September, 09 2010, 02:06pm EDT
Afghanistan: Unchecked Violence Threatens Election
Insurgent War Crimes, Weak Government Response; Women Candidates at Risk
NEW YORK
Insurgent attacks on candidates and poor government security protection risk severely compromising Afghanistan's September 18, 2010 parliamentary election, Human Rights Watch said today. Candidates - as well as their staff members and election officials - face assassinations, kidnappings, and intimidation by insurgents as well as by rival candidates. Women candidates are facing the highest level of intimidation.
This is the second parliamentary election since the fall of the Taliban. The first was in 2005. The August 2009 presidential and provincial elections were held amid widespread violence, poor security, and allegations of serious corruption. Candidates, members of parliament, and election officials and monitors have expressed concerns to Human Rights Watch that security problems and corruption may have worsened since then and that the electoral process has not been reformed.
"Taliban attacks and the broad lack of confidence in the Afghan government to conduct a secure election threatens its validity," said Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher at Human Right Watch. "Insurgent violence, particularly against women candidates, was inevitable, but the government's weak response was not."
The Taliban have claimed responsibility for killing three parliamentary candidates during the campaign period. On July 23 in Khost, Sayedullah Sayed, a candidate and religious scholar, was killed and 20 others were wounded when the mosque in which he was speaking was bombed. On July 24, the Taliban abducted Najibullah Gulisanti, candidate for Ghazni province, and killed him two weeks later after Taliban demands for a prisoner exchange were rejected. On August 29, gunmen killed another candidate, Haji Abdul Manan Noorzai, while he was walking to a mosque in Herat. While some candidates have complained to Human Rights Watch about the government's lack of provisions for protecting candidates, others have not requested help or turned it down, citing a lack of confidence in the Afghan security forces.
The Taliban and other insurgent groups have also killed and threatened campaign supporters and voters. On July 14 in Logar province, two Taliban insurgents on a motorbike shot dead a shopkeeper who had displayed a poster for a parliamentary candidate in his shop. News reports said that so-called "night letters" were later distributed warning villagers that they would face the same fate if they did as the shopkeeper had done.
In Niazai, Logar province, on July 16, the Taliban killed two brothers who supported a local candidate. Afghan election monitors reported that in Darnota district, Nangarhar province, Taliban have made house visits warning that they will cut off the fingers of people found with voter registration cards.
In early September, a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, told reporters that, "Everyone affiliated with the election is our target - candidates, security forces, campaigners, election workers, voters are all our targets." Under the laws of war, which are applicable in Afghanistan, deliberate attacks on civilians, including government officials not directly taking part in the hostilities, are prohibited. Those ordering or conducting such attacks are responsible for war crimes.
"Attacks on candidates and voters are war crimes," Reid said. "It is sadly telling that the Taliban are willing to kill those who engage in this simple act of personal freedom."
Women candidates face escalating threats from both insurgents and rival candidates. In Herat on August 26, 10 people working for a woman running for parliament, Fauwzia Gilani, were abducted. Five were soon released. The Taliban initially denied responsibility, but later claimed that they had abducted five men. On August 29, five bodies with multiple gunshot wounds were discovered close to the abduction site.
Gilani told Human Rights Watch that she had received threatening phone calls prior to the abductions telling her to withdraw her candidacy, as well as messages after the abductions that if she withdrew her candidacy, her staff would be released. A local security official told Human Rights Watch that it is possible the abduction and killings were carried out by or for rival candidates.
In July, Mawlawi Shahzada, a member of parliament and candidate in the eastern province of Kunar, called a female candidate, Wagma Safi, an "infidel." Shahzada made the dangerous charge to his supporters gathered in Chawki district and said that anyone who votes for Safi would be an infidel. Safi told Human Rights Watch that she was concerned because such categorizations make individuals vulnerable to reprisal by insurgents or even members of their communities.
She filed a complaint with the Electoral Complaints Commission, which has a wide range of sanctions at its disposal, including disqualification of candidates, annulment of results, and referral to relevant criminal authorities for investigation. The Commission fined Shahzada 10,000 Afghanis (just over US$200). Safi said the fine was unlikely to deter further threatening behavior.
A female candidate from the central region who did not want her name or province made public told Human Rights Watch that she had received death threats from two rival candidates and that one of her campaigners had been severely wounded in an assault and told not to campaign again in the area.
In one northern province, letters have been distributed accusing a woman running for a parliamentary seat of being "un-Islamic" and a "prostitute." The letter also says a rival candidate has distributed videos proving the allegations. Questioning the religious faith and sexual propriety of candidates in this way puts candidates at risk and is particularly dangerous for women, Human Rights Watch said.
Under the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law, "[a]busing, humiliating, intimidating," or "harassment or persecution" of women are deemed as "violence against women." In cases where harassment results from the misuse of status or position, perpetrators can be punished with imprisonment for not less than six months.
The Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) said that the majority of threats against individual candidates reported to them were against women, including at least 40 incidents of threatening letters or phone calls in 10 provinces. Many of these incidents include threats of violence if the woman does not withdraw her candidacy.
The government has promised to make security personnel available for women running for parliament. But less than two weeks before the election, Human Rights Watch interviews with a number of election monitors, candidates, and women's rights activists suggest that the most women candidates have still not been provided with bodyguards, security advice, or transport security, even if they requested protection. Security was similarly inadequate during the 2009 elections. The Afghan government should rapidly address the security threats to women candidates, Human Rights Watch said.
"It is astonishing, given the threats and attacks, that the government continues to respond so inadequately to the security needs of women running for parliamentary seats," Reid said.
Election authorities have legitimate concerns about the possibility that suicide bombers will wear burqas in an attempt to breach security at polling places, Human Rights Watch said. There have been weeks of discussion among government departments about who has responsibility for ensuring that women will be stationed at the polls to carry out body checks, mirroring the failures in preparation for the 2009 presidential election. Consequently less than two weeks before the election, recruitment of female security staff for these jobs has barely begun, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch has learned of serious allegations of government interference in campaigns in several provinces. One independent candidate said that several cabinet ministers have offered logistical support to "pro-government" candidates. Officials from the Free and Fair Election Foundation and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission told Human Rights Watch of a number of cases in which provincial governors, security chiefs, and senior civil servants have been accused of using government resources to support candidates, sometimes in an intimidating manner. There are also numerous allegations that fraudulent voter registration cards and ballot papers have been produced and traded.
The Interior Ministry and Office of the Attorney General should promptly and transparently respond to threats and attacks against candidates, campaign staff, election monitors, officials, and voters with serious and credible investigations and hold those responsible to account, Human Rights Watch said. Government officials should not automatically blame attacks on the Taliban and other insurgent groups - which commit most, but not all, campaign-related violence - as this allows rival candidates to carry out attacks and threats with impunity, Human Rights Watch said.
The government should take seriously attacks against women candidates, including making the availability of protection widely known, even if some candidates choose not to use it.
The Electoral Complaints Commission should also be prepared to use its strongest sanctions, including disqualification, when there is evidence of serious crimes by candidates, such as statements that put other candidates' lives at risk. The commission should refer instances involving criminal offenses to the Office of the Attorney General.
"In this tense political environment, these elections could have wide-reaching ramifications for Afghanistan's future stability," Reid said. "The government will have to do far more to persuade the Afghan people that it can - and will - guarantee the security and independence of these elections."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
​State of Emergency Declared After Cargo Ship Destroys Baltimore Bridge
Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin said he was "deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore."
Mar 26, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
A state of emergency was declared in Maryland early Tuesday morning after a large cargo ship slammed into a major bridge in Baltimore, leading to its total collapse and sending a still unverified number of vehicles and people into the Patapsco River.
As the Baltimore Sunreports:
In a Tuesday morning news conference, just a few hours after the incident, Baltimore Fire Department Chief James Wallace said authorities are "still very much in an active search and rescue posture" noting they are searching for "upwards of seven individuals" and that sonar has detected the presence of vehicles in the water. There is no indication that the event was intentional, Wallace said.
"This is a tragedy that you could never imagine … It looked like something out of an action movie," Mayor Brandon Scott said.
The terrifying footage of the bridge's collapse—which CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez commented was "almost unbelievable" to watch—is circulating widely on news channels and social media:
This video is almost unbelievable. The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore literally collapsed this morning after it was struck by this large ship. pic.twitter.com/rYuy4U2r7H
— Omar Jimenez (@OmarJimenez) March 26, 2024
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Tuesday that he had spoken with Mayor Scott and well as Maryland Governor Wes Moore and was helping to coordinate federal assistance.
"Rescue efforts remain underway and drivers in the Baltimore area should follow local responder guidance on detours and response," said Buttigieg.
Moore said in a statement he had declared a state of emergency and that work was underway to "quickly deploy federal resources" to the area.
"We are thankful for the brave men and women who are carrying out efforts to rescue those involved and pray for everyone's safety," said Moore. "We will remain in close contact with federal, state, and local entities that are carrying out rescue efforts as we continue to assess and respond to this tragedy."
Kevin Cartwright of the Baltimore Fire Department told CNN that the number of missing people may be higher than reported in other outlets. "Unfortunately," said Cartwright, "we understand that there were up to 20 individuals who may be in the Patapsco River right now as well as multiple vehicles."
Early reporting indicated that no crew members aboard the container ship, which sails under a Singapore flag, were injured or missing. A local harbor pilot was also said to be on board at the time of the crash.
"Deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) following the accident. "I'm profoundly thankful to first responders on the scene and will track rescue efforts by local, state, and federal authorities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grave 'Threat to Journalists' Remains as UK Court Delays Assange Extradition Ruling
"The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all," said the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Mar 26, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
The United Kingdom's High Court ruled Tuesday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot immediately be extradited to the United States and gave the Biden administration three weeks to provide "assurances" that the publisher's First Amendment rights will be protected and that he won't face the death penalty.
If the U.S. does not provide the requested assurances, Assange will be allowed to pursue a limited appeal of his extradition. Should the U.S. submit assurances by the April 16 deadline, a hearing will be held on May 20 to determine whether they are "satisfactory."
Assange, whose health has deteriorated badly during his five years in a high-security London jail, faces 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and a possible 175-year prison sentence in the U.S. for publishing classified information—a common journalistic practice. WikiLeaks disclosures exposed grave U.S. and U.K. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Press freedom and human rights groups say the extradition of Assange to the U.S. would set a dangerous precedent and pose a dire threat to journalism everywhere.
Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement Tuesday that "we are glad Julian Assange is not getting extradited today."
"But this legal battle is far from over, and the threat to journalists and the news media from the Espionage Act charges against Assange remains," said Timm. "Assange's conviction in American courts would create a dangerous precedent that the U.S. government can and will use against reporters of all stripes who expose its wrongdoing or embarrass it. The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case."
The U.S., which has been aggressively pursuing Assange's extradition for years, previously provided the U.K. government with assurances that Assange would not be held at a supermax prison that's notorious for its inhumane treatment of inmates.
Human rights groups have said such assurances from the U.S. government are "inherently unreliable" and should not be taken seriously by British authorities.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in response to Tuesday's ruling that "prosecuting Assange for the publication of classified information would have profound implications for press freedom, because publishing classified information is what journalists and news organizations often need to do in order to expose wrongdoing by government."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case," said Jaffer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Rips 'Absurd' US Claim That Israel Is Not Violating International Law
"The State Department's position makes a mockery of U.S. law and assurances provided to Congress," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Mar 26, 2024
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday said the U.S. State Department's determination that Israel is not violating international law with its assault on the Gaza Strip is "absurd on its face," pointing to the mass death, destruction, and starvation that Israeli forces have inflicted on the territory's population over the past six months.
"Thirty-two thousand Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and almost 75,000 injured, two-thirds of whom are women and children," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "Some 60% of the housing units have been damaged or destroyed, and almost all medical facilities have been made inoperable. Today, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children are facing starvation because [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu won't let in sufficient humanitarian aid, while thousands of trucks are waiting to get into Gaza."
"The State Department's position," said Sanders, "makes a mockery of U.S. law and assurances provided to Congress."
The senator's statement came after State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters during a press briefing earlier Monday that the Biden administration has not found Israel "to be in violation of international humanitarian law, either when it comes to the conduct of the war or when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance."
Miller was responding to a question about assurances the administration has received from the Israeli government that its use of American weaponry has complied with international law and that it has permitted U.S. humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, where the entire population is facing acute hunger.
Under a new Biden administration policy known as NSM-20, recipients of American military aid are required to provide the U.S. government with "credible and reliable" written assurances that they are using such assistance "in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy."
Late last week, a group of U.S. senators—including Sanders—warned the Biden administration that deeming Israeli assurances credible would "be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of NSM-20" and "establish an unacceptable precedent" for the application of the policy "in other situations around the world."
"Until Biden is ready to impose real policy consequences on Netanyahu's government, the famine will continue."
It is a violation of U.S. law to continue sending military assistance to a country that is obstructing the delivery of American humanitarian aid. Last month, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich blocked a U.S.-funded flour shipment from entering the Gaza Strip, and Israeli forces have repeatedly fired on convoys attempting to deliver aid to desperate Gazans.
Prominent human rights groups have been calling on the U.S. to impose an arms embargo on Israel for months, pointing to documented examples of the Israeli military using American weaponry to commit atrocities in Gaza.
But the Biden administration has refused to even apply concrete restrictions on American military aid. Over the weekend, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law a measure that approves $3.8 billion in unconditional military assistance for the Israeli government and imposes a one-year ban on funding for the primary humanitarian aid organization in Gaza.
Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International and a former USAID official, said Monday that Israel's assurances to the U.S. are "not remotely credible" and argued the Biden administration is undermining efforts to combat the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza by accepting the Israeli government's claims.
The U.S., he said, is "talking a big game about fighting the famine that its bombs and diplomatic cover have helped create." Resorting to "gimmicky" efforts such as airdrops and temporary ports while a U.S. ally obstructs humanitarian aid "is not how you fight a famine," Konyndyk argued.
"Fundamentally Biden must choose: between continuing to enable Netanyahu, or ending the famine. There's no way to split the difference," said Konyndyk. "Until Biden is ready to impose real policy consequences on Netanyahu's government, the famine will continue."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular