Thursday, September 30, 2010
HUMOUR:
FLYING PIGS IN AFGHANISTAN:
Click on the graphic for better viewing.
Labels: Afghan War, Afghanistan, American imperialism, cartoons, humour, jokes, militarism, US military, war
Sunday, August 29, 2010
HUMOUR:
YES WE CAN ?
Labels: Afghan War, Afghanistan, American imperialism, Barack Obama, cartoons, humour, jokes, militarism, US military, war
Saturday, August 28, 2010
HUMOUR:
TIME TO QUIT ?
Labels: Afghan War, Afghanistan, American imperialism, Barack Obama, cartoons, humour, jokes, war
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
LOCAL EVENTS WINNIPEG:
CHALK FOR PEACE:
There's an interesting, novel and fun protest coming up at the end of this month here in Winnipeg. I speak of the 'Chalk for Peace' events on Saturday, August 28 down at Vimy Ridge Park. Rather than marching up and down and at the end of it listening to boring political speeches from the 'official left' people are invited to express their individual creativity using the sidewalks as a canvas. Here's the announcement >>>
CFPCFPCFP
Chalk 4 Peace (August 28th)
Time August 28 · 2:00pm - 11:00pm
-------------------------------
Location Vimy Ridge Park
------------------------------
More Info
Chalk 4 Peace (August 28th)
Time August 28 · 2:00pm - 11:00pm
-------------------------------
Location Vimy Ridge Park
------------------------------
More Info
Chalk 4 Peace is a global event. It happens in many cities across the planet and spreads to more and more every year.
The first Chalk 4 Peace in Winnipeg was started by Sathya Dhara back in 2007, with help from friends.
Come out and draw some art on the sidewalks and see how the pavement transforms throughout the day. With everything going on in this crazy planet of ours the world can always use a little bit more peace. If anybody wants to get involved and help out in any way that would be awesome, just give us a shout.
Invite your friends and spread the word!
Chalk 4 Peace is Saturday, August 28th. If it rains the event will be postponed until the following day, August 29th.
***We will be taking donations on-site for War Child Canada.***
http://www.warchild.ca/
There will be bands (acoustic), drum jams, face painting, fire spinning and some other surprises.
More info TBA.
Peace!!!
The first Chalk 4 Peace in Winnipeg was started by Sathya Dhara back in 2007, with help from friends.
Come out and draw some art on the sidewalks and see how the pavement transforms throughout the day. With everything going on in this crazy planet of ours the world can always use a little bit more peace. If anybody wants to get involved and help out in any way that would be awesome, just give us a shout.
Invite your friends and spread the word!
Chalk 4 Peace is Saturday, August 28th. If it rains the event will be postponed until the following day, August 29th.
***We will be taking donations on-site for War Child Canada.***
http://www.warchild.ca/
There will be bands (acoustic), drum jams, face painting, fire spinning and some other surprises.
More info TBA.
Peace!!!
Labels: Canadian militarism, Chalk For Peace, local events, militarism, protests, war, Winnipeg
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
CANADIAN POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:
NO TO ATTACK ON KANDAHAR:
It's summer, and an old general's fancy heavily turns to thoughts of mayhem. Or at least that is the way it is in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan as American troops and their various bands of mercenaries prepare to once more launch attacks. Heaven help the civilians in the way. The Canadian organization 'Cease Fire' has a petition to the various political parties asking that the carnage be cancelled. Here's the story.
CANCANCAN
Help Stop the Attack on Kandahar
Send your letter to Stephen Harper and all party leaders
Your help is needed. Civilians are paying a heavy price in Afghanistan as thousands of U.S. Marines, leading Afghan and Canadian troops, prepare to attack Kandahar and surrounding areas.
Please send your letter to Stephen Harper and all party leaders, calling on them to urge the U.S. and NATO to call off the attack and make sure that Canadian forces are not involved in the offensive.
With the attack looming, aid agencies are warning about more casualties. “More troops have led to more fighting, which has always left more casualties,” said the International Committee of the Red Cross this week.
This week an Afghan human rights group reported that 1,074 civilians have been killed and more than 1,500 injured in war-related incidents this year.
Most of the casualties were caused by insurgents fighting Western forces, like Canada. But still, the U.S. and NATO forces were responsible for more than 200 civilian deaths.
In a desperate attempt to regain the upper hand, the U.S. general leading the Afghan war is considering lifting restrictions on the use of heavy weapons and air strikes when civilians are close to the fighting. This will mean many more civilian deaths.
Help Stop the Attack on Kandahar
Send your letter to Stephen Harper and all party leaders
Your help is needed. Civilians are paying a heavy price in Afghanistan as thousands of U.S. Marines, leading Afghan and Canadian troops, prepare to attack Kandahar and surrounding areas.
Please send your letter to Stephen Harper and all party leaders, calling on them to urge the U.S. and NATO to call off the attack and make sure that Canadian forces are not involved in the offensive.
With the attack looming, aid agencies are warning about more casualties. “More troops have led to more fighting, which has always left more casualties,” said the International Committee of the Red Cross this week.
This week an Afghan human rights group reported that 1,074 civilians have been killed and more than 1,500 injured in war-related incidents this year.
Most of the casualties were caused by insurgents fighting Western forces, like Canada. But still, the U.S. and NATO forces were responsible for more than 200 civilian deaths.
In a desperate attempt to regain the upper hand, the U.S. general leading the Afghan war is considering lifting restrictions on the use of heavy weapons and air strikes when civilians are close to the fighting. This will mean many more civilian deaths.
CANCANCAN
THE PETITION:
Please go to this link to sign the following petition to the leaders of Canada's federal parties and to your MP.
CANCANCAN
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
I urge you to tell the U.S. and NATO to call off the attack on Kandahar, and to ensure that Canadian troops are not involved in the planned offensive.
Countless civilians are at risk. More than 2,400 civilians were killed last year in fighting by both sides. Now, the U.S. general leading the attack is reportedly considering allowing greater use of heavy weapons and air strikes when civilians are present during fighting.
Please stop the bloodshed, and end Canada’s war in Afghanistan right away.
++
Cher premier ministre Harper
Je vous conjure de demander aux États-Unis et à l’OTAN de décommander l’attaque contre Kandahar et de vous assurer qu’aucun soldat canadien ne sera engagé dans cette offensive planifiée.
La vie d’innombrables civils est en jeu. Plus de 2400 civils ont été tués l’an dernier dans les combats initiés par les deux parties en présence. Aujourd’hui, on apprend que le général américain qui dirigera l’offensive envisage de recourir de façon plus intensive aux armes lourdes et aux frappes aériennes, alors que des civils sont autour pendant les combats.
Nous vous prions de mettre un terme au bain de sang et de cesser immédiatement la guerre du Canada en Afghanistan.
Labels: Afghanistan, anti-militarism, Canadian militarism, Canadian politics, Cease Fire organization, international politics, Kandahar, militarism, petitions, war
Thursday, June 17, 2010
HUMOUR:
FIGURING IT ALL OUT FOR NATO VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN:
PLEASE CLICK GRAPHIC FOR BETTER VIEWING.
Labels: Afghanistan, cartoons, humour, jokes, war
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:
OBAMA'S WARS:
Here's a little piece shamelessly stolen from the Anarkismo website. In this piece author Wayne Price gives his opinion about how anarchists should react to what, to true believers, may seem like a "betrayal" on the part of the Obama administration of the hopes that they had placed in this one man. To say the least such "hopes" (and fears) were the beliefs solely of the ideological left and the ideological right. Most ordinary Americans knew very well that, in electing their Emperor, they were doing just that...electing their Emperor whom they trusted to preserve the general balance of power in the world (and more importantly correct some serious domestic imbalances). The way in which the Roman Empire progressed from Roman or Latin Emperors to provincial Emperors and finally to "barbarian" Emperors should be instructive. Through all these changes the Roman Empire remained...the Roman Empire, whoever was at its head.
