Wrong Exit in Afghanistan
Latest promise of peace talks is a cruel hoax to Afghan rights and civil society groups.
Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
-
'A Woman among Warlords'
Afghan author and firebrand Malalai Joya on Canada's mission, Obama's Nobel, dodging assassination, and more.
-
Afghanistan: Wrong Mission for Canada
The coolly reasoned case made by a leading expert in international law.
-
Karzai's Afghanistan, Last Nail in the West's Coffin
The most powerful empire in history proves to be dumb as a bag of hammers.
It's not what Afghans want, but that didn’t dampen the euphoria about a cheap and easy "exit strategy" from Afghanistan that was the talk of the town leading up to the big international gathering in London last Thursday. Foreign ministers, diplomats and mandarins from more than 60 countries washed into Britain on a tsunami of upbeat messaging: President Hamid Karzai had come up with a bright and shiny new peace-talks plan. This time, it's going to work. But when the day was over, they had little to show for themselves except the appearance of looking wet and bedraggled.
It certainly sounded like a good idea. An international trust fund to win back the loyalties of "moderate Taliban" and reintegrate weary and misguided Talban fighters was the way British Foreign Secretary David Miliband described it. For years, Karzai had embarked upon various buy-off efforts and peace-talks gambits, including a demobilization project that Canada helped bankroll back in 2005 that brought some 50,000 "insurgents" in from the cold. The government in Kabul had largely botched these schemes, but now, everything was going to be just fine. Karzai and the Saudis and the Pakistanis were issuing all sorts of hopeful hints about new signs of Taliban openness. There were gleeful "I told you so" chirrups coming from the usual opponents of the Afghan project, and joyful noises coming from the newly debt-burdened NATO capitals.
But "peace at any cost" were the words Karzai had let slip in the days before the London conference. Karzai's finance minister, Omar Zakhilwal, had gone and sounded off about looking foward to welcoming Taliban leaders into cabinet posts in Kabul and government offices right down to the district level, and it was only about $1 billion he'd be wanting to make it happen. Karzai arrived in London after holding out-of-the-way meetings in Istanbul with Iran, China, and other such freedom-loving countries, announcing that the King of Saudi Arabia himself would be pleased to convene arrangements to satisfy the Taliban high command.
What Taliban want: surrender
It didn't help that the Taliban responded to all these enthusiasms by mounting a suicide-bomber jamboree in the streets of Kabul and declaring yet again -- as the Taliban has done like clockwork, every year since 2003, every time a peace-talks balloon get floated -- that there was nothing to negotiate except Kabul's surrender. And so it appeared, for all the world, that Karzai was prepared to negotiate exactly that.
None of this came as a shock to Afghanistan's pro-democracy movement, however. You still wouldn't know it from the world's English language press, but the backroom agenda that found its way to London last week has been percolating for years, and its re-emergence was sparking an unprecedented revolt by Afghanistan's growing civil society movement. Long before last Thursday, Afghan secularists, women's rights leaders, and democrats were frantically raising the alarm.
Only three days before the London conference, representatives from more than 200 Afghan women's rights and civil society organizations gathered at the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul. After a day's deliberations, they released an eight-point consensus statement. The very first point: "Based on the persistent violation of the rights of women and men by the Taliban, whether when in power or after, objections were clearly and strongly expressed by all parties participating in this meeting regarding any negotiation with the Taliban."
The remaining points were equally unequivocal. The International Declaration of Human Rights is "non-negotiable." No power-sharing with criminals. No to removing the names of Taliban leaders from UN terrorist lists. Yes to Taliban fighters who desert their ranks, but no to the Taliban buy-back plan under discussion in London: "We strongly urge the international community to oppose the funding of any program that offers further support of terrorists and the Taliban. We cannot support such a plan, destined to fail, which will bring about insecurity in Afghanistan."
Reconciliation at what expense?
