Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - 3:21 PM

More Afghans are seeking asylum now than at any time since war in Afghanistan began, figures from the United Nations show. Last year more than 30,000 Afghans sought asylum worldwide, topping 2010's numbers by 25 percent - and those are just the recorded cases. More than 45,000 Afghans are said to have illegally escaped into Greece alone. Australia is another popular destination for asylum, though it is harder to pull off due to distance.
The current protests in reaction to news of the burnings of Korans at Bagram only underline to many Afghans just how quickly security can unravel and just how much uncertainty Afghans face in the future.
There is a race for the exits in Afghanistan, all right, and it is not just the internationals running for the door.
Uncertainty about the future dominates conversations among families, on the streets and in the news. As discussion of withdrawal deadlines and peace talks dominates local headlines precious few facts have surfaced about what these developments actually mean -- and for whom. Into this vacuum fear and rumor have moved in.
"Businessmen, traders have heard that in 2014 foreigners are going to leave Afghanistan, so most of the people are trying to leave Afghanistan," says Muhammad, an Afghan who left his country only for a short stint during the Taliban years. "People don't have trust in this government; they think maybe after 2014 the Afghan government will not be able to control the security of Afghanistan."
A number of Afghans who can are sending themselves, their capital or their children -- and sometimes all three -- out of the country by whatever means possible. As the Guardian reported the business of smuggling people out of the country is booming, while rents in Kabul, long sky-high and inflated to outrageous heights by the presence of international community, are now plunging in many areas.
In just the last six weeks, four people I have covered for years have all headed abroad. Some have gone to Canada, some to Europe, and some are seeking a way out through India. For obvious reasons I have withheld their names.
Security is the reason for flight cited most regularly. Two businesspeople I know have said that their families in the provinces are receiving threats and night letters -- notes delivered in darkness and promising harm -- from people with ties to anti-government forces. They say these men know of their close ties to the international community and they feel they will do less harm to their relatives if they stay away. Both are said to be in Canada now.
"People want to leave because of security issues that are threatening their family, but we never know if that is because it is a Taliban issue that is affecting their security or a simple criminal element," says the U.S. head of a non-profit working in Afghanistan that has seen several of its clients disappear for asylum in North America. Opportunity, alongside the threats, is what is driving the escalation of asylum cases. "Since time immemorial, families in any country have wanted a better future for their young people, and I think that as long as there is the opportunity for people to have it, and they have the financial means and the roadmap on how to do it, they will."
Another local leader close to the government who traveled in and out of Afghanistan throughout the Taliban years said that intimidation and beatings of loved ones from anti-government forces had taken its toll and could no longer be endured. They are now in Europe awaiting an asylum decision. Others, particularly twenty-somethings who have worked for foreign NGOs and aid agencies, say that they simply see little future in their country and they fear the consequences if the Taliban shares or takes power in the coming years.
"All the young people we have here are heading out," said one NGO leader based in Kabul who, like most people who spoke to me on this topic, asked not to be identified. "Some are marrying any cousin they can find and others are getting smuggled out."
For women leaders the issue of security after 2014 is especially critical. American officials see talks with the Taliban as the best -- and in many ways only -- hope for any kind of peace agreement that would end the unpopular war. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has vowed to Afghan women that "we will not abandon you," but she plans to leave office next year. It is far from clear whether Taliban representatives -- even if they are lured to the table -- will agree to provisions in the current Afghan constitution that give women equal rights and protections. Last time around the Taliban forced women indoors, off the streets and out of offices and schools, and activists who have been advocating for their rights in the last decade say everyone now wonders what will come next.
"What we are worried about is the increasing political change or reconciliation -- the sort of appeasement of the insurgency that is going to take place," says Wazhma Frogh, a human rights activist and member of the Afghan Women's Network.
At a recent meeting of NGO leaders women discussed how best to build support for a "women's rights defenders' protection" mechanism that would guarantee safe haven within Afghan borders to women's advocates threatened in their home province for their work on women's behalf.
Frogh says she knows a number of people trying to escape Afghanistan. Some leave in hopes of finding a decent job rather than remain in a country with soaring unemployment, but many go in fear of what settlement talks with the Taliban might mean for them.
"I know a couple of former MPs, senior ones, who went to Sweden, to London, and they started applying for asylum," Frogh says. "They are scared about what is going to happen to people who have had a stronger voice. People are scared because in the past ten years we have created all these affiliations with the U.S., with international organizations, with the international community, so all these affiliations will become a kind of a curse in a way."
Manizha Naderi, executive director of Women for Afghan Women, which runs family centers and safe houses for women in Afghanistan, says she understands the fear.