Personally I am undecided about how I view the following essay. Mercifully, my own opinion, and any other anarchist's opinion in North America is very much beside the point. There are few countries in the world (Spain, France ?, Italy ?) where anarchists are in a position to speak to even a small (5%) of the general population and receive a respectful hearing. In this vacuum anarchists far too often fall back on the sad leftist habit of trying very much to appear "right" instead of being effective. The history of developed countries (and underdeveloped ones as well) is littered with a history of "brilliant analyses" (some of which were correct and some of which were grossly wrong without their adherents ever admitting it). The question about "what to say" and, most importantly, "when to say it" is not even on the horizon of North American anarchism. For myself I hope that I will live long enough to see this change. I see no reason why other countries cannot follow the lead of Spain, whatever the advantages of the Spanish anarchists, especially those of the CGT. If we ever achieve the happy state of actually having at least a small amount of influence then the question of what authors such as the following are saying is "politic" would assume a much greater importance than whether they are (provisionally) right or (provisionally) wrong.
@@@@@@@@@@
Obama's Imperial War - An Anarchist Response:
Obama's Imperial War - An Anarchist Response:
by Wayne Price
In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.
Obama's Imperial War
An Anarchist Response
In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.
Obama's Imperial War
An Anarchist Response
The expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan is not due to the personal qualities of Obama but to the social system he serves: the national state and the capitalist economy. The nature of the situation guarantees that the system will act irrationally. Anarchists should participate in building a broad movement against the war, while raising our political program.
In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.
After 3 months of consultations and deliberation, President Obama has announced that he is going to do what he had promised to do during his campaign for president—namely to expand the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This may not have been inevitable (since he broke many of his campaign promises already, such as ending overseas prisons, openness in government, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a health care plan which covers everyone, an economic plan for working people, etc.). But it was probable.
As has been pointed out, his stated reasons for the war do not make much sense: in order to get out of Afghanistan, the US will send more troops into Afghanistan. The US needs to fight Al Queda, even though there are now only about 100 Queda militants left in Afghanistan; the Queda base is mostly in Pakistan (which Obama slurred over by speaking of “the border”) but the US will not be sending troops there (just secret attacks by drone missiles and CIA operatives). More generally, the US supposedly has to strengthen the resolve of the government of Pakistan…by sending more troops to Afghanistan. The US hopes to win over the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan by sending more non-Muslim, only-English-speaking, troops, which is sure to antagonize the people of the region. In 18 months, the US forces are supposed to transform the Karzai regime from one of the most corrupt, incompetent, and illegitimate states on earth, to a stable government (never mind a democracy). The effects of the mistaken US policies of 8 years can be reversed in 18 months (on the assumption that US forces will really “start” to withdraw in 18 months; promises are cheap; the US is still in Iraq). All of this is simply unbelievable and it is hard to think that an intelligent man such as Obama believes any of it.
Why then, really, is the US sending more troops into the region? Closer to Obama’s thinking are the expressions in his December 1, West Point, address, when he announced his program, where he spoke about the US as a global power with an economy which competes on the world market. Thus he remarked that “competition within the global economy has grown more fierce….Our prosperity…will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the past.” Implicit in these statements is an awareness that the US is no longer the economic power it was “in the past.” While still having the largest national economy, the US is now a de-industrializing debtor nation, losing out in world competition to Europe and Asia. This has been made worse by the global Great Recession, which has exposed the decay of the whole international capitalist system. The US ruling class, its layer of rich people, is not happy about this.
So they turn to the one asset they still have, which is the mighty military force of the US state—more powerful than any potential combination of opponent states. By throwing its weight around, the US hopes to re-achieve world dominance, or at least to slow its decline in world power. Obama reminded his listeners that the US has long been the dominant world power. “Our country has borne a special burden in global affairs ….More than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for six decades…” This is modified by the hypocritical words,”But unlike the great powers of old, we have not sough world domination.” He can say this because the US has not ruled through open “ownership” of colonies (leaving aside Puerto Rico and a few other places) but by economically dominating the world market, so that all must buy and sell on the US’ terms (“neocolonialism”). But whenever “necessary,” this has been backed up by military force, as shown in two imperialist world wars and a large number of invasions of smaller, weaker, nations.
Therefore it cannot accept being kicked in the teeth by small groups of terrorists living in caves, nor let petty dictatorships thumb their noses at the US. Nor can they afford to let regions which dominate the world petroleum supply fall into chaos, or at least outside of US rule, given the centrality of oil for the capitalist industrial economy. This includes both the Middle East and Northwest Asia (which may have important oil pipelines go through it). (Molly Note- "Northwest Asia" already has several important pipelines. I assume the author refers to 'Central Asia' )
Irrational behavior will result from being in situations which cannot be rationally dealt with. The US ruling class must try to dominate the world, economically and therefore politically and militarily, due to world competition. But it cannot dominate the world and is losing out in international competition. It must try to control the oppressed nations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but it cannot control them. The result is a contradictory and irrational foreign policy. This was apparent under the stupid George W. Bush, with his ideologically fanatic advisers. It is still obvious under the intelligent and reasonable Barack Obama.
The result is likely to be disastrous (as it was in the Vietnam war, also waged by moderate Democrats—in fact most US wars have been waged by Democrats, starting with World War I). In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, many people have been killed or wounded or their lives disrupted—mostly the nationally-oppressed people but also many US soldiers. Now very many more will be killed. Not to speak of the wealth which will be destroyed, both in the attacked countries and in the US (Obama says the war will cost $1 trillion).
And in the background is the threat of nuclear war—not only does the US have nuclear weapons but so does Pakistan and its long-time opponent and neighbor India. Also, in the same region, the US is threatening to attack Iran, for supposedly working toward nuclear weapons, and there are similar threats by the US ally Israel, which does have nuclear weapons. Will nuclear bombs be used in the near future? I doubt it; but time marches on and sooner or later they will be used. (The Bush administration made an effort to make smaller “bunker-blasting” nuclear bombs, which could be used in small wars such as in Iraq. These would have erased the gap between nuclear and conventional weapons. I do not know where this stands at the moment.) Liberals have called on the US to lead a world-wide crusade to abolish all nuclear weapons. Obama has given lip service to this idea, but nothing will come of it because the US state cannot give up any of its power to threaten the rest of the world.
We revolutionary anarchists must oppose these wars will all our might. While the system cannot stop making wars, it can be forced to end particular wars. This can be done by raising the price which the state must pay for that war. If the capitalist politicians feel that young people are becoming radicalized and militant, that labor is becoming restless, that soldiers are potentially mutinous, and that the local peoples will not stop resisting--then they will finally decide to end the war (as in Vietnam).
We should participate in broader “peace” movement, joining it in its mass marches and demonstrations. Often we radicals get tired of demonstrations, seeing how little they accomplish; but we should not forget how exciting they can be for newer layers of antiwar activists. However this does not mean that we cover up our program. In particular we must oppose the leaders of this movement (liberals, social democrats, and Marxist-Leninists) for their capitulation to the Democratic Party. For years now, they have held back the movement by focusing on electing and supporting liberal Democrats.
We need to point to those who have the real power to end the war: the soldiers and other military forces and the working class. There has been increasing discontent among rank-and=file military and their families about the war. We should have a positive attitude toward this, as opposed to a moralistic superiority toward ordinary soldiers, who are usually victims of the poverty draft.. Similarly, there has been much discontent with the wars among working people and their families. We can at least support the idea of strikes against the war, war production, and the transportation of war material. We should oppose any use of the war as an excuse for union-busting or wage-lowering.
The force most directly opposing US imperialism in these regions are the people. We should make clear our solidarity with the nationally oppressed people (who are mostly workers, peasants, and small businesspeople). We should defend their right to resist US aggression. We should not be “neutral” between the mightiest imperial power and the oppressed people of Afghanistan. But this does not require any support or endorsement for any particular organization or leadership. We are certainly not “for” the Taliban, which is viciously misogynist, anti-labor, and statist. We do not want them to get their state again. However, that is a matter for the Afghan people to decide, not for the US state nor for Western anarchists.
We should be willing to work with anyone who will oppose the wars, while openly expressing our own program: the end of the state, of international capitalism (imperialism), and of all forms of oppression.
@@@@@@@@@@
Here is another article that comes Molly's way via Anarkismo but was originally published at the African website Pambazuka News. It lays out what are tghe likely plans of the US Empire in the next imperial field of action-Africa.
@@@@@@@@@@
Obama moves ahead with AFRICOM:
Concerned over the supply of oil to the US and a supposed need to continue the global 'War on Terror', President Barack Obama has essentially maintained the militarised approach to Africa that was the hallmark of his immediate predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, writes Daniel Volman. The escalation of AFRICOM (United States African Command) activities, argues Volman, underlines a troubling commitment to an approach based on might and dominance, one entirely at the expense of promoting sustainable economic development and democracy.
Obama moves ahead with AFRICOM:
Concerned over the supply of oil to the US and a supposed need to continue the global 'War on Terror', President Barack Obama has essentially maintained the militarised approach to Africa that was the hallmark of his immediate predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, writes Daniel Volman. The escalation of AFRICOM (United States African Command) activities, argues Volman, underlines a troubling commitment to an approach based on might and dominance, one entirely at the expense of promoting sustainable economic development and democracy.
In his 11 July 2009 speech in Accra, Ghana, US President Barack Obama declared, 'America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems – they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. Our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.'
And yet all the available evidence demonstrates that he is determined to continue the expansion of US military activity on the continent initiated by President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s and dramatically escalated by President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009. While many expected the Obama administration to adopt a security policy toward Africa that would be far less militaristic and unilateral than that pursued by his predecessor, the facts show that he is in fact essentially following the same policy that has guided US military involvement in Africa for more than a decade.
The clearest indication of President Obama’s intentions for AFRICOM (United States African Command) and for America’s military involvement in Africa is provided by the budget requests for the 2010 financial year submitted by the Departments of State and Defense to Congress in May 2009. The State Department budget request – which includes funding for all US arms sales, military training, and other security assistance programmes – proposes major increases in funding for US arms sales to a number of African countries through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme. The budget proposes to increase FMF funding for sub-Saharan African counties more than 300 per cent, from just over US$8.2 million to more than US$25.5 million, with additional increases in funding for Maghrebi countries. Major recipients slated for increases include Chad (US$500,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$2.5 million), Djibouti (US$2.5 million), Ethiopia (US$3 million), Kenya (US$1 million), Liberia (US$9 million), Morocco (US$9 million), Nigeria (US$1.4 million), South Africa (US$800,000) and the Africa Regional Program (US$2.8 million).
The same trend is evident in the Obama administration's request for funding for the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme. The budget request for the IMET programme proposes to increase funding for African countries by nearly 17 per cent, from just under US$14 million to more than US$16 million, with additional increases for Maghrebi countries. Major recipients slated for increases include Algeria (US$950,000), Chad (US$400,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$500,000), Djibouti (US$350,000), Ethiopia (US$775,000), Equatorial Guinea (US$40,000), Ghana (US$850,000), Liberia (US$525,000), Libya (US$250,000), Mali (US$350,000), Morocco (US$1.9 million), Niger (US$250,000), Nigeria (US$1.1 million), Rwanda (US$500,000), Senegal (US$1.1 million), South Africa (US$900,000) and Uganda (US$550,000).
The Obama administration also proposes major new funding for security assistance provided through the Peacekeeping Operations programme. The 2010 financial year budget proposes to increase funding for the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership – from US$15 million in the 2009 financial year to US$20 million in 2010 – and for the East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative from US$5 million in the 2009 financial year to US$10 million in the 2010 financial year.
It also includes US$42 million to continue operations in support of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords (CPAs) in southern Sudan, US$10 million to help create a professional 2,000-member armed force in Liberia, US$21 million to continue operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo to reform the military (including the creation of rapid reaction force for the eastern Congo and the rehabilitation of the military base at Kisangani), and US$3.6 million for the Africa Conflict Stabilization and Border Security Program, which will be used to support monitoring teams, advisory assistance, training, infrastructure enhancements, and equipment in the Great Lakes region, the Mano River region, the Horn of Africa, Chad and the Central African Republic.
And it includes US$67 million to support the African Union mission in Somalia, along with a request for US$96.8 million for the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). The request for the GPOI includes funding for the African Contingency Operations and Training Assistance Program (ACOTA) – which provides training and equipment to a number of African military forces to enhance their peacekeeping capabilities – and the Obama administration has requested US$96.8 million for ACOTA activities in the 2010 financial year.
Furthermore, the Obama administration’s budget request for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programmes contains US$24 million for Sudan to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords in southern Sudan and to assist programmes to stabilise Darfur by providing technical assistance and training for southern Sudan’s criminal justice sector and law enforcement institutions as well as contributing to UN civilian police and formed police units in southern Sudan and Darfur. It also includes funds for police reforms in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); for training, infrastructure, and equipment for police units in Liberia; to operate the American-run International Law Academy in Gaborone, Botswana; and to create a Regional Security Training Center for West, Central and North Africa.
And the Obama administration is also asking for funding to be provided through the INCLE programs for the first time to provide security assistance to countries participating in the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Nigeria. Major recipients slated for increases include Algeria (US$970,000), Cape Verde (US$2 million), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$1.7 million), Ethiopia (US$500,000), Gambia (US$450,00), Ghana (US$500,000), Guinea-Bissau (US$3 million), Liberia (US$8 million), Morocco (US$2 million), Nigeria (US$2 million), Sierre Leone (US$250,000), Sudan (US$24 million), Uganda (US$385,000), and the Africa Regional Program (US$4.5 million).
The Obama administration also proposes to increase funding for counterterrorism programmes. These include the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program – which provides training to countries throughout the world – the Terrorist Interdiction Program/Personal Identification, Secure Comparison, and Evaluation System Program – which supports identification and watch listing systems to 18 countries (including Kenya) – the Counterterrorism Financing Program, which helps partner countries throughout the world stop the flow of money to terrorists – and the Counterterrorism Engagement Program, which is intended to strengthen ties with key political leaders throughout the world and 'build political will at senior levels in partner nations for shared counterterrorism challenges'. The Obama administration’s budget request requests increased funding for Kenya (from US$5 million in the 2009 financial year to US$8 million in the 2010 financial year), for South Africa (a new programme for US$1 million), and the Africa Regional programme (from almost US$15 million in the 2009 financial year to more than US$20 million in the 2010 financial year).
The Obama administration proposed 2010 budget for the Department of Defense requests US$278 million in operation and maintenance funds to cover the cost of AFRICOM operations and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership operations at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The administration is also requesting US$263 million to provide additional manpower, airlift and communications support to AFRICOM. In addition, the administration is requesting US$60 million to fund CJTF-HOA operations in the 2010 financial year and US$249 million to pay for the operation of the 500-acre base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti and for facilities modifications, along with US$41.8 for major base improvement construction projects.
The administration has requested some US$400 million for Global Train and Equip (Section 1206) programmes, some US$200 million for Security and Stabilization Assistance (Section 1207) programmes, and some US$1 million for the Combatant Commander’s Initiative Fund. This money will be used primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for emergency training and equipment, the services of personnel from the State Department and humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi and Afghani armed forces, but it will be available for the use of AFRICOM as well.
