Priority of Politics and Policy Planning

Friday, January 22, 2010

Copenhagen; the Comedy of Compensation Carrot

Officials from Different Countries in Cop15

The greatest comedy (or tragedy!) of the year 2009 has already been screened on the Copenhagen theatre hall and the title of the comedy was The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Yes, it is Bella centre, read Bella theatre hall, where actors and actresses from more than 170 countries gathered to draft a new treaty, supplement to Kyoto protocol, depicting with compulsory clauses as Kyoto is going to be expired in 2012. So it is lucid to all that they did not come to play a comedy but congregated with a grand view to saving the world from the threat of extinction instigated by the devastating clutch of environmental degradation. This was an accumulation of 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders who even can destroy the whole world hundreds of times with a single signal of finger. Actually this COP15, the surname of the conference, is a part of a series of conferences organized by the UN. This summit got a maximum media coverage and priority of chatting as people believed that the recurrence of natural disasters in past two years indiscriminately everywhere in the world might make the world’s leaders more cooperative and more considerate about environmental degradation particularly concerning the emission of carbon dioxide, the real culprit of global warming. But alas! World leaders could not even draft a treaty let alone a promise to follow it. Instead of a well accepted all-signed pact we observed merely a comedy in which the climax point was a compensation carrot. Let’s turn to that climax point.

Protesting People from Different Part of the World

This was a carrot hung by the developed powers, the decisive carbon producers, to turn the concentration of the developing countries, the real scapegoats of environmental degradation, from real bargain, the issue of reducing carbon emission, to a fade and undefined affairs. They, the developed powers, thus could spend most of the time in the name of compensation collection and promise. Why is this compensation? The easy answer is to compensate for the losses of underdeveloped and developing countries created by natural disasters as a result of excessive emission of Co2 by developed countries. But with the continuation of more emission! What a comedy it is to make a compensation deal for stolen goods letting the door open for further stealing! Yes, the developing countries, being trapped by the lofty carrot offered by the counterpart developed countries, engaged all their endeavors not to stop future emission but to get past reparation. Through this tricky policy the developed could manage to make a crack among developing countries in the question of ratio from the recompense fund. Whenever the developing countries should have to take a united action and stand to ensure reduction of Co2, they started quarreling one another about the proportion of compensation fund spent time to find a formula whether on population based or geographical area based. Thus both consumption of time and widening of fracture became possible for the environmental criminals. A 12 day-gathering, 06 to 18 December, of world leaders went in vain only by signing a symbol of treaty. The world got a pen without ink, a book without page, a day without hope and a night with day dream!

A Moment of Conference

You may ask why the developing countries let to stage so great a comedy of compensation without any hesitation. The calculation is very simple. Who went to the summit? Are there any tsunami affected people or people lost every thing by sidre or orphan missing his parents by nargis? No, there were people composed of politicians, NGO agents, people from so called civil society and bureaucrats. These four parties are more concerned about their benefits. They know, no matter from which country they are, any amount of compensation money will fatten their never ending gulp of wallet. As this money may be disbursed by NGOs, they showed big interest in this issue and placed to the priority place. Through the same process the bureaucrats, with their red tap power, want to smuggle the money and hopping this they insisted government to engage them in this misleading issue. Thus the civil society has greed to steal the money in form of seminars, symposium research papers. Who remains in bottom? Oh the politicians! No there is no need to describe their character as people round the globe know them from head to tail. Thus in face of elite interest the common interest of the whole world went to the back bench of discussion. The comedy of compensation carrot could be played on the stage of Copenhagen. Don’t think this is the last play, the last one play will be staged and the real play maker will be nature itself. At that time you will realize, no matter who you are, what’s the difference between comedy and tragedy.

Monday, December 28, 2009


hey have already been replaced, the old one is thrown away or going to be used as a book’s cover and a new one is twinkling in the old place. Your desk or table has got a new one; your room-wall has also welcomed another one. Are they still unclear to you about whom there has been given the above description? Remember the time when you were standing in front of them and turning over the pages one after another with an investigating mood concerning the pictures or paintings portrayed on them. Oh yes, now you got the point- they are the calendars! They are the must who indicate the arrival of a new year with great expectation and, in the same time, focus the departure of an old year. But is that all? The pages we through away after the passing of the year are full with so many events of happiness, pleasure and contentment in one side and grief, gloom and melancholy on the other that they can’t be considered only collection of pages with list of dates. Some of those events shake hearts of mass and bring people together from different places in a single stage. On the reverse side of the coin there are also some other happenings that make people divided and push them to different opinions. The accounts are also diversified in various zones i.e. economic, political, and social and so on. The new calendars are also full with uncertainties, dangers, opportunities and such other facts of which some can be forecast and some are mysterious from any point of view. Standing on the marginal line between 2009 and 2010, if we take to calendars in two hands, one in left hand as it is left out and another in right hand as this one is for right now, we can play the role of historians and parrots.

To click on the folder having the events of 2009 will result a series of sub folders or files with description of so many occurrences that it is impossible for any one to asses or recall them all in a short while because, in reality, a single second is nothing but a combination of hundred thousands of events. For avoiding this lengthy upsetting phenomenon there is going to be screened merely short listed events those have traumatized the world tremendously. In picking up events there has been accepted a tight filtration process where politics got the first and foremost precedence. But with which event can it be started? Oh no, there is no chance of confusion! There is the topic of Middle East and you know Middle East is really in the middle (centre) of any discussion. The one sided Gaza strip assault by Israel, the Middle East version of the USA, on the Palestinian, the scapegoat of western brutal policy, and its after math is one of the heart tearing events in the chronicle of the year. This attack made mistrust between Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza strip, and Palestine authority led by Mahmud Abbas and this was the first time when Hamas pointed its finger to Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for assisting Israel against Hamas. This molest, however, included every type of inhuman activities from using white phosphorus bomb to human-shield including the use of all sorts of ultramodern conventional weapons by navy, army and air force. Through the assail fifty Hamas activists were killed and more than thirteen hundred unarmed people were roughly slaughtered with an unimaginable loss of twenty thousand habitats, one thousand and five hundred mills, factories, workshops, countless mosques and even UN driven schools. Another important scenario was the USA’s u-tern changing stand. Prior to that attack all the affairs related to Middle East were tightly controlled, visualized, organized and even materialized under a full attachment of the USA’s attitude, willing, permission and signal. This is the first time when Israel could manage the USA to resettle the decision in UN and the full control of the USA was shifted to Israel. For this reason the total phenomenon will change, in near future, not only dramatically but also drastically as Israel has no intention to pay any heed towards international law, customs and rituals. After the Gaza assail some of the international humanitarian and human rights institutions made a step to excavate the abusing of human rights law and humanitarian customs in the event. They pay the same game as Israelis are the main guilt so Palestinian should be charged with! What about the on going peace endeavor taken by Obama regarding Middle East? In the previous year the swiftness of the process showed us that any treaty in supporting Palestine is never possible with Israel. It always tries to get one-sided sacrifice, by Palestine, and one-sided gaining, by her. So if Obama does not suit with this notion Israel will take a go slow policy for which no treaty is going to be signed in next coming years. But be sure as it is a new year there will be another assail on Palestine from Israel at any blame.

Economic depression is considered, no matter who you are, to be the most influencing catalyst of the year as many of the world’s giant financial institutions i.e. Lehman Brothers, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, JPMorgan Chase and so on were either announced bankrupted or became bound to cut their employee list though government took bail out scheme by allotting million dollars budget. The depression started from mortgage sector and within in an incredible short while it engulfs the total economic grassland of the whole world. This depression, according to many, is nothing but the result of the corporate criminalization created hopefully by the top most officials of some limited high profile companies. This happened because the US government took away interference from the market completely and competitors did not pay any heed to general rules of market. No matter, however, whoever are the culprits, the main scapegoats of the crisis were surly the mass people who, from any point of view, are never blameworthy but to recompense. In the ending months of the year the crisis was on the healing point and economies were getting normalizing. But the rate of normalization suggests a long way to go for the process to get a full swing.