The London conference ended with a 3,600-word, 34-point communique that referred obliquely to Karzai's grand "reconciliation and reintegration" scheme only in passing, in two minor bullet points. The message from the Americans, largely unchanged from the George Bush days, was, more or less, whatever floats your boat, just as long as we get Al Qaida. As all the limousines left for Heathrow, Miliband found that his trust fund bag, the one Zakhilwal crowed would be filled with $1 billion, only had about $150 million in it.
For years, Ottawa has supported "Afghan-led reconciliation" as one of Canada's top six priorities in Afghanistan, but it isn't committing a penny to this "new" idea, at least not yet. Not that Canada counts for much anymore -- Prime Minister Harper hasn't had much to say about Afghanistan lately except that our soldiers will be gone next year -- but Canada was one of the only NATO countries in London to acknowledge that something else was going on.
"We are concerned that the process needs to be one that enjoys the support of Afghan society," said William Crosbie, Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, in a sentiment obliquely echoed by Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon. "Some Afghans, including Afghan women, have expressed concerns that reconciliation should not be at the expense of their rights, and of the gains that have been made with the new constitution," Crosbie said.
That's putting it mildly. But the spectre of an "exit strategy" built from the rubble of variously failed, flaky and sinister notions of a diplomatic bargain with the Taliban will not vanish with the London conference. Neither will Afghanistan's growing civil society movement easily back down from its resistance to a sell-out. But just as the rich countries of the world are growing "war weary," Afghanistan's young pro-democracy activists are worrying about how long they can hold on.
Myth of the moderate Taliban
"To begin with, the notion of moderate Taliban is fundamentally flawed," says Ahmad Zia Kechkenni, an Afghan-Canadian who served as a senior adviser to second-place contender Abdullah Abdullah in last year's fraud-wracked Afghan presidential elections. "While reconciliation with Taliban sympathisers who have joined them due to poverty and unemployment is possible, no peace deal can be reached with intellectually committed Taliban."
Afghan president Hamid Karzai cannot be trusted in any deal-making enterprise because his main objective at the London conference was to secure a pot of money to protect his own hide, Kechkenni told me. "The main thought behind negotiation with the Taliban is to strengthen them as a Pashtun clan. Therefore he is trying to play the ethnic card."
Whatever cards Karzai holds, and no matter who would have the winning hand at a table with the Taliban, this just isn't a game that Afghan's women's rights leaders are interested in playing.
A single delegation of Afghan women with the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) managed to find its way to London last week. Its submission ended up being the only input that Afghan women were allowed to give the conference delegates. Backed by the Afghan Women's Network and the Institute for Inclusive Security, UNIFEM expressed its "grave concern" about the way the voices of Afghan women were going unheard.
"The international community should stand behind the women of Afghanistan and elevate their voices, not barter away their rights in the name of short-term peace and stabilization,” said Wazma Frogh, an Afghan human rights activist. Said Mary Akrami, director of the Afghan Women Skills Development Centre: "Afghan women have the most to gain from peace and the most to lose from any form of reconciliation compromising women's human rights. There cannot be national security without women's security, there can be no peace when women's lives are fraught with violence, when our children can't go to schools, when we cannot step on the streets for fear of acid attacks."
Sounding the sell-out alarm
For several weeks -- even in the Pashtun heartland, where the Taliban is entrenched -- progressives, socialists and pro-democratic parties have been attempting to raise the alarm of a looming sell-out, but their appeals have gone completely unnoticed by their erstwhile counterparts in the rich countries of the west.
Last month, the Awami National Party and its allies among the traditional "Red Shirt" secularist movement gathered with several civil society organizations and the Amn Tehrik peace coalition in a two-day conference. The result was a comprehensive peace plan, the "Peshawar Declaration." Among its key recommendations: "NATO and ISAF are sent to Afghanistan under UN mandate. NATO and ISAF should stay in Afghanistan until terrorism is uprooted, foreign interference in Afghanistan must be stopped and the institutions of army and police are established on solid footings."