The administration’s budget request also contains US$1.9 billion to buy three littoral combat ships and another US$373 million to buy two joint high speed vessels, ships that will play a crucial role in US Navy operations off the coast of Africa. In addition, the administration has requested US$10.5 million to pay for naval deployments in west and central Africa in the 2010 financial year and another US$10 million for naval operations in east Africa.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travelled to Nigeria during her tour of Africa in August 2009, she met with Ojo Maduekwe, the foreign minister, and Godwin Abbe, the new minister of defence. In her remarks after the meeting, she was asked what the US government intended to do to help the Nigerian government establish stability and security in the Niger Delta. 'Well, the defence minister was present at the second larger meeting that the foreign minister convened,' she said, 'and he had some very specific suggestions as to how the United States could assist the Nigerian government in their efforts, which we think are very promising, to try to bring peace and stability to the Niger Delta. We will be following up on those. There is nothing that has been decided. But we have a very good working relationship between our two militaries. So I will be talking with my counterpart, the secretary of defense, and we will, through our joint efforts, through our bi-national commission mechanism, determine what Nigeria would want from us for help, because we know this is an internal matter, we know this is up to the Nigerian people and their government to resolve, and then look to see how we would offer that assistance.' Thus, in addition to the security assistance programmes in the budget request for the 2010 financial year, the Obama administration is now considering providing even more military support to the Nigerian government for use in the Niger Delta if the current amnesty programme collapses, as many analysts expect, and the government resumes military operations against insurgent forces in this vital oil-producing region (which produces 10 per cent of America’s total oil imports).
Another indication of the Obama administration’s intentions are provided by its decision to expand US military involvement in Somalia as well as its decision to continue the Bush administration’s policy of unilateral military attacks against alleged al-Qaeda operatives in that country. In June 2009, a senior State Department official (presumed to have been Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson) revealed that the Obama administration had initiated a programme of indirect military support for the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia (the internationally recognised government of the country, although it only exercises control over a small part of the capital, Mogadishu) and a few other towns in the southern part of the country).
According to the official, the US government was providing funding to the TFG to finance weapons purchases and had also asked the governments of Uganda and Burundi, which have deployed troops to Mogadishu under an African Union mandate to protect the TFG, to transfer weaponry from their own stockpiles to the armed forces of the TFG in exchange for promises that the US government would reimburse them. In addition, the US government made its base in Djibouti available to other governments for them to provide military training to the armed forces of the TFG.
During her visit to Kenya in August 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US government would 'continue to provide equipment and training to the TFG', stating 'very early in the administration, I made the decision, which the president supported, to accelerate and provide aid to the TFG'. She went on to declare that al-Shabaab, the Islamist insurgent group fighting to overthrow the TFG, was 'a terrorist group with links to al-Qaeda and other foreign military networks' and that they 'see Somalia as a future haven for global terrorism'.
'There is no doubt', Secretary Clinton stated 'that al-Shabaab wants to obtain control over Somalia to use it as a base from which to influence and even infiltrate surrounding countries and launch attacks against countries far and near.' Thus, 'if al-Shabaab were to obtain a haven in Somalia, which would then attract al-Qaeda and other terrorist actors, it would be a threat to the United States.'
The US government arranged for the delivery of an initial supply of approximately 40 tonnes of small arms and ammunition worth approximately US$10 million to the TFG between May and August of 2009 from the stockpiles of the African Union peacekeeping force, along with between US$1 million and US$2 million in cash to the TFG to finance its own arms purchase, and the delivery of another 40 tonnes of small arms and ammunition over the following months. A number of other governments – including Kenya, Uganda, Burundi and France – are also reported to have sent military personnel to the US base in Djibouti to provide military training to TFG troops.
According to a report by the Associated Press, American officials 'say the US military is not conducting the training and will not put any forces in Somalia'. Other countries were conducting the training, the Associated Press reported, because 'the [Obama] administration is making a concerted effort to avoid putting any American footprint in Somalia, which would risk alienating allies and add to charges by Islamic extremists of a Western takeover.' However, it has since become clear that most of the arms and training has been transferred to al-Shabaab, either by Islamic militants who had infiltrated the TFG military forces or as a result of the sale of the weapons and ammunition on the black market.
Then, in August, US Special Forces troops attacked and killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an alleged al-Qaeda operative who was accused of being involved in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 as well as other al-Qaeda operations in east Africa. The US Special Forces troops carried out the attack from onboard several helicopters that had been launched from a US Navy warship off the Somali coast, using machine guns and automatic assault rifles to strafe a convoy of four-wheel drive vehicles carrying Nabhan and his retinue. Following the initial assault, the helicopters landed so that their troops could seize Nabhan’s body for positive identification. It is likely that the Obama administration will conduct further military operations in Somalia since, in the words of Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, the deputy commander of AFRICOM, 'the threat posed by al-Shabaab is something that we pay very, very close attention to.'
And in October 2009, the Obama administration announced a major new security assistance package for Mali that was delivered on 20 October 2009. The package – valued at US$4.5 to US$5 million (2.3 billion CFA) and which includes 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment – is intended to enhance Mali's ability to transport and communicate with internal security (counter-insurgency) units throughout the country and control its borders. The security assistance package is officially known as the 'Counter Terrorism Train and Equip' (CTTE) programme. Although ostensibly intended to help Mali deal with potential threats from AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), it is more likely to be used against Tuareg insurgent forces.
In addition, between April and June of 2009, 300 US Special Forces personnel were deployed to Mali to train Malian military forces at three local bases and, according to Lt Col Louis Sombora, deputy commander of Mali's 33rd Parachute Regiment (which was the recipient of the new US military aid package), more than 95 per cent of his soldiers have received US military training. And in early November 2009, US Air Force Brigadier General Michael W. Callan, vice commander of the US Air Force Africa (the Air Force contingent based in Europe and dedicated to AFRICOM), visited Mali along with other US military personnel in order to inspect local military forces (including the 33rd Parachute Regiment) and tour local military facilities.
According to Lt Col Marshall Mantiply, defense attaché at the US Embassy in Bamako, 'we are working with the Mali ministry of defence on a ten-year plan' to enhance the country's military capabilities.
The aid package to Mali is just the latest instance of America’s growing military involvement in the Sahel region. In his testimony before the Senate subcommittee on Africa hearing on 'Counter-terrorism in the Sahel' on 17 November 2009, Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson identified Mali – along with Algeria and Mauritania – as one of the 'key countries' in the region for the US counterterrorism strategy. 'We believe that our work with Mali to support more professional units capable of improving the security environment in the country will have future benefits if they are sustained', he stated.
It is clear, therefore, that President Barack Obama has decided to follow the path marked out for AFRICOM by the Clinton and Bush administrations, based on the use of military force to ensure that America can satisfy its continuing addiction to oil and to deal with the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups, rather than to chart a new path passed on a partnership with the people of Africa and other countries that have a stake on the continent (including China) to promote sustainable economic development, democracy and human rights in Africa and a global energy order based on the use of clean, safe and renewable resources.
This is the consequence of two factors. To begin with, President Obama genuinely believes in the strategy of the global 'War on Terror' and thinks that Africa must be a central battlefield in America’s military campaign against al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups. Many analysts believe that terrorism does not constitute a significant threat to America’s national security interests and that it would be far more effective to treat terrorism as a crime and to reduce the threat of terrorism by employing traditional law enforcement techniques. But, as demonstrated by the president’s decision to escalate US military operations in Afghanistan, Somalia and Mali, the Obama administration is determined to use military force instead, despite the fact that – as US military analysts argue – this only helps to strengthen terrorist groups and jeopardises other US security interests.
And with regard to America’s growing dependence on African oil supplies, President Obama understands the danger of relying upon the importation of a vital resource from unstable countries ruled by repressive, undemocratic regimes and the necessity of reducing America’s reliance on the use of oil and other non-renewable sources of energy. But, for understandable reasons, he has concluded that there is simply very little that he can do to achieve this goal during the limited time that he will be in office. He knows that it will take at least several decades to make the radical changes that will be necessary to develop alternative sources of energy, particularly to fuel cars and other means of transportation (if this is even technically feasible). And he knows that – in the meantime – public support for his presidency and for his party depends on the continued supply of reliable and relatively inexpensive supplies of gas and other petroleum-based energy to the American people, more than any other single factor. In the event of a substantial disruption in the supply of oil from Nigeria or any other major African supplier, he realises that he will be under irresistible political pressure to employ the only instrument that he has at his disposal – US military forces – to try to keep Africa’s oil flowing.
