Another look at Afghanistan

[morgan_dhu]

As Canadians consider whether we want to extend our involvement in the NATO military mission in Afghanistan for another two years, and possibly longer, it may be instructive for us to consider the words of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on just what's happening with the mission so many of us think is all about restoring peace, security and democracy to Afghanistan. In a communique entitled "The US and Her Fundamentalist Stooges are the Main Human Rights Violators in Afghanistan," issued December 10, 2007 (Universal Human Rights Day), RAWA states, among other things, that:

After about seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy and reconstruction in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the destitution and suffering of our people has doubled everyday. Our people, and even our unfortunate children, fall victim to the Jehadis’ infighting (Baghlan incident), the Taliban’s untargeted blasts and the US/NATO’s non-stop bombardments. The Northern Alliance blood-suckers, who are part of Karzai’s team and have key government posts, continue to be the main and the most serious obstacle towards the establishment of peace and democracy in Afghanistan. The existence of tens of illegal private security companies run by these mafia bands are enough to realize their sinister intentions and the danger they pose.

Human rights violations, crime, and corruption have reached their peak, so much so that Mr. Karzai is forced to make friendly pleas to the ministers and members of the parliament, asking them to “keep some limits”! Accusations about women being raped in prisons were so numerous that even a pro-warlord woman in the parliament had no choice but to acknowledge them.

Of course, RAWA spent years trying to get the world to pay attention to what the Taliban was doing to the Afghan people, particularly the women, and no one really thought anything about it until Americans were attacked by some people, primarily Saudi Arabians, who had some tenuous connections with the Taliban. At which time the West responded by bombing the Afghan people, who couldn't even be "bombed into the stone age" because decades of invasions and civil collapse had already done that for them - and claiming that it wasn't just revenge, it was for women's rights. Remember all those pretty speeches about schools for girls and getting rid of burqas?

So I'm thinking that no one's going to pay much attention now when RAWA tries to tell us that we're doing exactly the same thing that the Taliban, and the warlords, and the Russians, were doing before. Because it's never really about the people, especially the women, and what they think, need or want.

Comments

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

Setting aside all questions of whether we (Canadians, Westerners, NATO, etc.) should be there or are actually doing any real good there, the problem Harper faces is that the Afghanistan mission is not popular in Canada and there is an election in the air.

On those other pesky questions, I know something has to be done in Afghanistan, and I think that the developed nations bear some responsibility for making it happen because over the past 30 years we (and thanks to the shifts of international politics, that we now supposedly includes russia) have either done things directly to totally destabilise Afghanistan, or sat by while others did. Or both.

I'm just not sure what should be done, or who should be doing it, in order to make some sort of success in getting a country that's almost been destroyed back in some kind of working order. I do believe that the West should be paying for it, but I'm not sure the West should be carrying it out - whatever it is.

I do suspect that what we're doing isn't working very well. I think part of the problem is that not much has been done to deal with Pakistan, which is where much of the Taliban strength seems to be based. I have no idea what's going to happen in Monday's election - the People's Party is supposedly polling ahead of all the others, but what happens if the military and/or the fundamentalists don't like the election results? As I write this, there's just been an explosion near the People's Party offices.

I don't know the politics well enough to know - but I don't trust most of the people who are currently running the show to actually care whether Afghanistan is rebuilt in the way that is best for its own people.

So I think it's important to listen to what those people are saying about what thye think of what we're doing. This is one of those voices.

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

What election? There was an election in Canada back in 2006. The next one shouldn't be due until 2009.

Afghanistan isn't at the forefront of the public's mind here, despite the recent casualties. Just last week we had to rush troops to East Timor again.

Our nation building efforts there are not working either, so no one is expecting much from Afghanistan, after all the fighting there during the 19th century.

Islamic fundamentalists do not like election results in general. Elections push the idea that government comes from the people rather than from God. Elections are therefore immoral.

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

What election? There was an election in Canada back in 2006. The next one shouldn't be due until 2009.

The last election ended in a minority government. Historically, minority governments only last about two years in Canada, sometimes less.