In the tribal areas on east side of Pakistan frontier, last year's truce deals with the Taliban resulted in scores of school burnings, hundreds of murders and a reign of terror that has forced more than a million people from their homes. The Peshawar Declaration expresses support for the NATO efforts at a troop-withdrawal timetable to hand over security to Afghan authorities, but the half-dozen centrist and leftist parties that are its main authors are clear that appeasement of the Taliban will not work: "If the terrorists succeeded in Afghanistan their next target would be Pakistan. Therefore, this policy is destructive for Pakistan and should be abolished above board."
Especially in the Taliban-infested districts of Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier Province, the ordinary people want Taliban sanctuaries destroyed: "These people do not support any peace deals with the militants," the declaration asserts. "It is the [U.S.] drone attacks which they support the most."
Yesterday's jirga
In London, Karzai said he intends to forge ahead with the establishment of a national council for peace, reconciliation and reintegration, comprised mainly of tribal elders. The council would be given the task of organizing a massive tribal jirga, with the King of Saudi Arabia playing a key role. The Taliban will be invited. Ironically, six years ago Karzai pledged to proceed with the similarly-named action plan for peace, reconciliation and justice. Its main purpose was to banish war criminals from positions of power and develop a screening system to ensure that the country's powerful gangsters and notorious mercenaries were kept out of government jobs. Nothing much came of it.
The Afghan women's movement has been arguing for a national peace jirga for years. But UNIFEM Afghanistan, for one, has also insisted that the 2004 action plan is still the only way forward. "2001 was a very clear signal that there is no more room for conservative elements to rule in Afghanistan," says Homa Sabri, national officer-in-charge for UNIFEM Afghanistan. "I have great fears, and I am greatly confused." ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Dan the socialist
01-02-2010
It seems NATO wants a way
It seems NATO wants a way out but it does not look like to me they have found a way. This so called War is over and has been for sometime, the west (USA, Canada, NATO etc) do not want to admit they can not win and are looking for a way out to save face and try to spin some sort of victory. All that is going to happen if we remain there is the same old same old and more NATO troop deaths.
Van Isle
01-02-2010
When NATO/ISAF forces 1st
When NATO/ISAF forces 1st went into Afghanistan in 2001 they forgot 2 very crucial facts; 1) one day those forces are going to leave. 2)The Afghanis will still be there. They're the ones whole will have to clean up the mess created by us. I forgot who said "The US is successful at starting wars but a failure at ending them". 2 examples, Cambodia and Laos.
coyoteman
01-02-2010
The Decline of the Fourth Reich...
I have only the time to be very brief here, but frankly, this is all looking more and more like the Paris Peace Talks with the NLF and the North Vietnamese that preceded, and indeed were still formally going on when the US Empire forces were in full flight from the Vietnamese liberation forces advancing rapidly and unopposed into Saigon. I mean, who can forget the endless and hurried buildups of US Forces during that period as well? All of which proved incapable of holding off the humiliation of defeat in the end anyway.
And this same scenario is again being played out here as well, as the inevitable outcome nemesis of US Empire power hubris begins to finally play itself out again.
The US Empire ambition, as arose into full bloom following the post-WWII collapse of the old British Empire, was always an appetite bigger than its stomach of course. And now, like the true bolemic that The US Empire is, they are in the toilet with their fingers down their throat, attempting to purge the desserts they have gorged upon.
And in the end, as I have always said, it will be best for the world, including ourselves, that the Empire and its allies, including this pathetic pretender State of ours, are driven out of the entire Middle East, with its tail between its legs.Which is the next shoe to drop.
Amerika has long needed to finally be humiliated again, just to drive the point of Vietnam home. It MAY make them finally more easy and reasonable to live with, in their humiliation. (Though possibly, just possibly more dangerous, closer to home... in the hemisphere. If its capitalism as well is not also defeated.) It may also finally be part of the post-Empire period, as its shit little flunky, that forces us to finally face up to our own independent nation building project, that we have too long needed to seriously get down to.