Professional military officers also know that the repressive, undemocratic regimes upon which the United States relies to maintain oil production are likely to fail and that they are almost certain to find themselves sent into combat in Africa – whether they like it or not – if this leads to a major disruption of oil exports, and are already working on plans for direct military intervention in Africa. Thus, in May 2008, the Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Special Operations Command, and the Joint Forces Command conducted a war game scenario for Nigeria during war game exercise that it conducts each year at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
The scenario – set in the hypothetical year 2013 – was designed to test the ability of the United States to respond to a crisis in Nigeria in which the Nigerian government fragments and rival factions within the Nigerian military begin fighting for control of the Niger Delta, creating so much violence and chaos that it would be impossible to continue oil production. The participants concluded that there was little the United States could do to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict and that, in the end, they would probably be ordered to send up to 20,000 American troops into the Niger Delta in what the participants clearly recognised would be a futile attempt to get the oil flowing again. The fact that the participants in the Nigerian war games decided to go public with this information suggests that they believe that this scenario is likely to become a reality in the near future and that their only hope of avoiding this is to tell the public in the hope that this will prevent the order from being issued.
But the professional military officers who would actually have to lead their troops into Africa are not the only people who understand that America’s reliance on the military to solve the energy dilemma and the threat of terrorism is a dangerous mistake. Members of the US Congress are also increasingly sceptical about this strategy and are beginning to give AFRICOM the critical scrutiny it deserves. Moreover, a number of concerned organisations and individuals in the United States and in Africa came together in August 2006 to create the Resist AFRICOM campaign in order to educate the American people about AFRICOM and to mobilise public and congressional opposition to the new command. The Resist AFRICOM campaign will continue to press the Obama administration to abandon its plan for AFRICOM and to pursue a policy toward Africa based on a genuine partnership with the people of Africa, international cooperation, democracy, human rights and sustainable economic development.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington DC, and a member of the board of directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. He is a specialist on US military policy in Africa and African security issues and has been conducting research and writing on these issues for more than 30 years.
Related Link: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/60921
Labels: Africa, american empire, American politics, anarchism, anarchist opinion, anarkismo.net, international anarchist movement, international politics, oil, Pambazuka News, war, Wayne Price
Friday, December 04, 2009
CANADIAN POLITICS/INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS:
STOP CANADIAN COMPLICITY IN TORTURE:
While the political football of the "torture scandal" is being tossed back and forth amongst Canada's political parties there at least some who preserve an ethical compass in the debate. While the government of (Sneaky) Stevie Harper continues to stonewall and add further legal hurdles to an open inquiry into how Canadian troops knowingly handed over detainees to the Afghan government for torture the opposition parties concentrate on the "who knew what when" aspect. Every once in a while (more often in the right wing press ) the mask is dropped and the Conservatives pull the 'Oh Canada' card ie "what the hell do you care about what happens to enemies you traitorous, yellow bellied, blah, blah, blah sons of bitches". I love it when this happens because it at least makes the problem under discussion clear. In truth the opposition, perhaps from political reasons of decorum, hasn't raised the obvious. When you turn detainees over to the present quisling government of Afghanistan what do you expect other than either torture or a speedy release due to the proper bribes being paid. The last time I looked the government of Afghanistan was indeed the government of Afghanistan. I hope that I am not mistaken and that they have not all become Sufi mystics who have given away all their worldly goods and vowed benevolence to all when I was not paying attention. To put it at its bluntest...what the fuck do you expect, other than torture for those who cannot pay the bribes from this crew ? Perhaps the majority of sheep who follow the dictums of their rulers in the Conservative Party may believe the lies, but I am sure that the more intelligent bureaucracy of the Conservative Party have no such illusions.
Those who do indeed preserve an independent moral compass (something that the average conservative is in sorry need of) include Amnesty International Canada. Here is their statement of opposition to the way that Canada is complicit in torture in Afghanistan and their appeal to join your voice to theirs in protesting this state of affairs.
¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢
TORTURE IN AFGHANISTAN:
These have been a couple of intensely busy weeks. Amnesty International has been raising concerns about Canada’s approach to handling prisoners apprehended on the battlefield in Afghanistan for over seven years. Now it has become one of the dominant issues in the country. I'd like to share with you some reflections about the disturbing information and heated political debate regarding very real concerns that over the past several years an unknown number of prisoners, picked up by Canadian troops, and then transferred to Afghan officials, have almost certainly been subject to brutal torture in Afghan jails.
I am very proud of the role that Amnesty International has played in pressing for action on this issue. Working against torture has long been a priority for Amnesty International, right around the world. In that work we seek to expose the torturers, but we also expose instances where other officials and even other governments may be complicit in torture, including by handing over likely victims.
Torture is abhorrent. Complicity in torture is shameful. Both are against the law. That is what is at stake for Canadians as we confront these latest revelations.
Why should Canadians care what happens to detainees once they're in the Afghan prison system? See Questions & Answers
Amnesty International, alongside the BC Civil Liberties Association, first raised questions about Canada’s prisoner policy in Afghanistan in 2002. ( Under a Liberal government- Molly )
At that time Canadian troops were handing prisoners over to US forces in Afghanistan. We called for those transfers to be halted because some of the prisoners were being sent on to Guantánamo Bay and others were at real risk of torture in US detention facilities in Afghanistan. Combined with US refusal to recognize the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to those prisoners meant, we insisted, that Canada was violating our own international obligations when we handed prisoners over. We urged Canada to consider developing its own capacity to hold prisoners.
Eventually the government agreed with us, and halted transfers to US forces in late 2005. But they traded one human rights problem for another. Since that time, prisoners have instead been delivered to Afghan authorities, even though torture and ill-treatment in Afghan jails is a longstanding and widespread reality in the country. We again called for Canada to take a different approach. We urged instead that the government develop a cooperative approach to overseeing the detention of these prisoners, doing so in collaboration with Afghan officials and with other NATO allies. Unfortunately the government did not take up the suggestion. Transfers continued.
Why a Public Inquiry?
After years of public campaigning and raising concerns directly with successive Canadian governments, Amnesty International eventually turned to the courts and tribunals for a remedy. Here’s a look at the path we took to get there
In early 2007 we launched an application in Federal Court seeking an order halting the transfers. We also lodged a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission asking that body to look into it, as military police did play a role in the transfers. We were faced with considerable government resistance and obstruction on both fronts and both proceedings became difficult and bogged down. Despite some promising initial rulings, in the end the Federal Court case could not go ahead when the courts ruled that the Charter of Rights (the entire legal basis of our case) did not apply to the actions of Canadian soldiers outside Canada. That, clearly, is a very worrying legal precedent with implications beyond this case.
Amnesty is calling for a full, public Commission of Inquiry regarding the handling of Afghani detainees.
Following Richard Colvin’s explosive testimony two weeks ago, a parade of witnesses has come before the parliamentary committee now looking into this, including retired Generals and our current Ambassador to China.
There has also been a false debate about proving torture. The government has insisted that no incident of a transferred prisoner being tortured has been proven.
One is left with the impression that the only proof the government would accept is to be present while the torture occurs and witness it firsthand. The proof of torture in Afghan prisons and that transferred prisoners have been tortured is overwhelming and it is very disturbing.
Richard Colvin, who the government tasked with looking into this for 1 ½ years, certainly reached that conclusion. But having assigned him the task, the government preferred to disregard his message. He is not alone. Canadian journalists have, through tenacious investigative reporting, uncovered numerous cases of transferred prisoners who provide detailed and credible accounts of torture. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (funded and supported by Canada, to our credit) has expressed concern. Other Canadian government monitors have documented cases. And there is good reason to believe that the Red Cross has also raised concerns with the Canadian government.
Instead of denying these concerns and impugning the messengers, it is time to take action.
Torture is an egregious human rights violation. By its very nature it destroys the sense of human dignity that is at the heart of the very concept of human rights. Canada clearly stands against torture. It is imperative, therefore, that we be firm and resolute in our refusal to in any way cooperate with or assist torturers. But we have not witnessed that firm, resolute stand over the past several years. Certainly not in the last two weeks. Clearly this has upset large numbers of Canadians who do not believe that this reflects their Canada.