"If I weren't a U.S citizen already, I also would have tried to get out before civil war starts," Naderi says. "Two of our staff went to Helmand last week to do a round of trainings on human rights. Today one came back and said he will never go again. ‘It's not safe,' he said. This feeling is the same everywhere in Afghanistan."
Still, despite all that is happening, Frogh and some others say they see reasons for hope rather than flight in the future. A sweep of powerful, modernizing forces from education to telecommunications has changed Afghanistan since 2001, and Afghans today have been exposed to the world in a way they had not in 1989. More than 2 million Afghan girls are in school, and among the young generation the gender gap in literacy rates has never been as small as it is today.
Today, a vibrant press reports aggressively on happenings both inside and beyond Afghanistan. The media business is growing at double-digit rates and radio and TV stations now top more than 200 nationwide. A new generation of reporters, broadcasters and bloggers is online, including on Twitter and Facebook.
"We will not be the same people that we were when the Soviets left us and we started killing and beating each other," Frogh says. "I am just a little bit optimistic on that front, because I feel that people are going to be different, particularly the current generation."
Gayle Tzemach Lemmon is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Dressmaker of Khair Khana.
MASSOUD HOSSAINI/AFP/Getty Images
Natural exodus due to impending US/NATO troop withdrawal
It is a very natural human reaction – insecurity followed by Taliban rule is coming to Afghanistan. Writing is on the wall.
After ten long years of fruitless war, American people are tired of it and so US will abandon Afghanistan to the mercy of Pakistan. Of course US will have substantial presence in the beginning after the end of combat role and withdrawal, but Karzai government won’t be able to withstand the Taliban insurgency supported from across the border in Pakistan. Couple of devastating attacks on some US installations and US will pack the bags in a hurry as it did in Lebanon in 1982.
If Obama wins which seems more likely with each passing day, US will conclude a Vietnam-style peace deal as dictated by Pakistan with Afghan Taliban leaders chosen by Pakistan. US will force Afghan government to accept that mirage of a peace deal so that US can begin its drawdown and finally exit the theater of a war it is desperate not to be seen as having lost, not so much to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as to the wily Generals of Rawalpindi who have proved to be smarter than the Americans.
That facade of peace will crumble within few years after the departure of US troops and Pakistan will bring Afghanistan under its suzerainty with reimposition of Taliban rule just as it did in 1996 while tired and financially broke Uncle Sam will helplessly look the other way just as it did in 1975.
@Marty Martel
record (to borrow the phrase from the bygone era to which Marty Martel belongs) you are begining to bore people.
Say something constructive. This may be too challenging a task for you. Go on prove me wrong.
We went into Afghanistan only because the Taliban gave cover to al-Qaeda. As long as they don't let a-Q back in I don't care who governs Afghanistan.
Record will be played again and again
Well Mr. Striver. You have to hear the broken record again and again and again. You Americans are false Prophets. You have gone to Afghanistan and vowed them to take to the Promised land. They followed you. Now you are leaving them to the wolves. Mr. Martel has not described even one percent of what will happen to Afghans. Nazis will look like angels before them. What kind of people are you Americans? You will be paying Pakistan Army to install the Taliban in Afghanistan. All after 2000 Americans soldiers have been killed by these very Taliban with the help of Pak army? And what will you be telling to the mothers / wives / children of these killed soldiers? "Be proud. They have not died in vain. They have died so that we can install the Taliban again."
Striver is as Paki as they come...
Comments like "Pakistan is willing to provide a save exit" (to the US from Afghanistan) and so on, make it pretty clear, where his loyalties lie.
The natural by-product of the wasteful and pointless western wars is increased immigration of the people at the receiving end of these wars.
This mass exodus proves one thing if nothing else. We all want peace. We, the ordinary people.
These people are seeking refuge from the turmoil, chaos and killings western wars have created.
Your problem, you created it, so when they enter your countires ensure you give them jobs.
Stop complaining.
... Pakistan and Iran are still the hosts of the largest number of refugees coming acoss the border. The refugees number millions and have access to health and education.
At the hight of the Afghan conflict, Pakistan went to the extent of building schools and universities for the Afghan families.
Refuge for Afghan Interpreters and Other Supporters of US
The future of Afghanistan after 2014 is very questionable. Now is the time to be working the paperwork and bureaucratic process for the many Afghans (interpreters, cultural advisors, etc.) who have made a significant long-term contribution to our efforts in Afghanistan and who will face retribution once the Taliban either take power or have a share in the running of the Afghan government after 2014. If this effort does take place (granting refuge to the true Afghan supporters of the U.S. endeavor in Afghanistan) I would hope there is a mechanism to separate the corrupt Afghans from the real Afghan patriots. MF
Ten years late to a story, and, well, really wrong
The writer seems to know little about Afghan refugees.These people have been fleeing their homeland forten years, but she seems to think this started one or two years ago. She doesn't know their number, she doesn't know their favored locations. Most are in Pakistan, where the last two American administrations have felt free to act as though their refugee communities are free fire zones. Notoriously, those drone attacks kill many more civilians than terrorists or insurgents.