Sorry and surrender for Osama and Obama respectively as one became zero and another appeared hero. The once talk-of-the-world Osama, add Bin Laden as suffix, now has became a shadow tape recorder through which he, after a regular interval, only can show his survival not any real roar. The Osama issue is now only limited in expressing uncertainty where he may bury him either in Pakistan or in Afghanistan. Contrary to this Obama, add Barrak Hossain as antecedent, is now a fantasy figure round the globe. He may be deemed as the first President who is elected globally in the history of the United States of America. His charismatic slogan Change echoed from the blue oceans to white permafrost, gray desert to green woodland and where not. This ensued because people under Bush administration the world experienced unimaginable bitter conditions, incredible humiliation of human dignity. The blood shedding occurred in different parts of world in such a gigantic degree that only Change was the way to escape. But how much Change will or can Obama bring? The expectation rose up when Nobel committee announced his name as peace prize winner of the year 2009. Before judging the relevance of his assortment as a Nobel laureate, though there is much room for criticism, we can wait for coming days. His over ambitious prospect for nuclear free world, a successful deal with Russia on the issue of missile deployment in Europe are really hopeful. Contrary to this sending new troops in Afghanistan, unethical play with Pakistan, unjust nuclear deal with India and failure to reach a well accepted treaty regarding environment, the burning issue of today’s world, in Copenhagen are some of issues that create negative images over his name and fame. What can we expect from Obama in the year 2010? Before going to expectation you must have to consider Obama as a president of the USA. He is not a person but personnel of the USA’s government. He is to uphold the US interest first and then the question of human expectation. Will you admit any decision by you head of the state hampering your national interest to satisfy international community? If no why American will let it? So if American interest needs to be more drastically in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan what Obama can do? He only can assure that information is not to be manipulated for making it just an invasion on another state as Bush did and only can have an opening of discussion before deploying missile. Under his presidency there may be no more direct intrusion against any new country even on Iran but don’t forget about nonmilitary instrument i.e. UN’s embargo, media pressure etc. In such a condition there may be created proxy war created by other but fueled and patronized by the USA in full scale. Iran has to rethink about it regarding nuclear issue under Obama’s administration. Oh no just allot Obama more time to proof his promise for a peaceful world though he uttered roughly in the stage of Nobel peace prize receiving period. Without this allotting time and waiting for future what can we do?

The previous year 2009 was a mixture of romance and horror for the states remaining black list of the USA such as North Korea, Iran and Myanmar. From the real context North Korea was on the zero point, neither in trouble nor in tranquility and next one, Iran, was on the left side continuously under threat and sanction and Myanmar, the last one, was on the right side receiving a hidden blessing from the western power though after an acid test of rivalry within state. For North Korea the nuclear deal or six party talks were only a show down. It is clear to the USA that North Korea is never a direct threat against it and consuming time in this issue is nothing but waste of money and muscle. She only wants to focus North Korea as a nuclear black sheep for justifying her presence in the Korean peninsula and Japan. To do so she is just creating a bad name for North Korea and making rehearsal of talking. But Iran got no sympathy, so she is kept on the left side, from the west even she was on the bank of disorder, political turmoil and distress fashioned calculatedly by the western power through hidden hand. This course of making Iran politically unstable will continue in near future and setting up a puppet government in Iran is the main target of the West as a substitute of war. So Iran in next days will be a place where the opposition will try to make a nonissue as issue and will attract the western media coverage. And obviously Obama will try to hunt the snake, here Iran, without breaking the stick, the blame of war. The more days will go the more the political scenario will get stalemate situation in Iran. Regarding Myanmar, the blessed by the west, the coming days will be easier. Now the question of democracy is only on the screen and the reality is to detach Myanmar from the grasp of China. The West is now confirm that more pressure on Myanmar government will make her more dependent on China and in price of this Chinese support the West will drop the minimum interest from her. So in 2010 Myanmar government may enjoy less pressure from the Western alliance and the Nobel Prize winner Suchi may go to face more hardship. In the middle of 2009 this became luminous when an American was released by the autocratic military government in exchange of Suchi’s extended imprisonment. This is the obvious turning of the USA regarding Myanmar and this process was also observed in case of North Korea when tow of the Americans were arrested and were going to be imprisoned. Three nations Iran, North Korea and Myanmar are going to be treated different ways based on different circumstances.

The condition of other three nations namely Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan; categorized in same class as all of them were and still are the home ground of war on terror, also remains in three different positions. Iraq is now in right side as the puppet government is completely on the side of West and all of the petro resources are under full control of Anglo-American companies. The withdrawal of international army from Baghdad has a profound impact and the Iraqi government showed its capacity to rule them without the assistance of American troops. But the complete withdrawal of American troops is simply an unimaginable affair as USA’s interest in this region is long-term. So, to justify American presence in Iraq in the coming days there may be intensified, by a hidden hand and you know who this hand is, the terrorist attack. Moreover there may be created a blame game situation between Iran and Iraq to engage each against other. In this regard the Shia-Sunni division may be widening by that invisible but clear playmaker. Afghanistan, the real destination of war on terror in 2009, is in the zero point that means it remained neither good nor bad considering the previous years of sufferings. Here the election proved that Western powers are interested to create an unsteady government that can not make any bargain against them. To do so they weakened Hamid Karzia by blaming him about stealing vote and created Abdullah Abdullah as an alternative telephone number of Karzai. So if Karzai is not full filling their demand the second choice is available. Afghanistan got the most priority of Obama government and even before election he was promising the shift of war zone from Middle East to Asia. So, more troops were approached in Afghanistan in 2009 by Obama government. The West is careful about China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Iran. Afghanistan is a country with whom all those countries have boundary. So presence in Afghanistan is an urgent for them. But in the same time they don’t want to wage war as they are shaken with economic depression and tired with lengthiness of war. Moreover they may on the verge of another war front either in Pakistan, to grasp nuclear weapons or Iran, to halt from attaining nuclear weapons. Standing on this stone like reality they, in next years, may go to a compromising attitude. To do so they first want to create alternative choices so that they can have enjoyed bargaining power with different groups to serve their interest. In this regard the accused Taliban may be brought to the table of negotiation in the name of good Taliban. This division of good Taliban and bad Taliban may open another front of war in Pakistan titling her as the home ground of bad Taliban. So Pakistan is now on the left side of the situation. For destroying or capturing nuclear weapons of Pakistan the western powers are now waiting with different cages and traps. Though last year Pakistan got democratic track, the future is gray as western powers think military will serve their interest more. Pakistan has to face some other more challenges people from Afghan border already considering the military and government as their enemies. If another military coup happens in near future it will create more mistrust between military and people which in return will pave the way of being her a failure state. The terrorist attack in Pakistan is signaling such a deteriorating situation for Pakistan.

India with tight hand of economic depression and black stigma of Mumbai occurrence has passed a successful year in 2009. The great, grand and glorious victory of Congress with a new charismatic leadership of Rahul has made the government more decisive and stable to attain national interest. A great deal in nuclear sector with the USA has made her more confident. In such a reality India is now an unchallenged regional power. The coming year may open new doors of opportunities and occasions but any repression on sovereign seekers, more expansion in military sector will push her to grave yard. Her neighbor Sri Lanka gained a total victory over Tamils which in next days may create both chances and challenges. A chance as it has made the country stable and created opportunity to deploy her total resources for economic development. Challenges as the country is now on the necessity of integrating the Tamil and a proper rehabilitation of the rebellions. If it fails to face that challenges the coming up of another Tamil rebellion is a must in future.

Oh yes! Now it is the turn for Bangladesh. In the previous year Bangladesh met a great change that was return to democracy. But some other events such as BDR mutiny, failure of the government to curb price hike made her more vulnerable. The BDR massacre made mistrust between army and BDR which in return causes insecurity for her independence. Some other issues like withdrawal of military from Chittagong Hill Tracts, handing over Indian rebellions to India have made a u-turn between the past and present government. But such a shift in foreign policy may create a big dilemma for future as China feels uneasiness. Failure of world leaders to reach to a treaty about environmental degradation is another red-signal for Bangladesh. In this regard, in Copenhagen, Bangladesh takes a wrong policy as it has emphasized on compensation against reduction of carbon emission. Why is Bangladesh hankering after for compensation money? It is clear that any of the compensation money will open ways of conditions from the donors. It is, moreover, a lengthy process to get any such fund. In the name of compensation money they will interfere in any of the development projects and perhaps they will fund never the government but the NGO’s related to the environmental activities. How can Bangladesh be benefited by such a compensation project? So Bangladesh has to give emphasize on reducing the amount of carbon emission and that should made obligatory for developed nations. In this regard it is to be mentioned that reaching to a well acknowledged treaty, beneficial for developing countries, is a never happening issue. Since all the developed countries and even some developing countries i.e. India, Brazil and China are on the common track to halt to compose a compulsory treaty, all the rest must have to articulate a combined attempt to draft the treaty. If, without doing this, the developing countries make initiative to get compensation money, it will make them more divided on the question of distribution of the money.

Some other scattered events, that shook the world in 2009, are the death of pop emperor Micheal Jackson, emergence of swine flue in an epidemic scale, emergence and decline of Maoist government in Nepal and so on. How many of events are waiting for the New Year! We are really looking forward to meeting for new days with new dreams. The new sun with new songs!

Friday, October 23, 2009


Barrak Hossain Obama; Nobel Peace Prize Winner of the Year 2009

‘A prize without price/payment’ and ‘a prize for pressure’ are today’s two most popular buzzwords round the globe. Some other analysts argue that the Nobel Peace Prize, the most prestigious prize in current world, selection is nothing but ‘a prize without performance but for promise’. Yes, the selection of Obama, the much talked and most charismatic president of the USA, for Nobel Peace Prize was no less than a bolt from the blue for the unprepared mass of the world. The sudden jerk of the message made the inhabitants of the earth, indiscriminately any locality, country and even continent, flabbergasted for a while. But within a short while they started expressing, still are expressing no doubt will express, their reactions, remakes and recommendations targeting the selection. All the people, both from mob and professionals, are on their own track, be sure that like all other issues the number of tracks are countless, to justify the nomination. This justification, by some, some times gets so harsh and sharp that they put a question mark over the whole process of the peace prize. It is, however, not a new phenomenon for this year, according to some critics, but an old fashion of using the prize as a political tool in the way of managing dirty western interests. But this year, by the nomination of Obama, the criticism goes to a new dimension that suggests that the offering of the prize is a premature and unprepared step. There is, not surprisingly but obviously, another group who validates the selection by saying it as a right-time-to-click-the mouse type decision. Before penetrating the issue from the criticizing attitude it, in fact, will be an astute choice to scrutinize the Nobel Peace Prize selection criteria with impartial, unbiased and neutral goggles.