Amnesty International and the BCCLA have jointly called for a public inquiry into this matter. Many others have as well, including all three opposition parties and leading media editorials across the country. We will now press hard for that inquiry to be convened. It is only through a public inquiry that we will gain a full understanding of what has unfolded over the past several years. A public inquiry would also offer recommendations for a different approach, one that would fully conform with our international human rights obligations. If you would like to add your voice to that demand, just click here:
Sign appeal
¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢
THE LETTER:
Please go to THIS LINK to send the following letter to the Prime Minister of Canada.
ÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ
Dear Prime Minister Harper:
Canada has pledged to be part of the effort to restore and uphold human rights in Afghanistan. Yet Canadian forces continue to transfer detainees to Afghan custody despite the risk of torture and ill-treatment.
Canada has pledged to be part of the effort to restore and uphold human rights in Afghanistan. Yet Canadian forces continue to transfer detainees to Afghan custody despite the risk of torture and ill-treatment.
I am shocked that the Canadian government has chosen to dismiss the reports of human rights organizations and even some of its own trusted officials. I am further disappointed by the obstruction of efforts – whether through the courts, tribunals or even the parliamentary system – to clarify the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan.
Accountability and transparency are essential to the promotion of human rights both at home and abroad. It’s time for Canada to live up to the same responsibilities we demand of others.
I urge you to convene, without delay, a full, public Commission of Inquiry into all aspects of the laws, policy and practice that has governed Canada’s approach to handling prisoners in Afghanistan.
Labels: Amnesty International, Canada, Canadian militarism, Canadian politics, international human rights, international politics, militarism, petitions, Steven Harper, torture., war
Monday, November 23, 2009
CANADIAN POLITICS:
WHISTLEBLOWER SMEARED:
The Parliamentary Committee hearing into the allegations of Canadian ex-diplomat in Afghanistan Robert Colvin that Canada knowingly handed over Afghan detainees to that country's government for torture continues. The Harper government responded with what it does best- a vicious attack on Colvin's credibility. The following is the story from the Harper Index news service, a site devoted to keeping a close eye on the manoeuvres of our beloved Prime Minister, Sneaky Stevie.
This matter has been commented on repeatedly in the mainstream press, and from what I am reading the general opinion of said commentators is that "nobody gives a damn". The more Conservative the author the greater amount of gloat with which this message is delivered. The sad fact is that it is probably true. Outside of the tiny ranks of "the left" most people in these parlous times have bigger fish to fry. One may hope, however, that this incident added to dozens of others may reinforce the also widespread conviction that Sneaky Stevie and his coterie are accomplished liars. If it adds to this realization it will have done some good.
þþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ
Colvin's gagging and public smearing highlight callousness:
Harperites deaf to suffering of detainees, innocent or not, and quick to slag courageous whistleblower.
OTTAWA, November 20, 2009, a special HarperIndex.ca report: The reaction to diplomat Robert Colvin's report, that top advisers gagged him when he tried to report widespread torture of Afghan detainees captured by Canadians, revealed the Harper government's callousness in two ways. First, the government, according to Colvin, who served as a top diplomat in Afghanistan, willfully ignored urgent reports from him in 2006 and 2007 that all detainees, guilty and innocent, were subject to torture, including being beaten with rubber hoses and electrical cable, shocked with electrical current, and raped.
Harperites deaf to suffering of detainees, innocent or not, and quick to slag courageous whistleblower.
OTTAWA, November 20, 2009, a special HarperIndex.ca report: The reaction to diplomat Robert Colvin's report, that top advisers gagged him when he tried to report widespread torture of Afghan detainees captured by Canadians, revealed the Harper government's callousness in two ways. First, the government, according to Colvin, who served as a top diplomat in Afghanistan, willfully ignored urgent reports from him in 2006 and 2007 that all detainees, guilty and innocent, were subject to torture, including being beaten with rubber hoses and electrical cable, shocked with electrical current, and raped.
Colvin pleaded for a year with top officials to deal with the situation, but he was told to keep quiet and to stop putting his concerns in writing.
Then, confronted this week with Colvin's explosive testimony to a Parliamentary committee, government ministers blasted Colvin as an incompetent official and under Taliban influence. "We are being asked to accept testimony from people who throw acid in the faces of schoolchildren and who blow up buses of civilians in their own country," defence minister Peter MacKay said in Parliament.
Attacks by MacKay and other government members came despite Colvin's support for Canada's military role in Afghanistan, and his posting, since 2007, to Washington in the high-security role of senior intelligence officer at the Canadian embassy.
"From ordering officials to stop documenting information on detainee abuse, to gagging witnesses, using delay tactics, and interfering with the Military Police Complaints Commission, this government continues to undermine the investigation into Afghan prisoner abuse," NDP defence critic Jack Harris (St. John's East) told a Parliament Hill news conference. "It places our soldiers in a perilous legal position. As Mr. Colvin testified, handing detainees over to people who we know will torture them constitutes a war crime."
Posted: November 20, 2009
Harper Index (HarperIndex.ca) is a project of the Golden Lake Institute and the online publication StraightGoods.ca
Labels: Afghanistan, Canadian militarism, Canadian politics, current events, Harper Index, Steven Harper, torture., war
Sunday, August 09, 2009
PEOPLE:
MALALAI JOYA:
The following is an interesting mini-bio of that most rare of all breeds, a politician who actually stands on principle. Here, from Z Communications (originally published in The Independent) is the story of the Afghani woman Malalai Joya.
PPPPPPPPPPPP
Joya: The Woman Who Will Not Be Silenced:
By Johann Hari
Source: The Independent
Johann Hari's ZSpace Page
I am not sure how many more days I will be alive," Malalai Joya says quietly. The warlords who make up the new "democratic" government in Afghanistan have been sending bullets and bombs to kill this tiny 30-year-old from the refugee camps for years - and they seem to be getting closer with every attempt. Her enemies call her a "dead woman walking". "But I don't fear death, I fear remaining silent in the face of injustice," she says plainly. "I am young and I want to live. But I say to those who would eliminate my voice: 'I am ready, wherever and whenever you might strike. You can cut down the flower, but nothing can stop the coming of the spring.'"
I am not sure how many more days I will be alive," Malalai Joya says quietly. The warlords who make up the new "democratic" government in Afghanistan have been sending bullets and bombs to kill this tiny 30-year-old from the refugee camps for years - and they seem to be getting closer with every attempt. Her enemies call her a "dead woman walking". "But I don't fear death, I fear remaining silent in the face of injustice," she says plainly. "I am young and I want to live. But I say to those who would eliminate my voice: 'I am ready, wherever and whenever you might strike. You can cut down the flower, but nothing can stop the coming of the spring.'"
The story of Malalai Joya turns everything we have been told about Afghanistan inside out. In the official rhetoric, she is what we have been fighting for. Here is a young Afghan woman who set up a secret underground school for girls under the Taliban and - when they were toppled - cast off the burka, ran for parliament, and took on the religious fundamentalists.
But she says: "Dust has been thrown into the eyes of the world by your governments. You have not been told the truth. The situation now is as catastrophic as it was under the Taliban for women. Your governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords. (That is) what your soldiers are dying for." Instead of being liberated, she is on the brink of being killed.
The story of Joya is the story of another Afghanistan - the one behind the burka, and behind the propaganda.
"We are our sisters' keepers"
I meet Joya in a London apartment where she is staying with a supporter for a week, to talk about her memoir - but even here, her movements have to be kept secret, as she flits from one safe house to another. I am told not to mention her location to anyone. She is standing in the corridor, small and slim, with her hair flowing freely, and she greets me with a solid handshake. But, when our photographer snaps her, she begins to giggle girlishly: the grief etched on to her sallow face melts away, and she laughs in joyous little squeaks. "I can never get used to this!" she says.
Then, as I sit her down to talk through her life-story, the pain soaks into her face once more. Her body tightens into a tense coil, and her fists close.