A recent tally identified Afghan refugees distributed this way: Pakistan 1,780,000; Iran 935,600; United States 300,000; Germany 100,000; United Arab Emirates 70,000; United Kingdom 70,000; Netherlands 38,653; Canada 48,090; Australia 19,416
As you see, this is a total well above three million, and Ms Lemmon is raising alarm because "more than 30,000" -- a non-figure -- might have joined their brothers and sisters in diaspora last year.Let's see ... that's about one per cent of three million-plus.
The non-figure she proffers is probably wrong, since it seems a tally of Afghans who have come to the attention of the UN high commissioner for refugges for last year, a number that cannot be related accurately to the number of Afghans who fled their homeland.
Why are these people fleeing? The Taliban or local criminals according to Ms Lemmon. Quite a lot have been fleeing the American military since the first inaccurate bombing raids of 2001. It was notable that eight years later, general Stanley McChrystal was trying to get the force he led to kill fewer civilians, and the general was failing.
In the last couple of years, the US military in Afghanistan have pointed with pride to figures establishing that the Taliban kill more sivilians than the occupying Americans. Let's say that's truie: is it such a wonderful thing that America is killing lots of civilians there, just fewer than the Taliban? That suggests the Talibs are wusser than the invaders, and not that the invaders have reason to expect all Afghans to think of the foreign invaders as their friends. Nobody welcomes a bullet through the head, or that invader exclusive, a 500-pound bomb on a village.
....The servile press/journalists have now adopted Neo-Con phrases, loaded as these phrases are with bias, prejudice and hatred towards a certain people.
Recall when the Communist press like Pravda were held in contempt and talked about disparagingly in the western press for being servile to USSR. Is see no difference between what Pravda did and the western press.
Simply put, real Formula 1 finishing order is often determined more by pit strategies then actual lap times. The same applies to our sim races and I have been the lucky recipient many times.
Formula 1 cars are extremely weight sensitive. More so then any other car that I know of. Ounces make a difference. Pounds make or break your race. 1 gallon of fuel in your car is equal to 6 pounds of added weight. That additional 6 pounds equals 0.10 added to your lap time. Carrying an additional 5 gallons of fuel (roughly 18 liters) costs you a half-second per lap. Not even tire wear matches the amount of time lost to carrying a few extra gallons of fuel. This fact has to be measured and compared to the time you would lose by making an additional pit stop.
Some tracks have very short pit lanes (Monza, Montreal) with easy entrances and exits. Minimal time is lost entering/exit the pit lane at these tracks. Total loss of track time is under 20 seconds which can easily be made up at a half-second per lap over a 60 lap race (that is 30 seconds for the math impaired). Other tracks have longer pit lanes or very slow entrances/exits (Barcelona, China). They cost you more time and may not warrant additional stops.
It is not that easy though. You have to factor in what type of track it is too. Tracks that demand a lot of accelerating or low speed cornering may works better with lighter fuel loads. Longer straights will less burst-acceleration zones may prefer heavier fuel loads and allow less pit stops. This is something that you have to determine on your own in testing. There is no rule book to lay it out for you.
The pit strategy basics
1-stopper: Less time in pits but slowest lap times. Since each stop costs between 18-26 seconds you are hoping to make up positions on those that pit more often and make mistakes on the track. Great for a driver that can fend off attacks from behind. If you can keep a 2 or 3 stop driver behind you for even 10 laps, he has lost all his advantage over you. You will beat him to the checkered flag at the end of the race. This strategy is advised for those stuck in the back of the grid order. since you probably wont be able to challenge your competition in all out speed, you may want to resort to beating them with their own mistakes. All it takes is for them to make a small spin and you are in good shape. Another great use for 1 stopping is on a track that is difficult to pass (Monaco or any street course). Use those barriers to hold your competition behind you to regain the upper hand.
2-stopper: The standard F1 pit strategy with a compromise between speed and less time in pit lane. Probably the safest pit strategy in a full distance GP and very widely used in real F1. It also allows a lot of flexibility on WHEN those stops are going to take place which is extremely vital (more on that later).
3-stopper: For the all-out hot lapper that wants to put himself at the front of the grid. Being out front in an F1 car means more then you may think. The car's grip is determined by the air flowing over the wings and body. Having cars in front of you will disturb that air and prevent you from lapping as fast as you are capable of. The down-side is having to spend more time at a stand still in pit lane. However, at some tracks, that penalty is not as severe. As I explained above, you can easily gain a half-second per lap over the 2-stoppers and a full second (or more) per lap over the 1-stoppers. This time gained can make up for the time you lose in pit lane.
