|
|
|
|
||||||
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
الأربعاء 28/02/2007 |
||
|
ـ |
|
ـ |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
الأربعاء 28/02/2007 |
||
|
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
الجرائم
السياسية لوس
أنجلوس تايمز - 22/2/2007 إن العديد من أعضاء البرلمان
الأفغاني قد اعتبروا مجرمي حرب,
ولكن الأمة الأفغانية ليست على
استعداد لمحاكمتهم الآن. Crimes
of politics Many members of Afghanistan's parliament are alleged war criminals. But the
nation isn't ready to try them. February 22, 2007 HOW DOES A government prosecute people for crimes against humanity when the
suspects happen to be running the government? That's the
question facing Afghanistan, where men suspected of
horrifying acts of rape and murder sit in parliament and
hold other high offices. The question of what to do about these suspected mass killers heated up
Tuesday when the upper house of Afghanistan's parliament
passed a resolution calling for amnesty for those
accused of war crimes. The same resolution has already
passed in the lower house and will become law if
approved by President Hamid Karzai. Its success is
unsurprising because many of those voting on the
resolutions were previously regional warlords who might
otherwise be subject to prosecution. Following the Soviet pullout in 1989, Afghanistan was torn by years of civil
war, during which warlords who had fought in the
resistance movement began battling each other — and
committing atrocities against civilian populations.
Then, in 1996, the Taliban came to power, and it ruled
until the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. At the time, the
United States found these disaffected warlords to be
convenient allies, but now they're creating some serious
governance headaches. The ideal solution for Afghanistan would be to create a body similar to
South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
which, starting in 1996, helped heal the wounds left by
decades of apartheid rule. Those who committed human
rights abuses were granted amnesty if they publicly
testified about their crimes. Yet South Africa, unlike
Afghanistan, didn't have to contend with entrenched
politicians who control large swaths of territory with
armed militias. It also had the capacity to prosecute
those who refused to step forward, while Afghan courts
are a work in progress. Nonetheless, the parliament's amnesty resolution is a step backward. It's
hard for the Afghan people to have much faith in their
government when many remember all too well the campaigns
of terror waged by some of their current leaders. Where
the government has no credibility, the rule of law
doesn't hold sway. So if court trials are an impossibility, reconciliation is impractical and
amnesty is self-destructive, what's left? For now at
least, the status quo. Karzai's best course would be to
reject the amnesty law until the country is ready to
face the horrors of its recent past. The international
community, especially NATO, should be doing more to help
Afghanistan build the institutions and civil society
necessary for it to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
ـ |
|
ـ |
|
من حق الزائر الكريم أن ينقل وأن ينشر كل ما يعجبه من موقعنا . معزواً إلينا ، أو غير معزو .ـ |
