contributes to a fair level of population distribution, supporting the population nationwide. For instance, the world is now facing a serious climate change problem and this fair level of distribution can encourage people to think about these important issues and respect our moral and ethical responsibility as human beings on this planet. Our moral and ethical responsibility is to keep our environment clean and focus on the climate change issue. We also have to remember the current generation is responsible for future generations.
On the other hand, a disadvantage of immigration is the potential for problematic issues in the host countries as well. In most developed countries, people believe or are concerned that immigrants may cause disease transmission to increase; and many diseases are transferred to a new nation because of immigration. Most migrants are entering from poor countries; they are struggling with various kinds of diseases, which can have a negative impact on the local population. In addition, most immigrants who are entering illegally into a new country, probably have committed a serious crime in the past or have been involved in an insurgent group. No one can guarantee that they will not take some serious action in the local community. Moreover, local people believe that migrants create wage differences; when immigrants come from other countries they are able to work harder for lower wages. In this case, migrants take jobs, creating environmental issues, and reducing the chance of development in the community. Immigration activities certainly create assimilation difficulties; diversity is not something everyone freely accepts in the new culture. Tradition, perspective, and ethnicities; all these produce more issues for the local population, and local people do not feel comfortable with mixing culture or traditions which have an impact on their children and their future generations. Perhaps, people are fearful of what they do not know, which means there is a basic fear associated with immigrants when they first move to a community.
In general immigration is a global phenomenon, research showed 258, million people approximately 3 percent of the world’s population, currently live outside their country of origin. Many of these migration is characterized by varying degrees of force. Perhaps, this number of migrants are increasing and leaving their homes for a verity of reasons, including poverty, lack of access to healthcare, water, food, housing and the consequences of environmental degradation and climate changes. Therefore, we need to find a logical solution which does not conflict with immigration law and does not violate international human rights norms. According to international human rights norms, which are based upon the inherent dignity of every person, migrants enjoy the fundamental rights afforded to all persons regardless of their legal status in a county. While migration is a positive and empowering experience for many, it is increasingly clear that a lack of human rights led to migration governance at the global, regional and national levels. This is leading to the routine violation of migrants’ rights during travel, at international borders, and in the countries they migrate to. In this case, we need to works to promote, protect and fulfill the human rights of all immigrants regardless of their status, with a particular concentration on those men, women, and children who are most marginalized and at in jeopardy of human rights violations.

Writer: Tamim Ghanizada
Edit: Ashlee White

Tuesday November 19, 2019
PUL-E-ALAM CITY (BNA) Foodstuffs have been distributed to three hundred war-affected families in central Logar province today.
According to BNA report, the assistances include rice and wheat that distributed to 300 families those affected due to insecurity in the province.
Mohammad Anwar Ishaqzai governor of Logar by praising natural counter-disasters office said, cooperation and solving problems of people is the main responsibility of government officials.

Page 5 of 528