Joya was four days old when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. On that day, her father dropped out of his studies to fight the invading Communist army, and vanished into the mountains. She says: "Since then, all we have known is war."
Her earliest memory is of clinging to her mother's legs while policemen ransacked their house looking for evidence of where her father was hiding. Her illiterate mother tried to keep her family of 10 children alive as best she could. When the police became too aggressive, she took her kids to refugee camps across the border in Iran. In these filthy tent-cities lying on the old Silk Road, Afghans huddled together and were treated as second-class citizens by Iran. At night, wild animals could wander into the tents and attack children. There, word reached the family that Joya's father had been blown up by a landmine - but he was alive, after losing a leg.
There were no schools in the Iranian camps, and Joya's mother was determined her daughters would receive the education she never had. So they fled again, to camps in western Pakistan. There, Joya began to read - and was transformed. "Tell me what you read and I shall tell you what you are," she says. Starting in her early teens, she inhaled all the literature she could - from Persian poetry to the plays of Bertolt Brecht to the speeches of Martin Luther King. She began to teach her new-found literacy to the older women in the camps, including her own mother.
She soon discovered that she loved to teach - and, when she turned 16, a charity called the Organization for Promoting Afghan Women's Capabilities (OPAWC) made a bold suggestion: go to Afghanistan, and set up a secret school for girls, under the noses of the Taliban tyranny.
So she gathered her few clothes and books and was smuggled across the border - and "the best days of my life" began. She loathed being forced to wear a burka, being harassed on the streets by the omnipresent "vice and virtue" police, and being under constant threat of being discovered and executed. But she says it was worth it for the little girls. "Every time a new girl joined the class, it was a triumph," she says, beaming. "There is no better feeling."
She only just avoided being caught, again and again. One time she was teaching a class of girls in a family's basement when the mother of the house yelled down suddenly: "Taliban! Taliban!" Joya says: "I told my students to lie down on the floor and stay totally silent. We heard footsteps above us and waited a long time." On many occasions, ordinary men and women - anonymous strangers - helped her out by sending the police charging off in the wrong direction. She adds: "Every day in Afghanistan, even now, hundreds if not thousands of ordinary women act out these small gestures of solidarity with each other. We are our sisters' keepers."
The charity was so impressed with her they appointed her their director. Joya decided to set up a clinic for poor women just before the 9/11 attacks. When the American invasion began, the Taliban fled her province, but the bombs kept falling. "Many lives were needlessly lost, just like during the September 11 tragedy," she says. "The noise was terrifying, and children covered their ears and screamed and cried. Smoke and dust rose and lingered in the air with every bomb dropped."
As soon as the Taliban retreated, they were replaced - by the warlords who had ruled Afghanistan immediately before. Joya says that, at this point, "I realized women's rights had been sold out completely... Most people in the West have been led to believe that the intolerance and brutality towards women in Afghanistan began with the Taliban regime. But this is a lie. Many of the worst atrocities were committed by the fundamentalist mujahedin during the civil war between 1992 and 1996. They introduced the laws oppressing women followed by the Taliban - and now they were marching back to power, backed by the United States. They immediately went back to their old habit of using rape to punish their enemies and reward their fighters."
The warlords "have ruled Afghanistan ever since," she adds. While a "showcase parliament has been created for the benefit of the U.S. in Kabul", the real power "is with these fundamentalists who rule everywhere outside Kabul". As an example, she names the former governor of Herat, Ismail Khan. He set up his own "vice and virtue" squads which terrorized women and smashed up video and music cassettes. He had his own "private militias, private jails". The constitution of Afghanistan is irrelevant in these private fiefdoms.
Joya discovered just what this meant when she started to set up the clinic - and a local warlord announced that it would not be allowed, since she was a woman, and a critic of fundamentalism. She did it anyway, and decided to fight this fundamentalist by running in the election for the Loya jirga ("meeting of the elders") to draw up the new Afghan constitution. There was a great swelling of support for this girl who wanted to build a clinic - and she was elected. "It turned out my mission," she says, "would be to expose the true nature of the jirga from within."
"I would never again be safe"
As she stepped past the world's television cameras into the Loya jirga, the first thing Joya saw was "a long row with some of the worst abusers of human rights that our country had ever known - warlords and war criminals and fascists".
She could see the men who invited Osama bin Laden into the country, the men who introduced the misogynist laws later followed by the Taliban, the men who had massacred Afghan civilians. Some had got there by intimidating the electorate, others by vote-rigging, and yet more were simply appointed by Hamid Karzai, the former oilman installed by the U.S. army to run the country. She thought of an old Afghan saying: "It's the same donkey, with a new saddle."
For a moment, as these old killers started to give long speeches congratulating themselves on the transition to democracy, Joya felt nervous. But then, she says, "I remembered the oppression we face as women in my country, and my nervousness evaporated, replaced by anger."
When her turn came, she stood, looked around at the blood-soaked warlords on every side, and began to speak. "Why are we allowing criminals to be present here? They are responsible for our situation now... It is they who turned our country into the centre of national and international wars. They are the most anti-women elements in our society who have brought our country to this state and they intend to do the same again... They should instead be prosecuted in the national and international courts."
These warlords - who brag about being hard men - could not cope with a slender young woman speaking the truth. They began to shriek and howl, calling her a "prostitute" and "infidel", and throwing bottles at her. One man tried to punch her in the face. Her microphone was cut off and the jirga descended into a riot.
"From that moment on," Joya says, "I would never again be safe... For fundamentalists, a women is half a human, meant only to fulfil a man's every wish and lust, and to produce children and toil in the home. They could not believe that a young woman was tearing off their masks in front of the eyes of the Afghan people."
A fundamentalist mob turned up a few hours later at her accommodation, announcing they had come to rape and lynch her. She had to be placed under immediate armed guard - but she refused to be protected by American troops, insisting on Afghan officers.
Her speech was broadcast all over the world - and cheered in Afghanistan. She was flooded with support from the people of her country, delighted that somebody had finally spoken out. One dirt-poor village pooled its cash to send a delegate hundreds of miles across the country to explain how pleased they were.
An extremely old woman was brought to her in a rickety wheelbarrow, and she explained she had lost two sons - one to the Soviets, one to the fundamentalists. She told Joya: "I am almost 100 years old, and I am dying. When I heard about you and what you said, I knew that I had to meet you. God must protect you, my dear."
She handed over her gold ring, her only valuable possession, and said: "You must take it! I have suffered so much in my life, and my last wish is that you accept this gift from me."
But the U.S. and NATO occupiers instructed Joya that she must show "politeness and respect" for the other delegates. When Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador, said this, she replied: "If these criminals raped your mother or your daughter or your grandmother, or killed seven of your sons, let alone destroyed all the moral and material treasure of your country, what words would you use against such criminals that will be inside the framework of politeness and respect?"
She leans forward and quotes Brecht: "He says, 'He who does not know the truth is only a fool. He who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal.'"
The attempts to murder her began then with a sniper - and have not stopped since. But she says plainly, with her fist clenched: "I wanted the warlords to know I was not afraid of them."�
So she ran for parliament - and won in a landslide. "I would return again to face those who had ruined my country," she explains, "and I was determined that I would stand straight and never bow again to their threats."
"In every corner is a killer"
Joya looked out across the new Afghan parliament on her first day and thought: "In every corner is a killer, a puppet, a criminal, a drug lord, a fascist. This is not democracy. I am one of the very few people here who has been genuinely elected." She started her maiden speech by saying: "My condolences to the people of Afghanistan..."
Before she could continue, the warlords began to shout that they would rape and kill her. One warlord, Abdul Sayyaf, yelled a threat at her. Joya looked him straight in the eye and said: "We are not in [the area he rules by force] here, so control yourself."
I ask if she was frightened, and she shakes her head. "I am never frightened when I tell the truth." She is speaking fast now: "I am truly honoured to have been vilified and threatened by the savage men who condemned our country to such misery. I feel proud that even though I have no private army, no money, and no world powers behind me, these brutal despots are afraid of me and scheme to eliminate me."
