So determined are the British mainstream media, and all three main English political parties, to maintain patriotic support for the War in Afghanistan, that there has been almost no reporting here of conclusive evidence that the Afghan elections were entirely fraudulent. There are huge discrepancies between the turnout as monitored by UN observers, and as declared by the Afghan “Independent” Electoral Commission. For example:
In Helmand province in the south, where Taliban fighters remain very active, for example, the U.N. estimated that just 38,000 votes were cast while Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission reported 122,376 votes for the top three candidates, including 112,873 for Karzai. In neighboring Kandahar, the U.N. estimated turnout at below 100,000 voters ?” compared to the commission’s official count of 242,782 votes, 221,436 of them for Karzai.
The interesting thing is that the UN itself has been complicit in covering this up, and the true figures have only been released by a whistleblower, Peter Galbraith, who has naturally been sacked. His motives are immaterial – it was wrong of the UN to suppress this information. For sheer bloody minded cynicism, the response from Edmond Mulet, assistant UN secretary general, takes the biscuit. He stated that the UN was mandated to support the Afghan election, not to monitor it.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihcxyvLQTtUCreNe2jbrDczmO9aQD9B6JLT81
A smoother but still more cynical confirmation that the UN is going along with fraud came from the Head of the UN’s Afghan mission, Kai Eide, who stated that:
“If one is serious about state-building in Afghanistan, one must allow these nascent institutions to work and to grow. This means allowing them to make their own mistakes.”
This resonates strongly with me because it mirrors exactly the arguments I had with UN officials in Uzbekistan who refused to acknowledge the appalling human rights abuses in the country. In particular, UNICEF point blank would not report the massive use of forced labour of young children in the cotton fields, preferring instead to quote reports from Uzbek government institutions denying this.
Sadly, the majority of international diplomats, Eide and Mulet included, are high living careerists, fleas riding on the back of power, with no principles and with no empathy for the plight of people whose lifestyle does not include an unlimited supply of free champagne.
“the true figures have only been released by a whistleblower, Peter Galbraith, who has naturally been sacked. His motives are immaterial – it was wrong of the UN to suppress this information.”
This implies that doubts have been cast on his motives, and that these may have substance.
I don’t know the story of this guy. Can anyone clarify?
Just in case I start to look like the bolshy Tory who keeps on criticising you, Craig, I’d like to waste a small amount of space just to say I unreservedly agree with you about Afghanistan – and, indeed, virtually all foreign policy matters.
Please don’t hate me too much for citing Robert Conquest’s first law of politics: “Everyone is conservative about what he knows best”.
Hear hear!
Craig, what did you make of Starkeys take on Afghanistan on last weeks QT? Actually you have said before it is too frustrating for you to watch.
By the way I have written to QT suggesting you as a candidate (I am aware of the previous story regarding you being invited) and would ask other readers of this blog do the same! The BBC havent let through my comment as of yet but worth a shot!
I for one would be delighted to see Craig call it how it is on QT.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/7827200.stm#1
Compare and contrast also of course with Iran, where the mainstream media, including the BBC, led the assault on the integrity of the election on the basis of no substantial evidence whatsoever.
Whatever doubts there may be over the motives of Galbraith, these are wholly irrelevant. The issue is only whether his revelations are true or not.
I know you are a fan of Juan Cole and recall you joining in the general condemnation of the recent Iranian elections. I too am no fan of Ahmadinejad’s government, but compare and contrast:
During what was clearly pre-planned and orchestrated as yet another ‘colour revolution’ to follow those of Ukraine and Georgia – the ‘Twitter’ tool having been polished and honed in the meantime, our supine Western media were as one in sustained shrill condemnation of the Iranian elections. The parallels with those earlier events were uncanny, except that this time it failed. Two months later and all is quiet with not a shred of the evidence we were assured at the time was overwhelming being produced.
Afganistan OTOH – big build up; grave and a little subdued (though the forebodings of Western officialdom were palpable); “a laudable democratic process”, “we must support this embryonic democracy” and similar – ad nauseam. Then the elections take place. MSM commentary subsides into embarrassed, self-concious silence – and two months later still no definitive result – though Karzai and his Western backed drug-trafficking war-lords have clearly stolen it again.
And our mendacious ‘leaders’ STILL insist, parrot-fashion, that our military presence in that country has a noble purpose, when anyone with half a brain can see the thoroughly sordid, self-serving nature of its true purpose.
We are being lied to and, as with the naked emperor, the lie is so big, in your face and screamingly bloody obvious that nobody will admit to noticing it.
I agree with the last paragraph. I used to work for the UN but quit in disgust because of outright corruption. Bunch of ‘jobsworth’ idiots.
The hypocrisy of the West over which elections it condemns, does not make it any less true that both elections were fixed.
The Afghan election was fixed. There is good evidence. The Iranian election may have been fixed. The evidence is sketchy and ambiguous. Important distinctions, thrown into stark relief by the attitude of the MSM in these two cases.
The elections in Iran were as much fixed as the elections in Venezuala are fixed! It is fantasy to believe that the majority, poverty-stricken populations of these countries will vote against those who genuinely advocate for them, like Ahmadinejad and like Chavez, and in favour of those who are more concerned with better relations with the West (!) and their own business interests.
I don’t think the election in Venezuela were fixed; neither do I think they were entirely fair in relation in particular to media access.
Ahmadinejad has not shown enormous concern for the Iranian poor. You lot have the most ludicrous tenedency to romanticise anyone who is anti-American.
“neither do I think they were entirely fair in relation in particular to media access.”
I agree, the opposition has unwavering and constant support in the privately owned media, to the extent that some in the media openly participated in the coup d’etat against Chavez.
“Ahmadinejad has not shown enormous concern for the Iranian poor.”
That is completely untrue as even a superficial examination of the facts will demonstrate.
As for your notion about people like me being blindly anti-American, speaking only for myself, I am anti-imperialist and have no misgivings about that. When the US inevitably goes the same way Rome did, as the British empire did, then you’ll find me squarely in the pro-American camp. I expect it won’t be long now!
I too have my doubts that the Iranian election was fixed.
1. A telephone poll conducted by a US organisation called Terror Free Tomorrow (Sen McCain sits on the advisory board) about a month before the Iranian election found Ahmadinejad well ahead of Mousavi. Arguably the poll disfavoured Ahmadinejad because many of his supporters are too poor to own a telephone.
2. Ahmadinejad was held to have won the televised debates.
3. Rafsanjani (not a popular figure in Iran – and that’s being kind!) backed Mousavi.
4. Al Gore did not win his home state (Tennessee) in the 2000 US Presidential election but who disputes the result? Yet the Tabriz victory for Ahmadinejad came in for particular censure because of Mousavi’s Azeri connection. However, it was Ahmadinejad who enabled the Azeris to study university courses in their own language ?” a language spoken by Ahmadinejad, incidentally. In addition, the supreme leader (an Azeri) backed Ahmadinejad.
5. Ahmadinejad during his first term arranged full insurance for the three million poor women carpet-makers (they create them in their own homes).
6. The mainstream media never detailed Mousavi’s grievances about the election in detail.
7. Research on some of the Twitter activity attributed to ‘cheated’ Iranians pointed to many of the messages (in English, btw) emanating from outside Iran.
8. The BBC used a cropped picture of a large group of people and asserted these were Mousavi supporters only to have to retract this claim later when the original uncropped photo was produced showing it was Ahmadinejad addressing one of his rallies. The absence of green among the crowd should really have alerted the BBC.
“You lot have the most ludicrous tenedency to romanticise anyone who is anti-American”.
Nothing to do with romance, everything to do with evidence.
I know from personal experience that if you’re going to peddle a conspiracy theory you need to be pretty well-armed with strong evidence. Where is the evidence that the Iranian election was rigged?
Today’s news from the BBC: The US exploded another deadly bomb in Kabul, in its drive to destabilise Afghanistan. The falsification of the election is an attempt to denigrate the Afghan people. The conclusion we are supposed to reach is that this country will continue to need intervention from colonial powers for another half century. There is of course only one legitimate course of action for the West to take: to withdraw immediately.
McChrystall says there have been 8 years of mistakes, which means that they have been fighting militarily and suffering continuous defeat. McChrystal has been brought in to dirty up the offensive, and do another Iraq, kicking in doors and taking hostages, shooting anything that moves, igniting sectarian flames, and purchasing land and property from war-impoverished people.
Thanks again Craig for jumping the diplomatic train before the bridge collapsed. The West and its institutions are finished, morally and economically, so who cares what the United Nations is saying?
It’s not a question of whether withdrawal is the most legitimate course, but of whether it would be the wisest course. It’s all very well for those of us who foretold another Vietnam when the Iraq and Afghan follies were embarked upon to say “We told you so”, but I am still left scratching my head as to how US/UK can best extricate themselves without an even worse mess ensuing.
And I hope it isn’t “anti-American” to ask for the name of even one country where the CIA hasn’t meddled during the past half-century – usually with pretty disastrous results. For a country which is always bellowing about its belief in ‘democracy’, it’s high time for the USA to leave others alone to work out their destinies as they choose. But of course that wouldn’t suit the super-rich who pull America’s strings.
Anticant
When the invaders are scrambled to quit Afghanistan, the ‘worse mess’ that will follow will be an unstoppable, victorious Muslim army that will carve its way westwards to the Middle-East and every Muslim prays to be with them Inshallah. Then the CIA will wish they’d never played pyrotechnics in the twin towers and followed the Zionist call to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan. They have bitten off more than they can chew, again.
Ah, the ‘religion of peace’ bares its teeth.
Apart from a handful of mostly incompetent terrorists, unstoppable, victorious Muslim armies are rather few and far between these days. Otherwise, Israel would have ceased to exist long ago.
Dream on about your Jihad and your Caliphate by all means, but if that’s your favourite scenario I think you will find that even the decadent West still has a few cards left worth playing.
I thought a charge of being “anti-American” was a ridiculous fiction designed to prevent criticism of US foreign policy, much as being an “anti-Semite” is a jolly useful charge in stifling criticism of Israel’s thuggery and racism.
I don’t like “New” Labour or these filthy Tories either.
http://politaholic.blogspot.com/2007/04/bullingdon-boys.html
Does that make me “anti-British” ?
*
What does bother me is imperialism, hidden agendas, money-grubbing and destabilisation of entire countries for twisted ideologies, the subversion of justice, distorting the truth, keeping the home audience fearful and ignorant with simplistic flag-waving patriotism. Not to mention the kkkristianisation of entire branches of government and armed forces (most notably in the USAF).
Capitalistic ideology is a religion to those driving the agenda, together with greed, racism and contempt for all but ‘American Exceptionalism’.
Is an acknowledgment of the bravery of those that stand up to all this really a ‘ludicrous tendency’ in us lot? Is questioning US imperialism and its assertions really ‘anti-American’ ?
Personally, I rather like a lot of Americans, and would not have lived there for quite a few years otherwise.
Anticant
Yes, Bush always said all options were open and he would have been perfectly happy to nuke Iraq if things hadn’t gone his way.