Though frankly, I will admit, we will need to continue to keep one eye on the next potential Empire threat that is State-Capitalist China. But it is only really possible to deal with one Empire threat at a time, as they arise, as part of the dynbamic of global capitalism. One more down, at least.
alive
01-02-2010
Thank you Mr. Bush
UN does not understand the concept: "figth to the death!"
When you are up against religious zeal, you have to adopt to their mentality right away!
By now it is clear to our leaders that it was ill advised to get involved in what is not a war in the old sense, but rather a protest movement where there is no compromise.
Yes, by all means get out at any cost, and please try to remember your lesson.
freebear
01-02-2010
So next time....
Instead of invading just write a cheque made out to the 'enemy's trust fund. Probqably much cheaper and safer than sending actual troops!
So much for 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' (unless its a convenient exit for an unwinable 'war'!)
I am sure the families of fallen soldiers are happy they sacrificed themselves so a cheque could be written!
And no mony for trhe law abiding citizens of Afghanistan?
Yammer
01-02-2010
New tactics
Glavin, what say you to the idea that the war has to move away from bullets and into "hearts and minds" bribery/ideological realms?
The model would be China, which, due to the size of its army, could never be controlled militarily from the outside but which has, with just a little Western coaxing, completely reinvented itself as the most capitalistic country imaginable, with human rights and democracy movements following along (albeit at a sedate pace).
I think that this is the right approach to take in Afghanistan as well.
If we pull out, will the Taliban resume control? Probably, but they like everyone else need goods and services, and that means contact with the outside world. If Western virtues are superior (and they are), then this contact will ultimately be effective at achieving what cannot be done through half-assed military occupation.
coyoteman
01-02-2010
New Tactics....
New tactics, my ass. Just another attempt to retreat and save face.
No more than true than the naive claim "democracy" and "human rights", or what passes for them still, were the products of some internal virtue to capitalism. They were fought for, won and ultimately forced down the throat of capitalism and its ruling class, as the fruit of generations of class/labour struggles, and those of suffragettes, Natives, Blacks and many others, from the time of the Industrial Revolution with its child labour and sweat shops.
Yammer
01-02-2010
You sound bitter
"Capitalism" means lots of things to lots of people, but some combo of market and state seems to produce a standard of living which facilitates improvements in human rights.
http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
<- where's Cuba?
coyoteman
01-02-2010
Where's Cuba Ignorance...
"where's Cuba?"
Better off than it was under the US supported gangster regime of Batista. And I do mean gangster.
And the other place it is, though I am not particularly supportive of the "what passes for Communist" regime in Cuba... Viewing it more as a "elitist" social form like Russia and China were, tending to move toward its own kind of National State Capitalism, as did they as well. ...but still the other place it is, which we should only envy, is actually an independent country, free of US domination, even if it has to spend inordinate sums on maintaining a large military to back that up. Which has its own financial consequences and is an additional burden.
Though some would rather be poor and free, if that's the price, than a better fed slave even, which, save for the US gangsters that previously controlled it, was not Cuba's foamer condition under Batista, much a "subject" State, like Canada.
This period of Cuba being subject to a policy of "starving it out" and "embargoing it from freely trading", imposed by the US Empire, will pass. And then we will really see where the Cuban Revolution is capable of going, and of what it is capable as a tiny island nation of achieving.
Meanwhile, its people are all healthy with one of the best "free" medical care and education systems in the world, laying the foundations for post US Empire influence.
But unfortunately, like is the case with all smaller and weaker states that fall under the constant threat of US militarism and intervention, it is right now having to endure on its own modest island resources, prevented from trading with much of the world.
But this too will pass, with the passing of the Empire of which we speak here.
OilbertaRedTory
01-02-2010
The humiliation tactic ...
... teaches no lessons to frightened angry trapped animals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3a6ZZPLsio&feature=related
Why would it work on the US?
The war in Af-Pak, like Vietnam, is mistaken for an ideological battleground when territorial re-integration sufices:
http://tinyurl.com/DurandLine
Besides, the Taliban are winning:
http://www.icosmaps.net/
Perhaps a confederation like Canada could offer lessons on political accommodation better than military aggression.
frank2
01-02-2010
The "solution"will come from
The "solution"will come from getting the men with guns (thugs on both sides) to agree something. All the nice people Glavin quotes (women, educators, democrats, NGOs etc) then have to find ways of pursuing their agendas with their OWN powers that be. We outsiders aren't God, and it's stupid to think, talk or act as if we can.
Alastair Haytho...
01-02-2010
give Karzai another big pot of money??!
Who in their right mind would give Karzai another big pot of money for him and his pals to steal?
Typical of many colonial adventures since WWII, the big powers can only find corrupt incompetent dogs to front their puppet regimes. Karzai looks good, speaks well and has a fine bearing but the corruption is too much. Just look at the fiasco of recent election.
As for buying the Taliban... Do invaders start to beleive their own propoganda? Afghanis do not fight and die for a paycheck. They fight against the heathen invader as they have since the time of Alexander.
The Taliban now operate inside the little urban bubbles which were the only place the national government acually controlled.
We can pour in more troops, kill more farmers on their own land, hand over children for torture and blow up more wedding parties but in the end the result with be the same, just with more dead.
We cannot dominate Afghanistan forever... Our crimes there are gigantic already..Enough already
Canada out of Afgahnistan
Canada out of NATO (and Norad)
coyoteman
01-02-2010
A Period of Peace Long Enough...
"Canada out of Afgahnistan
Canada out of NATO (and Norad)"
A good starting point for sure, Alastair.
Then, perhaps it will begin to come possible in the aftermath of that retreat of The Empire and its Alliance of The Bribed, to take it to the next level, of driving them entirely out of the Middle East. The possibility of which drives the Zionists of Israel/Palestine to sleepless nights... that they will be left alone to finally fend for themselves against the Arab Middle East. With whom they may actually be forced to sue for peace, and to allow the Palestinians back into their own homeland again, from whom this European Zionism stole it.
We may yet slowly but surely see justice finally done throughout the Middle East, not only Afghanistan. Which would be the surest way to make the "terrorism" that so haunts our own sleep go away. (For one man's terrorist really is just another's patriot. Ask the early American Patriots, who were but terrorsts to the British Redcoats, and the British Empire Loyalists, who eventually fled to Canada.)
History, like life, is complicated, with many a strange twist and turn. And as Europe, and indeed even this continent, had to crawl itself out of religious wars, witch (women) burning, and the domination of the preachers and priests (not yet complete), so too will the Arabs. If they can get a period of peace and rest from the battlements against invading imperialisms long enough, to actually get down to dealing with their own problems, the foreign Zionist enemy in their midst, and reforming their societies.
RickW
01-02-2010
If ISAF pulls out of Afghanistan......
....where will the US et al, ramp up poppy production?
williamroberts
01-02-2010
Moderates or Radicals
In the end, only moderate Islamists themselves can prevail over the radicals whose main source of legitimacy comes from inciting popular resistance against the external invader. Sadly, U.S. forces and Islamist radicals are now approaching a state of co-dependency.
Des
01-02-2010
It All Comes
down to politics. In this case, our Canadian politics.
In Davos, Harper appears to be standing up for "women and children in poverty." Has his heart, like the Grinch, suddenly grown? Hardly, since his abysmal record for lifting our Aboriginal women and children is just to continue the former dismal politics. But connect those dots and extend the lie to Afghanistan and the real reason for his stance in Davos becomes apparent.
The military mission in Afghanistan will be continued past 2011, justified by the "necessity" we will have to fulfill his political agenda and "rescue" those impoverished women and children over there. In the meantime, our Aboriginals will have significantly higher sickness and death rates coupled with significantly lower educational and employment rates.
And remember, he was the one who endorsed the sobriquet "Taliban Jack" when Layton first broached the idea of negotiating some kind of payout to coax cash-strapped Afghanis to our side a few years ago. He will mealy-mouth agreement if buyout is approved by the USA but will surely regret the about-face required by political expediency.
activator
01-02-2010
America at war
An excellent chronology of murder and mayhem in the name of democracy to bring Milton Freidman "Disaster Capitalism" to the world.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/warletters/timeline/timeline3.html
ReeferMadness
01-02-2010
Guidelines needed
There needs to be guidelines around when it is acceptable for international forces attempt to "bring democracy" to any country. Like maybe some convincing evidence that a solid majority of the indigenous people are willing to support said international forces. And some good reasons to believe that the majority of the people will be better off when the forces leave then when they got there. And some good reasons to be convinced that this process won't take fifty years.
If the local population assisted by NATO, can't take control of the country within 8 years, then it's pretty obvious we're not wanted. It's time to allow the Afghans to take control of their own issues. And for us to stop causing them.
carfreed
02-02-2010
chuckman says:
"The final chapter of our Afghan mission?
And just what was our "mission"?
I doubt anyone in Canada can give a coherent definition of that so-called mission.
The government has blubbered again and again, as have some of its supporters, about making the purpose clearer to people, but they never have.
That is simply because there is no purpose, at least in the conventional meaning of the word.
The United States went there for vengeance and to kill as many people it regards as hostile as it can. It dragged along all the “help” its vast resources of finance, aid, and military could extract from the world, hoping to make the business look like something other than it is.
Even then, most countries, except for Tony Blair’s Britain, sent only token help to this supposedly world-important “mission.”
There never has been any other meaning, except in the columns of propagandists.
Canada's only purpose was to placate a mindlessly angry and paranoid United States with the knowledge that we'll help hold your overcoat while you're busy doing all that killing. We accidentally got assigned to a place where our troops suffered disproportionately
No other definition of our "mission" fits the facts. It is a dark and brutal and pointless chapter in our history."
coyoteman
02-02-2010
What was our "mission"?"
"And just what was our "mission"?" asked Carfreed.
Well, doubtless it was largely for the reason you indicate, which was basically to suck up to and stay on the good side of The Empire. But there is a tad more to it than that, even hidden behind their (US) claimed reason of vengeance. (The Taliban even offered, for example, to turn over Bin Laden just before the invasion, if the Amerikans would show them their proof against him. Which is standard practise in "extradition" cases from another "sovereign" country. And Bush refused, choosing to "bomb them into the stone age" instead.
And here is the larger part of the real reason for the invasion of Afghanistan:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html
And here is a Wikipedia version of the Trans-Afghanistan Oil Pipeline project, long sought by the US corporation UNOCAL and others.
coyoteman
02-02-2010
Wikipedia
Okay then, here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
margot
03-02-2010
Thanks for bringing up the
Thanks for bringing up the TAPI, coyoteman. Construction, planned to begin sometime this year, is upping the bloodbath.
The "news" this morning described getting ready for a huge offensive in Marja. It's right near Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, which is right near Camp Bastion (British, biggest since WWII).
An estimated 85,000 Afhans live in and around Marja. Gleeful announcements include mention of Fallujah, which to most of us suggests war crimes. Unspeakable behaviour (Nov 04) at a time when Natynczyk was racking up the stuff of his medal in Iraq. Not in charge directly at Fallujah, he was definitely in charge of supporting troops.
And the same Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, who led the US marines against Fallujah in Nov 04, is in charge of this round of providing children with pencils.
I feel quite sick about this.
I suspect Glavin and his darlings, like Lauryn Oates and Sally Armstrong, will be trotted out to shill for the monstrous, since Canadian media and politicians and military leaders will be cheering it on, unless a lot changes fast.
Canadian troops may not be in the same province but, like Naty in Iraq, Canadians are going to have to wear this.
And Afghans are going to die in huge numbers, neatly labelled "Taliban" when totted up.
The debacle in Pipelineistan drags on, and the latest DND report on "proactive" "disclosure" of contracts over $10,000 is several days late in being posted. Back when the entries included Sherzai, the Habtoor Grand Hotel and Spa, and $70 million spent on depth charges, sometimes I could laugh. Now the filters and omissions make it a dull read anyway.