The Conservatives seem to want an election now, probably because with the U.S. already in a recession, our economy will start to head into the toilet sometime this year, and they don't want to have to call an election during a recession, because the incumbent governemnt rarely wins an election in hard times.

Some of the Liberals also want an election, and the indications are that the Party Leader is one of them.

What's funny is that the Conservatives recently passed an electoral reform law that no longer allows the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament and call an election at a time of his choosing - now we're supposed to have elections every four years, unless the governemnt falls on a no confidence motion.

So the government is trying very hard to force the Opposition defeat them on a confidence motion. It's led to some hilarious moves of late. For instance, the Government brought in a motion - and made it a confidence motion - censuring the Senate for not immediately passing the government's crime bill (alreeady passed through the House of commons) even though (1) the Senate does not answer to the House of Commons (2) the crime bill has not been in the Senate for any longer than any other bill normally is and (3) the bill is flawed, and the Senate is performing its constitutional responsibility as the chambre of "sober second thought."

Obviously the government hoped that the House would fall on this motion and they would be able to paint the Liberals as "soft on crime," crime being a major issue here these days. The Liberals instead rose and walked out of the House when the vote was called, which was fun. Obviously the motion passed, but as the Senate is not answerable to the House, it's meaningless.

So right now we're watching our politicians play a peculiar game of "chicken" as each party tries to figure out which issue it's best to bring down the house on, for them anyway, with of course the caveat that anything could change if the polls shift and someone decides that an election right now is too dangerous.

Sometimes politics is the best show in town.

[(Anonymous)]

We are in that strange inter-regnum where a new government has been elected and the new lower house has taken their seats but the Senate does not change until 1 July, bringing back all the old problems of one party controlling the lower house and another the upper. So there is thought once again to fixing the terms. The Senate here has three months to pass any bill - but failure to do so can only lead to a double dissolution which is just not going to happen. (Can this happen in Canada?)

So there is once again interest in the idea of fixing terms - which will require a constitutional change. This is normally popular because elections are unpopular. If however, the idea is not working in Canada then that will cause a re-think here.

I take it that the polls in Canada favour the Conservatives at the moment.

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

The defeat of a bill in our Senate does not affect the standing of the House because our Senate is appointed and thus confidence votes are not allowed.

The polls slightly favour the Conservatives - the gap is anywhere from five to ten points on any given day. But the numbers aren't high enough to suggest they would gain a majority. However, Harper (Conservative leader and PM) does consistently out-poll Dion (Liberal leader) as best person for PM. Like I said, it's crazy time here.

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

Our nation building efforts there are not working either, so no one is expecting much from Afghanistan, after all the fighting there during the 19th century.

The situation in Canada is that we still have this notion that if we're sending troops somewhere, it should be for something "good." (Mind you, I have the same opinion myself, but the general population is in general a bit more sentimental and naive about the whole thing.) If the populace becomes firmly convinced that what we're doing in Afghanistan is not doing "good" then any government trying to extend the mission further is going to have big problems.

On the other hand, if they can be convinced that we really are saving the Afghan people, whoever is in government will probably be OK with keeping troops there for at least another two years.

Me, I just wish I knew what might have some actual positive and lasting effect.

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

Oh. After the China War, Boer War, Egyptian Rebellion etc, we don't require too much "good". Australians are generally scornful of idealism. On the other hand, we are wary of using force when the consequences are unclear. The world's largest Muslim country is right next door after all.

When Kevin Rudd tells your PM that we are in for the "long haul", he means a lot longer than two years.

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's going to take much longer than two years to do anything in Afghanistan - but the big question for me is what do "we" actually want to do (help the people or just keep on playing The Great Game?), and is what we're doing now the best way to achieve it?

Is ongoing military action in Afghanistan going to have any positive effect, or is it just a stopgap to try to keep another radiacal Islamist governemnt from forming there - and what do "we" do about Pakistan? Iran? What if Indonesia does become Islamist rather than just a Muslim-majority republic?

Do we just go on invading countries that are Islamist, and watch as each succeeding military action makes more Islamist converts?