Survey: Afghans support central government, but ethnic divisions are sharp
By Fatimah Waseem
McClatchy Washington BureauFebruary 24, 2014
Afghan soldiers man a checkpoint after Taliban attack in the Ghazi Abad district of Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, Feb.23, 2014. ROOHULLAH ANWARI — ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — With Afghanistan’s presidential elections less than two months away, a new public opinion survey has found hopeful signs that Afghan voters are ready to build a unified nation after three decades of war.
The survey found that respondents overwhelmingly trust the country’s national government, its army and its police and oppose Taliban rule. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they believe the Afghan government effectively controls the country. About 72 percent said they trust the national army and 64 percent said they trust the national police.
But exactly how Afghans want to pursue the peace process is unclear. Although most Afghans desire a peace agreement with the Taliban, they have little confidence it would be honored. Most reject Western involvement in Afghan politics but nearly 80 percent insist the international community should help rebuild the country by providing development aid, supporting elections and mediating negotiations with the Taliban, the survey says.
The survey was conducted in September and October by Assess, Transform and Reach, a Kabul-based consulting firm, which surveyed more than 4,200 respondents from 11 provinces. But Lola Cecchinel, head of research at ATR, said there was no way to know if the sample, despite its size, was representative of the total Afghan population, since no census has been conducted in Afghanistan since 1979. Afghanistan is home to at least 14 distinct ethnic groups whose representation in the population is subject to debate, as is the actual size of the population.
Despite the seemingly overwhelming support for the Afghan government, “there are still very complex differences between groups,” Cecchinel said of the survey’s results.
The survey revealed a sharp division between the country’s north, where Tajiks are the dominant ethnic group, and the south, where Pashtuns dominate. The Taliban are largely Pashtun, while Tajiks were the primary members of the Northern Alliance, which fought Taliban rule prior to U.S. intervention after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Only 2 percent of respondents in the north favored Taliban rule compared with more than 26 percent in the south, the survey found.
Perceptions of living conditions also were divided between north and south. Most Afghans in the south said their living conditions had deteriorated, while 73 percent of people in the north said their living conditions had improved over the last decade.
A recent Gallup poll showed nearly 55 percent of Afghans live in poor conditions, the highest percentage among all countries polled by the organization in 2013 and the highest percentage in Afghanistan since Gallup began surveying the country in 2008.
Opinion surveys have been controversial in Afghanistan, where some politicians have claimed the U.S. government has conducted surveys designed to produce results favorable to U.S. policies in the country. While U.S. officials deny that charge, the Obama administration has decided not to fund any public opinion surveys prior to the presidential elections, which are scheduled for April. ATR’s survey was not commissioned by the United States.
7:54 PM ET--Obama Tells Karzai He Is Moving Ahead Without Him
By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPERFEB. 25, 2014
American soldiers in Afghanistan on Tuesday. Credit Scott Olson/Getty Images
WASHINGTON — President Obama, apparently resigned to President Hamid Karzai’s refusal to sign a long-term security agreement with the United States before he leaves office, told him in a phone call on Tuesday that he had instructed the Pentagon to begin planning for a complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year.
But in a message aimed less at Mr. Karzai than at whoever will replace him, Mr. Obama said that the United States was still open to leaving a limited military force behind in Afghanistan to conduct training and counterterrorism operations.
Noting that Mr. Karzai had “demonstrated that it is unlikely that he will sign” the agreement, Mr. Obama told him, in effect, that the United States would deal with the next Afghan leader. He warned Mr. Karzai that the longer it took for Afghanistan to sign the pact, known as a bilateral security agreement, or B.S.A., the smaller the residual force was likely to be.
It was the first time the leaders had spoken since last June, and for all intents and purposes, it marked the end of a relationship that had long since broken down in acrimony.
While Mr. Obama’s message was not a surprise — administration officials had concluded weeks ago that any agreement would probably come only after elections in April — the White House’s blunt description of his call with Mr. Karzai underscored the depth of the president’s frustration and the erosion of trust in the Afghan leader.
But the call also confirmed that the White House has retreated from its earlier insistence that the Afghan government sign the agreement before the elections or face the threat of a total pullout. Mr. Obama made clear that he views a residual force as a way to prevent Afghanistan from becoming once again a haven for terrorist groups.
“Should we have a B.S.A. and a willing and committed partner in the Afghan government, a limited post-2014 mission focused on training, advising, and assisting Afghan forces and going after the remnants of core Al Qaeda could be in the interests of the United States and Afghanistan,” the White House said in a statement issued after the call.
The White House had hoped to seal the security pact before a meeting this week of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, where Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to discuss the logistics of the reduction of American forces in Afghanistan and the shape of a potential postwar force with other alliance partners.
Military planners have faced deep uncertainty in preparing for a mission to train, advise and assist Afghan forces after combat operations officially end this year. The governments of nations that contribute troops must approve any sustained deployments months in advance.
The major candidates for president in Afghanistan have all signaled they would sign the security agreement. But if history is any guide, the April election might necessitate a runoff, which could lead to months of political uncertainty, further delaying the security deal.
A senior administration official said Mr. Obama was sending a message to Mr. Karzai that there would be a cost to further delays, both in the rising chance that the United States might go down to zero troops and in the more limited size and scope of a residual force.
Mr. Obama’s decision to look beyond Mr. Karzai, the official said, was driven by Mr. Karzai himself, who has told the administration that he believes his successor should sign the agreement because the future government will have to live with its consequences.
“Clearly, the president is putting pressure on Karzai without closing the door on B.S.A. just as he is preparing the ground for the possibility that B.S.A. may not happen,” said Vali Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Some analysts said the administration erred by tying the decision on troops too closely to its relationship with Mr. Karzai, which become toxic earlier this month after Afghanistan released 65 prisoners that the United States said had the blood of American soldiers on their hands.
“Making it about President Karzai is simply not the right thing to do,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States. “President Obama needs to decide what’s in America’s interest, and whether America can continue to fight global terrorism without an effective military presence in the central and south Asian theater of war.”
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