Obama; A New Craze for New Generation People

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, deals with only peace prize while five others are dealt by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, has been authorized to hit upon the real laureates for peace under the light of Alfred Nobel's Will. The will, given by Alfred and considered as guide line to select Nobel laureates, suggests, as a general outline for all fields, the prize “to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind”. The Will further, particularly for peace prize, advocates “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. Neither the overall criteria, given in general for all fields, nor the particular criteria, said for peace prize only, admits Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate as the first one imposes time boundary ‘during the preceding year’ and the latter one enforces to halt an arms violence. The time boundary strictly forbids the prize based on future expectation. It also suggests counting the activities only for preceding year. What has Obama done in the preceding year? Election propaganda, a campaign for his own presidency was the only task of Obama in that particular time proposed for selection of the laureates in Alfred’s Will. Yes, Obama has not accomplished a year in his chair and, moreover, the selection process started before some months which can encircle only five or six months of his presidency. How can it be possible for a president to perform such gigantic operations in such a short period that may ensure him a Peace Prize? The second criteria articulated principally for peace prize stands strictly on the way of Obama to keep him away from the prize as it permits the prize only for those who have direct involvement in halting an arms conflict or in some other sectors i.e. disarmament, upholding human rights, fighting for democracy etc. Actually on the way of peace Obama’s achievements include some hasty activities i.e. a speech given in Cairo, Egypt, to the Muslims about making the relations based on mutual dignity, understanding and responsibility; starting a peace accord in middle east though the process is now under a decaying condition because of tricky steps taken by Israel and Obama is silent in this point; negotiation with North Korea, Iran; offering Sudan a lucrative proposal to accept American policy and most notable is to reach a normal relations with Europe and Russia on the question of deployment of missile in Europe on the nose of Russia. Oh sorry! There is another vital issue, uttered by Obama, the ambitious nuclear free world or complete nuclear disarmament. Yes the list now is well sufficient to get Peace Prize if one of them is materialized or, at least, goes to an end with satisfying way. But alas! All of them are only on the beginning point and probably none of them is going to be true but going to turn into a day dream like a book without page, a pen without ink and a ring without hole to pour on a finger. For these reasons there have been stated some connotations regarding the issue as ‘A prize without price/payment’ and ‘a prize without performance but for promise’. But what if promises are not fulfilled? How can you finalize students’ ranking based on only a few class performances without judging the examination script?

Dr. Md. Younus; a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate from Bangladesh

There is, however, another school that really shows no headache about Obama. According to them the Nobel Prize in general and Nobel Peace Prize in particular is nothing but a political tool for the Western allies. This group assumes that peace prize is awarded, without a slight exception, to those whose hands are red colored with the blood of immense common mass of the world. Henry Kissinger, the name related to Vietnam War which caused for limitless loss of life, Theodore Roosevelt, about whom one American news paper wrote “the wielder of the 'big stick' should be crowned as America's great pacificator, Woodrow Wilson, the silent cooperator of the treaty of Versailles which in the long run led to the second world war, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin two blood seekers of sinless Palestinians and Frederik Willem de Klerk are some of the Peace Prize laureates who have been directly responsible for the war, violence or repression. Citing all these names this particular group never minds who comes to the limelight of media for being a Nobel Peace laureate. For this reason they do not want Obama to be accused of killing Afghan people and attacking Pakistan with drone. When a nuclear free world is expected by a president who continues his assistance in nuclear projects of another country before her signing Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and based on merely this expectation the prize is awarded why there should be put an exclamatory sign!

Children; Celebrating Nobel Prize Giving Ceremony With a Smiling Face

There really can be drawn a unique but reasonable argument supporting Obama as an awarded person where Bush can play great role. Yes, don’t get confused! It is Bush, and not Bush senior but the immediate past President Bush junior, who has helped and contributed at a large scale in gaining peace prize by Obama. Oh no, why are you considering this a great joke? It is such a reality that can’t be ignored from real point of view. Under Bush administration the world experienced such bitter conditions, so many humiliations of human dignity that only a slight escaping of the situation is considered as a peaceful state and such Obama is awarded the prize. The blood shedding occurred in different parts of world in such a gigantic degree that only a minor reduction made every one so excited to offer the prize. When children can think a day without a new front of war, when a news paper does not need to have its headline with a threat of a new war, when a child does not shiver in fear in its mother’s laps and when one can open his eyes with birds chirping not a sound from drone why all these people would not let Obama a Peace Prize winner. When people become assured that there should be, at least, a negotiation instead of a harsh warning, there should be shown respect on opinions grown internationally, there should be given an experiment of using nonviolent tools before going to violence; people get a notion of relief from fear of bombing or at least they get a chance to dream of war free world. All these phenomena help Obama to get the prize whenever it becomes a slap for Bush, who knows he understands it or not. Though the scenario is not changed in a large scale but there is a fundamental change in the situation and that is under the previous presidency we did not have a chance to have a dream of war free day whenever now, under Obama’s presidency, we at least can hope for dream of war, threat and warning free earth. This is the only justification which can not be taken under a question mark against Obama’s Peace Prize award. So why Obama got the prize! The simple answer is- “Not for being a peace maker but for not being Bush!”

Monday, October 5, 2009


Hamid Karzai, The President, Casting His Vote

There lies a strong supposition ‘Democracies do not fight’, given by the western philosophy hawkers to excavate causes of war. Like many other pseudo assumptions this special one also opens the wings of question what the relations there may be drawn between two separate dynamics i.e. democracy, an internal affair of a country, and war among states, an external factor. After making a deep thinking on the argument you will find the real connotation of the assumption but, alas (!), with a slight variation in its inner sense e.g. ‘Democracies need not fight’ or, at least, ‘Selective democracies do not fight’. Are you confused regarding all the three statements given above such as democracies do not fight, democracies need not fight and the last one selective democracies do not fight? Is it clear to you what the difference between first two suppositions as democracies do not fight and democracies need not fight? Do you know what sense gives the term selective democracy? If you can explain all those assumptions and term, it can be assured that ins and outs regarding election in Afghanistan are completely luminous to you. Contrary to that, it will be a task of finding a needle from a dune if you do not have a clear cut idea about those things described in above. So let us first discover the real meaning of them.

The first supposition which is originated, propagated, and campaigned by the western philosophers, suggests that if there are two democratic countries there would never happen war between them. They give a nonsense explanation about the war preventing power of democracy. They prophecies that as a democratic government is to think about the welfare of the people they have no time to commit war and they also have no mandate to war as most of the people are peace loving and real mandate lies in their hands. This interpretation regarding war curbing power of democracy never is in the position to be accepted or believed as there are huge examples where, you will see in third world countries, lots of democratically elected governments turn into autocratic characteristics within a short while of their election. So to get the real explanation there may be suggested another assumption, as there has already been given, democracies need not fight. Why wars occur? When a state can’t achieve its interest because of unwillingness of another state, there may arise a war situation. But with taking full advantage of money-media-muscle power a strong nation can easily shape and reshape any government in a weaker state. In this way the stronger state can achieve its all interests from the weaker state by managing the government of that country. So war, most of the time, does not become a means of obtaining interest as it did in the past. In this circumstances we can make a corollary that democracies need not fight. But when a democratically elected government does not fulfill the requirement of a big power there come the questions of selective democracy. Yes! This is a special type of democracy which is created, nurtured and nourished by massacring or, at least, ignoring a real democratically elected government. Look at the behavior of USA’s treatment with HAMAS, democratically elected government in Palestine, and Musharraf’s government in Pakistan. In these two cases selective democracy was the means to gain interest. This is the fact what is working in case of Afghan election. Before going to beneath of the result and process of the election you must have to go to the real target of the USA and its alliance in this region. The USA along with NATO wants to continue its presence in Afghanistan to slaughter China, and probably India if need in far future. But justifying this presence is not an easy task for the USA without fitting a reasonable excuse. Only an unrest, turbulence and instable Afghanistan can assure a rational justification for the western ally to stay in the region. In such a situation a peaceful Afghanistan is never expected to that party who is critical and real playmaker of the region. Thus it is quite clear to all that only a selective democracy can be expected and must be implemented by that clever and coercive client of the region. Let us make a quick glance to the Afghan election with the goggles that particular perspective.

If we look at the election process and its continuous story from top to bottom with a white eye we can describe in that particular way. The second presidential election in Afghanistan under the present constitution of Afghanistan was held on August 20, 2009. Elections for 420 provincial council seats were held at the same time. In accordance with the announcement of the NATO officials given in May 2009 that 15.6 million voters had registered to vote, roughly half of the country's population; 35 to 38 percent of registered voters were women. These registration numbers have been disputed, however, by the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan and media reports, which suggest widespread fraudulent activity in the election process.

Under the 2004 constitution, elections should have been held no later than 60 days before the end of President Karzai's term in July 2009. The Independent Election Commission (IEC) originally recommended that the poll be held at the same time as the 2010 parliamentary balloting to save costs. However, politicians in the country were unable to agree to the details. Concerns about accessibility to mountainous areas in spring 2009 and the ability of getting adequate people and materials in place by then led the IEC to announce the elections would be delayed to August 2009.

The opposition accused Karzai of attempting to extend his power past his term. In February 2009, President Hamid Karzai called on the Independent Election Committee to hold the election according to the country's constitution. Thereby forcing the IEC to reiterate the August date, and silencing critics, who fear a leadership vacuum between May and August. Some potential Afghan opponents complained Karzai's move was an attempt to clear the field of challengers, most of whom would not be ready to campaign for the 2009 election. After the IEC and the international community rejected Karzai's decree, Karzai accepted the date of August 20, 2009. The Supreme Court of Afghanistan announced in March 2009 that Karzai's term would be extended until a new leader had been elected. His opponents called the decision unconstitutional and unacceptable, pointing out that it put Karzai in a position to exploit the office to secure his electoral victory. After all these occurrences there have been played the play of an election where Karzai got the office of presidency by obtaining the minimum required votes with lots of complains i.e. manipulating the result, showing fake vote centers and using governmental mechanism to unsure victory. Moreover boycott by Taliban has also brought the acceptability under question. Low vote casting rate is also another aspect of disqualification of unacceptability of the election.

Now the fact comes first in our mind why the father of democracy, at least according to their demand, is playing such a critical play in Afghanistan’s election. Why Karzai is now under their severe pressure though he is the man who in near past was selected as the savior of Afghan people? Is he not their expected and exclusive choice now? If not why they gave him a chance to exploit his power in influencing election? All these questions require a single answer- selective democracy, already argued above. They usually want to keep pressure both on Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah to get bargaining power with them. They want to inform Karzai that if he is not satisfying their demand(s) and going out of their rudder he will be thrown away as election is not accepted to the world’s mass. In this way Abdullah Abdullah, the opposition of karzai, is being used by them as a triumph card. In the same time they also are trying to eyewash world mass to justify their presence in Afghanistan in the name of instability and disorder and, of course, reestablishment and resettlement of firm democracy. Taliban is, obviously, a genuine excuse to continue their presence but nowadays they are, in fact, tired with war. So Talibans are not to be an option for them. They want their presence ensured without war what can only be justified with an Afghanistan full with political turmoil and chaos.

In such a situation Hamid Karzai, a puppet of western block, will ascend in power through a shabby, shaky and trembling rope which in any time may tear or to be cut with the tricky scissor, Abdullah Abdullah the real name of the scissor. If they can serve the purpose through their puppet government, no matter Karzai or Abdullah, why they will let the war with Taliban, once created and nurtured by them to hunt Russia but letter denied to serve their purpose. As a result Afghanistan is going to be a place of selective democracy, selected by the USA, to ensure western interest without war and at the same time to confirm their attendance in the region to tight, and teach China. If a selected democracy in Afghanistan permits the USA to contain a foreseeable foe, namely China, without any excuse why they will not let it happen. Who keeps it unpracticed to kill a bird keeping the gun on others shoulder?

A woman is casting her vote