On Sunday, the world watched while the Taliban executed a young couple who had eloped by stoning them to death. The couple said they’d eloped because the young woman was promised in an arranged marriage to a relative of her lover, and she did not want to marry him. Nader Nadery, a senior commissioner on the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said in the New York Times, “We’ve seen a big increase in intimidation of women and more strict rules on women.” A recent Time Magazine cover story about a young woman maimed by the Taliban and recent opinion-editorials published by Human Rights Watch’s Rachel Reid and Tom Malinowski, have also served as reminders of the precarious status and future of Afghan women. Following the overthrow of the misogynistic Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the situation for women seemed to enter a promising era. A Ministry of Women was established, and a new constitution guaranteed women 25-percent representation in the legislature. But progress has been stymied in Afghanistan.
Read more »

By Erik G. Jensen

In the larger debate about the relationship of development assistance to security, the gap between normative assertions and empirical evidence yawns. Since the 1990s, the concept of “rule of law” has been enthusiastically embraced by international development actors and touted as the key to consolidating peace in post-conflict societies. Rhetorical overuse of the term has been matched by a proliferation of rule of law programs purporting to cover everything from legislative, judicial, and police reforms to land and property administration and market reforms. These programs, with their oversized ambitions, rely on a contested definition of what constitutes rule of law and what can be accomplished through international assistance. Such cookie-cutter, pre-packaged rule of law programs are unfortunately routinely favored over more strategic and carefully designed programs that apply very specifically to country and local-level environments and people’s needs on the ground. And much of development funding tends to go to formal institutions like judiciaries that are assumed to have the capacity and strength to deliver positive development outcomes. Unfortunately, that’s often not the case, especially in many developing countries where formal institutions are run by the elite, and local conflicts are more reliably resolved in informal institutions.
Read more »

By Fazel Rabi Haqbeen

During last year’s presidential election, Hamid Karzai promised to call a jirga to promote peace and reconciliation for Afghanistan’s future. After two postponements, the peace jirga finally took place in early June with 1,700 delegates gathering in Kabul. Some in the Afghan and international press have criticized the results, but the primary goal of the jirga – to take initial steps toward peace – was largely accomplished.

Nearly 1,700 delegates gathered in Kabul for a peace jirga in early June.

Many involved in organizing the jirga adhere to an old Afghan proverb: Blood cannot be washed by blood. According to a 2008 report by the International Council on Security, the Taliban now hold a permanent presence in 72 percent of Afghanistan. This has contributed to a shift within some in the Afghan government and the international community to think that inclusive negotiations are imperative to achieving peace and stability; and that reconciliation will not come if fighting continues.
Read more »

Conflict and fragile governance present enormous challenges for development and security in Asia. In places where violence is widespread and government ceases to function, the pace of development falls dramatically and conditions can deteriorate to extreme levels. Conflicts often include disaffected minorities or marginalized populations at odds with the central government and political establishment. Other elements that can heighten conflicts include limitations on local identity and culture, a lack of accounting for past abuses, and poor access to justice and security.

The Asia Foundation has a long history of working in fragile or conflict-prone areas, including in Afghanistan, Mindanao (Philippines), Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Aceh (Indonesia), Southern Thailand, and Timor-Leste. Our long-term presence and extensive networks allow us to interact with key actors and support programs in highly challenging and sensitive environments.  Watch the slideshow.

By Jean-Louis Van Belle

It has become a cliché to say that the only realities in Afghanistan are local realities: the Himalayan Hindu Kush separates the northern plains from the southern wastelands, and Afghanistan’s diverse regions are inhabited by very different ethnic groups that – because fertile land is so scarce – do not always find it easy to accommodate each other. The realities in the south and east are further complicated by the existence of numerous tribes with historically troubled relationships even though they share the same Pashto nationalist creed. So rivalry and conflict in Afghanistan is – to a large extent – local rivalry and local conflict. Afghanistan’s rapidly growing cities now present real development problems as well.

Afghanistan’s diverse regions are inhabited by very different ethnic groups that – because fertile land is so scarce – do not always find it easy to accommodate each other.

The longer-term conflict in Afghanistan is not political: it is economic. It is about resources, development, governance, and about managing the rapidly growing rural-urban divide. It is the same type of conflict that is dragging down other South Asian countries. This is evidenced by The Asia Foundation’s 2009 Afghan poll, which found that the majority of Afghans link insecurity more to racketeering, theft, extortion, and criminal violence than to the threat of insurgents.
Read more »

By Zoran Milovic

The current visit of Afghan President Karzai to Washington, D.C., accompanied by many of his ministers and high-level officials, is being greeted on both sides as an opportunity – indeed a necessity – to open a new page in the relations of two strategic partners in need of each other’s support and trust. There is bitterness on both sides even while there is an overwhelming hope to move forward and cease accusations and counter-accusations that have taken place ever since then-U.S. presidential candidate Obama visited Afghanistan in October 2008, and called upon President Karzai to get out of his bunker and face reality.

Negative feelings now overshadow all aspects of relations between the two governments. The relationship was darkly clouded by Afghanistan’s recent presidential elections and the harsh words, pressuring, and legal and political maneuvering that have accumulated through the actions (and inactions) of many individuals and institutions since then.
Read more »

By Thomas Parks

There seems to be a growing consensus that aid to conflict-affected and fragile regions needs fixing. The worsening conditions in Afghanistan have had a sobering effect on the international community, particularly development donors and organizations. If we cannot prevent the slide back to conflict and continued poverty for Afghanistan’s war-weary population, despite our huge investments and commitments, then there must be something that isn’t working quite right.

Criticism of foreign aid is nothing new. Since the release of Graham Hancock’s book The Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business in 1989, there has been a vigorous debate over the effectiveness of international development assistance in the world’s poorest and most fragile regions. What has changed in recent years; however, is the increasing voice from aid recipient countries questioning the effectiveness of the current aid system, and the wisdom of standard aid approaches.
Read more »

By Kim McQuay

There is an instant before the start of a large event when, with logistical arrangements set and the agenda fine tuned, attention shifts to participants. One draws a breath and wonders what the chemistry of personalities, perspectives, and experience will yield. So I reflected at the start of last week’s regional conference on the role of leaders of influence in national development efforts in Dhaka. Over 80 participants representing 14 South, Southeast, and Central Asian nations sat in country teams, a human landscape of traditional white and saffron robes, capes, and headscarves, elegant saris and shalwar kameez, colorful batiks, and jackets and ties. Microphones crackled to life from the podium, and the session began.

Convened by The Asia Foundation and USAID, the conference provided a forum where those gathered could share views and experience drawn from different country contexts and working environments.
Read more »

Upon their return from the Leaders of Influence (LOI) regional conference in Dhaka March 21-24 that convened over 80 participants from 14 countries, In Asia spoke with Rosita MacDonald, program officer for The Asia Foundation’s Governance, Law, and Civil Society program, and Russell Pepe, chief of party for the LOI program in Bangladesh, on what they heard.

Q: Was there a sense from conference participants that progress has been made since U.S. President Obama’s much-heralded Cairo speech last year in which he declared the U.S.’s commitment to reengage with the Muslim community?

Rosita MacDonald: There was a lot of talk from the U.S. delegation about the shift to enhanced engagement with the Muslim community as well as with other religious communities. This point was acknowledged by several of the delegates, but they also made the point that the U.S. needs to be more effective in its public diplomacy efforts in Asia and to highlight tangible examples of engagement with, and support for, the Muslim world. There is optimism to be sure, but still a lot of uncertainty as to what this “engagement” actually involves and how deep it runs.

Russell Pepe: Participants were encouraged by President Obama’s speech, but several also expressed a need to see more concrete actions. LOI was cited as a very good example of how the U.S. can support a wider engagement with the Muslim community, and can effectively build bridges between different faiths and secular groups.
Read more »

When President Obama declared in his Cairo speech last year “Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life,” a new sense of optimism charged those dedicated to building bridges between the two communities.

In direct response to President Obama’s call for greater engagement and his Global Engagement Initiative in which the United States has committed to work with Muslim-majority countries to advance democracy and development, USAID and The Asia Foundation convened a regional conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh, March 21-24 that attracted nearly 70 religious and traditional leaders from 14 countries to candidly exchange views and ideas on the critical role that “leaders of influence” play in promoting positive change in their communities and the power they have to affect national development.
Read more »