She says there is no difference for ordinary Afghans between the Taliban and the equally fundamentalist warlords. "Which groups are labeled 'terrorist' or 'fundamentalist' depends on how useful they are to the goals of the U.S.," she says. "You have two sides who terrorize women, but the anti-American side are 'terrorists' and the pro-American side are 'heroes'."
Karzai rules only with the permission of the warlords. He is "a shameless puppet" who will win next month's presidential elections because "he hasn't yet stopped working for his masters, the U.S. and the warlords ... At this point in our history, the only people who get to serve as president are those selected by the U.S. government and the mafia that holds power in our country."
Whenever she would despair in parliament, she would meet yet more ordinary Afghan women - and get back in the fight. She tells me about a 16-year-old constituent of hers, Rahella, who ran away to an orphanage Joya had helped to set up in her constituency. "Her uncle had decided to marry her off to his son, who was a drug addict. She was terrified. So of course we took her in, educated her, helped her." One day, her uncle turned up and apologized, saying he had learnt the error of his ways. He asked if she could come home for a weekend to visit her family. Joya agreed - and when she got back to her village, Rahella was forced into marriage and spirited away to another part of Afghanistan. They heard six months later that she had doused herself in petrol and burned herself alive.
There has been an epidemic of self-immolation by women across the "new" Afghanistan in the past five years. "The hundreds of Afghan women who set themselves ablaze are not only committing suicide to escape their misery," she says, "they are crying out for justice."
But she was not allowed to raise these issues in the supposedly democratic parliament. The fundamentalist warlords who couldn't beat Joya at the ballot box or kill her chanced upon a new way to silence her. The more she spoke, the angrier they got. She called for secularism in Afghanistan, saying: "Religion is a private issue, unrelated to political issues and the government... Real Muslims do not require political leaders to guide them to Islam." She condemned the new law that declared an amnesty for all war crimes committed in Afghanistan over the past 30 years, saying "You criminals are simply giving yourselves a get-out-of-jail free card." So the MPs simply voted to kick her out of parliament.
It was illegal and undemocratic - but the President, Hamid Karzai, supported the ban. "Now the warlord criminals are unchallenged in parliament," she says. "Is that democracy?"
We in the West have been fed "a pack of lies" about what Afghanistan looks like today. "The media are 'free' only if they do not try to criticize warlords and officials," she says in her book, Raising My Voice. As an example, she names a specific warlord: "If you write anything about him, the next day you will be tortured or killed by the Northern Alliance warlords." It is "a myth" to say girls can now go to school outside Kabul. "Only five per cent of girls, according to the UN, can follow their education to the 12th grade."
And it is "false" to say Afghan culture is inherently misogynistic. "By the 1950s, there was a growing women's movement in Afghanistan, demonstrating and fighting for their rights," she says. "I have a story here" - she rifles through her notes - "from The New York Times in 1959. Here! The headline is 'Afghanistan's women lift the veil'. We were developing an open culture for women - and then the foreign wars and invasions crushed it all. If we can regain our independence, we can start this struggle again."
Many of her friends urge her to leave the country, before one of her wannabe-assassins gets lucky. But, she says, "I can never leave when all the poor people that I love are living in danger and poverty. I am not going to search for a better and safer place, and leave them in a burning hell." Apologizing for her English - which is, in fact, excellent - she quotes Brecht again: "Those who do struggle often fail, but those who do not struggle have already failed."
Today, she fights for democracy outside parliament. But, she says, any Afghan democrat today is "trapped between two enemies. There are the occupation forces from the sky, dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and on the ground there are the fundamentalist warlords and the Taliban, with their own guns." She wants to help the swelling movement of ordinary Afghans in between, who are opposed to both. "With the withdrawal of one enemy, the occupation forces, it (will be) easier to fight against these internal fundamentalist enemies."
If she were president of Afghanistan, she would begin by referring all the country's war criminals to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. "Anybody who has murdered my sisters and brothers should be punished," she says, "from the Taliban, to the warlords, to George W Bush." Then she would ask all foreign troops to leave immediately. She says that it is wrong to say Afghanistan will simply collapse into civil war if that happens. "What about the civil war now? Today, people are being killed - many, many war crimes. The longer the foreign troops stay in Afghanistan doing what they are doing, the worse the eventual civil war will be for the Afghan people."
The Afghan public, she adds, are on her side, pointing to a recent opinion poll showing 60 percent of Afghans want an immediate NATO withdrawal. Many people in Afghanistan were hopeful, she says, about Barack Obama - "but he is actually intensifying the policy of George Bush ... I know his election has great symbolic value in terms of the struggle of African-Americans for equal rights, and this struggle is one I admire and respect. But what is important for the world is not whether the president is black or white, but his actions. You can't eat symbolism."
U.S. policy is driven by geopolitics, she says, not personalities. "Afghanistan is in the heart of Asia, so it's a very important place to have military bases - so they can control trade very easily with other Asian powers such as China, Russia, Iran and so on.
"But it can be changed by Americans," she adds. She is passionate now, her voice rising. "I say to Obama - in my area, 150 people were blown up by U.S. troops in one incident this year. If your family had been there, would you send even more troops and even more bombs? Your government is spending $18m (�11m) to make another Guantanamo jail in Bagram. If your daughter might be detained there, would you be building it? I say to Obama - change course, or otherwise tomorrow people will call you another Bush."
"It's hard to be strong all the time"
"It's not good to show my enemies any weakness, (but) it's hard to be strong all the time," Joya says with a sigh, as she runs her hands through her hair. She has been speaking so insistently - with such preternatural courage- that it's easy to forget she was just a girl when she was thrust into fighting fundamentalism. She was never allowed an adolescence. The fierce concentration on her face melts away, and she looks a little lost. "Yes, my mother is proud of me," she says, "but you know how mothers are - they worry. Whenever I speak to her on the phone, the first sentence and the last sentence are always 'Take care'."
Two years ago, she got married in secret. She can't name her husband publicly, because he would be killed. Her wedding flowers had to be checked for bombs. She will only say that they met at a press conference, "and he supports everything I do". She has not seen him "for two months", she says. "We meet in the safe houses of supporters. I cannot sleep in the same house two nights running. It is a different home every evening."
Where does this courage come from? She acts as if the answer is obvious - anyone would do it, she claims. But they don't. Perhaps it comes from her belief that the struggle is long and our individual lives are short, so we can only advance our chosen cause by inches, knowing others will pick up our baton. "When I die, others will come. I am sure of that," she says.
She certainly has a strong sense of belonging to a long history of Afghans who fought for freedom. "My parents chose my first name after Malalai of Maiwand. She was a young woman who, in 1880, went to the front line of the second Anglo-Afghan war to tend the wounded. When the fighters were close to collapse, she picked up the Afghan flag and led the men into battle herself. She was struck down - but the British suffered a landmark defeat, and, in the end, they were driven out."
When she ran for office, she had to choose a surname for herself, to protect her family's identity. "I named myself after Sarwar Joya, the Afghan poet and constitutionalist. He spent 24 years in jails, and was finally killed because he wouldn't compromise his democratic principles ... In Afghanistan we have a saying: the truth is like the sun. When it comes up, nobody can block it out or hide it."
Malalai Joya knows she could be killed any day now, in our newly liberated Warlord-istan. She hugs me goodbye and says, "We must keep in touch." But I find myself bleakly wondering if we will ever meet again. Perhaps she senses this, because she suddenly urges me to look again at the last paragraph of her memoir, Raising My Voice. "It really is how I feel," she says. It reads: "If I should die, and you should choose to carry on my work, you are welcome to visit my grave. Pour some water on it and shout three times. I want to hear your voice." I look up into her face, and she is giving me the bravest smile I have ever seen.
'Raising My Voice' by Malalai Joya is published by Rider. All profits will go to supporting the cause of women's rights in Afghanistan.
Labels: Afghanistan, feminism, fundamentalism, imperialism, Malalai Joya, people, war, women, Z Communications