More advanced thoughts
WHEN is everything: "When" you stop means more then "how often" you stop. In the simplest form, two equal drivers are competing for the lead of the race. Driver-A is 1-stopping and Driver-B is also 1-stopping and both are running equal times of 1:30's with fuel onboard. As the fuel burns off, the cars will lap faster by 1-tenth of a second per gallon of fuel burned. At half-distance into the race, Driver-A pits for fuel and tires. Driver-B stays out for 2 more laps before pitting. During those two laps of overlap, Driver-A is at is heaviest (full fuel) and will be lapping at 1:30 again. Driver-B is is at his lightest (minimal fuel) and will be lapping at his "hot-lap" pace of roughly 1:27's (30 gallons burned at 0.1 second per gallon). After Driver-B pits and returns to the track he has gained 6 full seconds over Driver-A, solely based on the TIMING of the pit stops.
If you are 2-stopping and your competition is on a 1-stop strategy, consider WHEN you are going to be pitting. You know the 1-stopper will be pitting at roughly half-distance. You objective would be to be to take full advantage of his slow lap times when he is at his heaviest. To do this, you need to be at your lightest fuel load for a few laps. if he pits on lap-30, you want to be pitting by lap 35. 5 complete laps at a 3 seconds gain per lap is close to the time it takes you to make a pit stop! Also consider that during the first half of the race you will probably be lapping faster then the 1-stopper and should have pulled a gap to him before your first stop. A gap of 10 seconds is all you need to win the battle (10 sec gap + 15 sec gain from overlapped pitting = 25 sec... the time for your extra pit stop).
You may think additional laps overlap would be better, but you have to factor in the fuel that it takes to run those additional laps. Trying to go 10-12 laps beyond his half-way point pit means you have to carry that much more fuel in your fuel run, at a loss of a few tenths per lap, completely canceling out any gain you may think you had.
Pulling a gap early in a race is worth more then a light fuel load late in a race and trying to chase down your competition. Pulling a gap on your competitor kills his will to fight and he will eventually settle for his position behind you. Even if he does keep his will to fight, he is the one that has to push to keep up with you. One missed brake point is all it will take and the race is yours. Also, the later in the race, the harder it is to maintain focus and concentration... for you both. Trying to hot-lap during that time can easily turn into a race ending mistake for you. Lastly, the later in a race the less cars on track. This makes it much easier to make laps around the track without traffic getting in the way. Sounds like a plus, but that same plus works for him too, making it that much more difficult to chase down your competition.
I have adopted a fairly aggressive pit strategy during S6. For qualifying I fuel my car to a 3-stop fuel load. This allows me to qualify up front and hopefully lead the race by the end of the first lap (it's been working in most cases). Now that I am in the lead, I have 10-14 laps worth of fuel to try to pull a gap. If I can pull 1 second per lap from my main rivals, I exit the pits 10-15 seconds behind them. I also plan this first stop to be made just prior to running up on lapped traffic (which usually gets heavy about lap-12 at most tracks). While my competition is in traffic, I have a 10-second gap of clean track. I may be at my heaviest fuel load, but he can not take advantage of that due to traffic. Once he pits, I easily pass him and usually have a much larger gap then I originally had. Now he is at his heaviest and I am fairly light. Again, all I need is to pull a few more seconds gap and I have the 24 seconds needed to make another stop and STAY ahead of him after exiting the pits. My 2nd stop is where I may end up running close to a 1-stop fuel load. It is late in the race, everyone is growing tired, track is empty, and all the gaps are already set. The race is effectively won by this point and there is nothing he can do to challenge it. The race was won back in qualifying, not during the race itself. Fuel load puts me up front on the grid. Fuel load allows me to pull a gap early on. Fuel load allows me to avoid lapped traffic and maintain best lap times longer then my competition. Of course, this strategy can be countered by using other strategies...
thanks
professional web design
The foreign policy of the US toward Asian countries during the Cold War was one of either propping up a military dictatorship, or bombing the countries where opposition to the dictatorships the US created, funded, and supported existed, and falsely claiming these countries were part of the "Free World." In the Philippines the US help destroy the Huk popular insurrection, and installed and supported the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. In Korea the US supported Syngman Rhee. In Vietnam, the US installed and supported Ngo Dinh Diem. All of these leaders were dictators who maintained their political rule by the arrest, torture, and execution of their political opponents, and the supression of democracy..
"Is rio orange war always comparateur forfait inevitable ?"
MaximB
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE