Archive for November, 2008

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Fidel Castro: “Al-Qaeda terrorists engineered in order to advance Bush administration’s agenda “

November 25, 2008
Global Research, November 25, 2008
Press TV – 2008-11-24

Former Cuban president Fidel Castro says al-Qaeda terrorists have been engineered in order to advance the Bush administration’s agenda.

In an essay published on Sunday, Castro said the terrorist group “was born from the empire’s own entrails”, using the term “empire” to refer to the United States.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration vowed to capture al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who has reportedly taken responsibility for the deadly attacks on US soils.

“[Al-Qaeda] is a typical example of an enemy that the hegemonic power dangles in a place of its choosing where it needs to justify its actions, as it has done throughout its history, fabricating enemies and attacks destined to strengthen its plans of domination,” the former Cuban leader argued.

According to Castro, the American public has been misled by the US government about the real extent of the terrorist attacks in 2001. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has also suggested that Washington could have been somehow involved in the planning of the attacks.

In the aftermath of the attacks, the White House launched the ‘War on Terror’ in a bid to disband al-Qaeda. While many civilians have been killed since the 2001 invasions of Afghanistan, followed by the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US has failed to achieve its objectives in the region.

A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program called “Operation Cyclone” is reportedly responsible for the creation of the terrorist group, when the CIA funded native Afghan militants in the conflict with the Soviet Union.

The al-Qaeda leader is reportedly planning a new terror attack against the US as President-elect Barack Obama takes office from the incumbent president, George W. Bush.

Earlier this month, a source close to the group claimed that Bin Laden is supervising preparations for another attack which will be far greater than those of 9/11.

US Vice President-elect Joe Biden had warned in October that Obama would face an international crisis early in his presidency.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, US policy, War Criminals | Leave a Comment »

Deprivation and Desperation in Gaza

November 25, 2008

By JOE MOWREY | Counterpunch, Nov  24, 2008

As conditions in the Gaza strip approach a catastrophic level of deprivation, the world media, and in particular the U.S. media, remain largely silent. The United Nations, whose truckloads of food and medical supplies continue to be denied entry into Gaza by Israel, appears to be one of the few international voices of dissent concerning the collective punishment of 1.5 million human beings. This, despite the fact that more than 50% of the population in Gaza is comprised of children under the age of 15.

Israel claims to be defending itself against the crude, often homemade rockets which militant factions in Gaza fire randomly into southern Israel. Though it may be considered politically incorrect, this writer refuses to precede his remarks with the requisite, “It’s wrong for militant Palestinians to be firing rockets into Israel.” The ethics of Palestinian resistance to the Zionist colonization of Palestine and the dispossession of the Palestinian people is a subject for another article. The issue at hand is one of collective punishment. Regardless of the actions of certain factions in Gaza, the fact remains that Israel (with the approval of the U.S.and the world community) is depriving an entire civilian population of food, medicine and clean drinking water in response to the violent actions of a few among that population. By any civilized standard this behavior is wrong and should be condemned vociferously. To paraphrase the words of an alien from another planet in a not-so-great Hollywood movie of some years ago, every sentient being knows the difference between right and wrong.

Apparently not. Israel’s Foreign Minister and likely future Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, recently dismissed the notion that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to collective punishment and claimed those actions were a justifiable response to the rocket attacks on Israel. She stated, “The international community must be more decisive in making itself heard and in using its influence in the face of these attacks.”

To suggest that the international community should condemn “these attacks” by militant Palestinian factions, yet ignore the humanitarian disaster being imposed on Gaza by the government of Israel demonstrates a nearly incomprehensible level of hypocrisy. But more importantly, the fact that Jews are the ones perpetrating these unconscionable actions in Gaza is a tragedy of historic proportions. The Geneva Conventions, particularly those articles addressing the  of civilian populations, were largely crafted in response to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis during World War II. Has the sense of exclusivity and entitlement created by the Zionist experiment in Israel become so great that people there no longer see themselves in the mirror of their own history? The irony of Jews, among the most egregiously persecuted and maligned people in history, denying food to hundreds of thousands of children in order, allegedly, to insure their own security, is breathtaking. Who could ever have imagined such a thing?

As people of Gaza suffer, here in the U.S., the vast majority of so-called progressives continue to revel in the recent election of the first Black man to the Presidency. While Obama has garnered a great deal of political and financial support by pledging his unconditional support for the Zionist regime in Israel, he remains completely silent on the plight of the children of Gaza. Our first Black President not only refuses to speak out against the collective punishment of an oppressed people, he actively supports and encourages the regime responsible for this behavior. This too is a tragedy of historic proportions. Have we come this far in the struggle against racism in our country only to see Barack Obama put a minority face on U.S. support for violations of international law and essential human dignity by Israel? Again, one has to say, who could ever have imagined such a thing?

Each morning I peruse the alternative media online and hope to see at least some minor degree of outrage at the situation in Gaza. A small but courageous handful of progressive web sites dare to criticize Israel and speak out against the abuse of the Palestinian people. But for the most part, the glorious and powerful “NetRoots” movement is too busy congratulating itself on the so-called victory it has achieved in the recent elections, too busy celebrating the illusion of change which Barack Obama represents, to admit the absence of any indication of substantive change in U.S. foreign policy in Palestine or the Middle East under his coming administration.

Does it ever occur to those who so blindly and passionately rallied ‘round their candidate for the Presidency that they might now use their voices to encourage him to oppose the human rights abuses being orchestrated in Gaza? The sad reality is, not even a chorus of such voices is likely to alter the course Obama appears to have taken. He has surrounded himself with a familiar cast of armchair militarists, corporatists and hard core pro-Zionist zealots who will continue to give their unconditional support to Israel regardless of what barbaric tactics the government there uses to advance the colonization of Palestine. He is choosing to turn his back on the men, women and children in Gaza and the West Bank who suffer chronic malnutrition, desperate poverty, dispossession and daily humiliation at the hands of the Israeli military.

We should stand up in opposition to instances of human rights abuses whenever and wherever they occur. The situation in Gaza is only one on an unfortunately long list, locally, nationally and internationally. And U.S. government (that means you and me) support for and complicity in many such instances is no secret. If each of us were to do just one thing per week to address these issues, the result might surprise us all. Take a minute out from the long and endless chatter of day to day living and speak to a friend about the idea of social equality. Write one letter to the editor of your local paper in support of human rights. Spend just one percent of your online hours learning the truth about our complicity as U.S. citizens in the exploitation and degradation of other people and their cultures. Turn off your television. Go stand on a corner with a sign to protest war. Wear a button promoting peace and justice. One small thing at a time.

To those who became politically active, possibly for the first time, and expended their valuable enthusiasm and energy in order to see Barack Obama elected: thank you for being a part of history. Now why not try on the mantel of social activism? Write our President-elect a letter and suggest that he at least acknowledge the suffering of the people in Gaza. It is doubtful it will change him or his policies, but it may change you. And that truly is “change we can believe in.”

Every sentient being knows the difference between right and wrong. The question is, why do so few of us act on that knowledge?

Joe Mowrey is an anti-war and Palestinian rights activist. He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with his spouse, Janice, and their three canine enablers. You can write to him at jmowrey@ix.netcom.com.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Human rights, imperialism, Islam and Muslims, Palestine, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

Afghanistan seeks winter food aid

November 25, 2008
Al Jazeera, Nov 25, 2008

Aid from the World Food Programme is running low as Afghanistan braces for heavy winter snow

The Afghan government has told foreign donors that a “huge humanitarian crisis” will materialise if food supplies do not rapidly reach the country.

Afghans are facing death and destitution due to food shortages and the oncoming bleak winter.

Al Jazeera’s David Chater, reporting from the western province of Herat, said that the crisis is spreading across Afghanistan.

The World Food Programme’s last supplies of wheat aid for the year for people in Herat were delivered recently, but are considered too meagre to help citizens through the winter.

Two sacks of wheat were provided for each family.

Haji Shair Agha Hotak, from the Afghan agriculture department, said: “For every ten people we hand wheat to, here hundreds more should also get supplies.

“There are three million people in Herat province. We simply do not have enough food to feed them all.”

Rising food prices

Prices of food in local markets has soared in recent months, leading to hunger and consequential disease.

A local woman, collecting food aid from the WFP in Herat on a recent day, said: “I’m sick and this is the first time I have got any wheat. My children are hungry.

Video

Herat province faces hunger as another winter approaches

“I was pushed and punched.”Black marketeers are in the region attempting to persuade people, particularly the old and vulnerable, to sell their supplies of wheat.

Elderly locals are often left stranded after travelling to Herat town to receive aid but failing to have enough money to return home.

Chater said that dwindling food aid supplies are not reaching remote regions in Afghanistan and that the heavy annual winter snow will hamper distribution further.

Food shortages have been instigated by a drought which has depleted rivers around Herat.

The drought followed a brutal winter in 2007 in which hundreds died of hypothermia.
Source: Al Jazeera

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Commentary | Leave a Comment »

RIGHTS: Domestic Workers Often Prisoners in a Gilded Cage

November 25, 2008

By Zainab Mineeia | Inter Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov 24 (IPS) – On the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, a New York-based human rights watchdog group called on the governments of the world to protect domestic workers.

In its statement Monday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said migrant and domestic workers continue to face abuse, particularly in Middle Eastern and Asian countries, because authorities have lagged in adopting the measures needed to protect them.

Only small numbers of domestic workers have access to the justice system in the countries they work in. Those who can gain access and provide physical evidence of rape or abuse rarely get justice, HRW said.

“There are countless cases of employers threatening, humiliating, beating, raping, and sometimes killing domestic workers,” said Nisha Varia, deputy director of the women’s rights division of HRW. “Governments need to punish abusive employers through the justice system, and prevent violence by reforming labour and immigration policies that leave these workers at their employers’ mercy.”

A large number of female domestic workers are from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Nepal, and most work in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and other countries throughout the Middle East. These countries exclude their domestic workers from the legal shelter of labour laws, leaving them little recourse against exploitative work conditions.

The workers are also at more risk of abuse because of the restrictive immigration-sponsorship policies that link their visas to their employers. The employer can control the worker’s immigration status and the ability to switch jobs, or the worker’s ability to return home. Many employers take advantage of the authority that they have to imprison workers in the house, withhold pay, or mistreat them in a variety of ways.

Officials in these countries receive thousands of complaints from domestic workers each year. Most involve unpaid wages, food deprivation, long working hours and lack of rest. A significant number also allege verbal, physical, and sexual abuse.

Many of these cases are never officially reported due to domestic workers’ confinement in private homes, lack of information about their rights, and employers’ ability to deport them before they can seek help.

A small number of law enforcement authorities have started to prosecute and punish abusive employers, albeit by varying degrees. In Singapore this year, many employers were convicted of beating domestic workers, receiving sentences ranging from three weeks to 16 years in prison.

In Malaysia this month, a man was sentenced to 32 years in prison for raping a domestic worker. His wife received six years for abetting the crime.

However, many criminal justice systems continue to expose abused domestic workers to further victimisation and give them no — or severely delayed — redress, said HRW.

In May, a Riyadh court dropped charges against a Saudi employer who abused Nour Miyati, an Indonesian domestic worker, ignoring both the employer’s confession and compelling physical evidence.

Nour Miyati suffered daily beatings and was abused so badly that her toes and fingers were amputated after developing gangrene. During the three years of legal proceedings, she remained stuck in an overcrowded embassy shelter unable to work or return to her family in Indonesia. At one point, she also was sentenced 79 lashes for changing her testimony, though the sentence was later reversed. On Thursday, a Malaysian judge is to announce the verdict in the four-year case against Yim Pek Ha, the employer of Indonesian domestic worker Nirmala Bonat. In 2004, images of Bonat’s badly burned and injured body shocked Malaysians. Bonat also had to stay in an overcrowded embassy shelter for years without being allowed to work and had to defend herself from charges of inflicting the abuse herself. “2008 marked a year of missed opportunities,” Varia said. “While most governments have started to think about some level of reform, many of these discussions have stalled. Providing comprehensive support services to victims of violence, prosecuting abusers, and providing civil remedies are reforms that just can’t wait.” HRW recommends that governments abolish or reform immigration-sponsorship policies so that domestic workers’ visas are no longer tied to their employer; develop protocols and train law enforcement officials on how to respond to domestic workers’ complaints appropriately, and how to investigate and collect evidence in such cases; and prosecute perpetrators of psychological, physical, and sexual violence. The statement was released ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, on Tuesday, which was decreed by a U.N. General Assembly resolution in 1999.

Nov. 25 is the 48th anniversary of the brutal rapes and murders of the three Maribal sisters in the Dominican Republic by order of Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo. The date has been marked by women’s activists since 1981 as a day against violence.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Human rights | Leave a Comment »

Undeclared curfew imposed in occupied Kashmir

November 24, 2008
The News International, Nov 23, 2008
SRINAGAR: The authorities in occupied Kashmir have been continuing to keep the Chairman of All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC), Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and other Hurriyet leaders including Maulana Abbas Ansari, Agha Syed Hassan Al-Moosvi, Fazl Haq Qureshi and Bar President, Mian Abdul Qayoom under house arrest and resorting to strict measures to thwart the March towards Ganderbal.

According to Kashmir Media Service, the call for the March has been given by the Jammu and Kashmir Coordination Committee on the occasion of holding of 2nd phase of shame polls by the occupation authorities in six constituencies of Ganderbal and Rajouri districts.

Except these constituencies, undeclared curfew has been imposed in the entire Kashmir Valley and roads leading to Ganderbal have been sealed.

Heavy deployment has been made in Srinagar and other major towns of the Valley. All roads leading to Ganderbal have been sealed with barbed and razor wires and barricades.

The police and paramilitary personnel have been forcing people to remain indoor and patrolling the deserted streets to foil any attempt by Kashmiri people to assemble for the march.

In view of strict restrictions imposed by the authorities and a general strike called by the Coordination Committee, all shops and business establishments are closed.

The residents complained that security personnel are not allowing them to come out of their houses.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Commentary, India, Kashmir | Leave a Comment »

Guest Columnists Warn Obama About Escalating in Afghanistan

November 24, 2008

Out of the frying pan into the fire? In today’s New York Times, three columnists — including a guy named Rumsfeld — warn that a “surge” in Afghanistan could last decades and/or not even be worth it or make matters worse, while our economy collapses.

By Greg Mitchell | Editor & Publisher

NEW YORK (November 23, 2008) — (Commentary) Out of the frying pan into the fire? In his race for the White House, Barack Obama called long and often for sending many more troops to Afghanistan (even before we withdraw quite a few from Iraq). It was a required thing to say on the campaign trail to show toughness and also to make the politically winning point that President Bush had fought the wrong war, in Iraq, when we had not yet cleaned out Afghanistan.

Did he really mean it? If so, is it really the right thing to do, especially with our chief national security threat now coming from within – in the form of our economic crisis?

The New York Times today presents a host of op-eds on Iraq and Afghanistan, including one from a guy named Rumsfeld and another from someone called Chalabi. The ones related to the Afghan conflict should raise questions for readers, and I hope, the Obama team. Just this morning, the Karzai government revealed that Obama had called the nation’s leader and pledged to increase U.S. support. The NATO commander wants to nearly double troop strength there.

This past August, I devoted a column here to this subject after a brief flurry of front-page articles on Afghanistan arrived to mark U.S. deaths there finally hitting the 500 mark. The war in Afghanistan, long overlooked, is now getting more notice, I observed, before asking: “But does that mean the U.S., finally starting (perhaps) to dig out of Iraq, should now commit to another open-ended war, even for a good cause, not so far away?”

Nearly everyone in the media, and on the political stage, still calls this the “good war.” Obama has even said “we must win” there. But it’s the same question we have faced in Iraq: What does he define as “winning”? How much are we willing to expend (in lives lost and money) at a time of a severe budget crunch and overstretched military? Shouldn’t the native forces — and NATO — be doing more? And what about Pakistan? And so on.

We’ve been fighting there even longer than in Iraq, if that seems possible. Now do want to jump out of a frying pan into that fire in an open-ended way?

Few voices in the mainstream media – and even in the liberal blogosphere – have tackled this subject, partly because of long arguing for the need to fight the “good war” as opposed to the “bad war.” But now some very respected commentators – with impeccable pro-military credentials – are starting to sound off on the dangers.

Back in August, I was reduced to quoting Thomas Friedman from a recent New York Times column: “The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want….Obama needs to ask himself honestly: ‘Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?'”

And I reprinted at length comments from Joseph L. Galloway, the legendary war reporter, based largely on a recent paper written by Gen. Barry McCaffrey after his tour of the war zone. McCaffrey had said “we can’t shoot our way out of Afghanistan, and the two or three or more American combat brigades proposed by the two putative nominees for president are irrelevant.” Galloway noted sardonically: “We can’t afford to fail in Afghanistan, the general says, but he doesn’t address the question of whether we can afford to succeed there, either.”

Now the New York Times today presents several cautionary views. Here are three of them, hardly a group of lefty peaceniks.

Continued  >>

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Commentary, US policy | Leave a Comment »

Israeli army brass advocate timely war on Iran

November 24, 2008

The Global Research, Nov 23, 2008

Press TV

An Israeli security assessment has recommended devising contingency plans to attack Iran even if it means courting a conflict with the US.

The leaked paper drawn up by Israeli military chiefs maintains that Tel Aviv has a ‘limited’ window of opportunity to act against Iran before the country obtains a nuclear weapon, claiming that in 2009, Israel might have to face a nuclear Iran ‘alone’.

Senior Israeli officials had earlier expressed concern that an Obama administration might lead up to the restoration of Washington-Tehran relations.

President-elect Barack Obama has vowed to begin direct and unconditional talks with top Iranian officials on the country’s long-disputed nuclear program.

Israel alleges that Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has plans ‘to build a nuclear weapon’. Under the allegation, Israeli officials have long argued that the use of military force is a legitimate option in retarding the country’s nuclear progress.

Iran denies the Israeli claim, insisting that the country’s nuclear activities are solely directed at the civilian applications of the technology.

The Israeli army assessment claims ‘Iran’s threat to Israel’s survival’ is at the top of the list of challenges facing Tel Aviv and recommends close cooperation with the US to prevent a Washington-Tehran rapprochement.

According to the assessment, Israel must therefore draw up a plan for military action against Iran, in case other countries show reluctance to counter the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

The paper is to be presented to the cabinet next month as part of the National Security Council’s annual situation assessment, Haaretz reported.

This comes as outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert arrived in Washington on Sunday for talks with US President George W. Bush.

During his three-day stay, Olmert is expected to attempt to make President Bush pledge to counter the Iranian nuclear program.

Earlier in November, an unnamed senior European Union diplomat said that the bloc is concerned that ‘a possible Israeli strike against Iran is not completely off the radar’.

The official suggested that the perfect time for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear installations ‘is between now and January 20’ — when US President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Iran, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

Pakistanis fear U.S. collision with neighboring enemies

November 24, 2008

Kashmiri Muslims waiting to cast their votes in Ganderbal, Pakistan, in the outskirts of Srinagar, Sunday. (Tauseef Mustafa/Agence France-Presse)

MEMO FROM ISLAMABAD | International Herald Tribune, Nov 23, 2008

Text Size

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: A redrawn map of South Asia has been making the rounds among Pakistani elites. It shows their country truncated, reduced to an elongated sliver of land with the big bulk of India to the east, and an enlarged Afghanistan to the west.

That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles matters little here. It has fueled a belief among Pakistanis, including members of the armed forces, that what the United States really wants is the breakup of Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear arms.

“One of the biggest fears of the Pakistani military planners is the collaboration between India and Afghanistan to destroy Pakistan,” said a senior Pakistani government official involved in strategic planning, who insisted on anonymity as per diplomatic custom. “Some people feel the United States is colluding in this.”

That notion may strike Americans as strange coming from an ally of 50 years. But as the incoming Obama administration tries to coax greater cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against militancy, it can hardly be ignored.

This is a country where years of weak governance have left ample room for conspiracy theories of every kind. But like much such thinking anywhere, what is said frequently reveals the tender spots of a nation’s psyche. Educated Pakistanis sometimes say that they are paranoid, but add that they believe they have good reason.

Pakistan, a 61-year-old country marbled by ethnic fault lines, is a collection of just four provinces, which often seem to have little in common. Virtually every one of its borders, drawn almost arbitrarily in the last gasps of the British Empire, is disputed with its neighbors, not least Pakistan’s bitter and much larger rival, India.

These facts and the insecurities that flow from them inform many of Pakistan’s disagreements with the United States, including differences over the need to rein in militancy in the form of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The new democratically elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, has visited the United States twice since assuming power three months ago. He has been generous in his praise of the Bush administration. But that stance is criticized at home as fawning and wins him little popularity among a steadfastly anti-American public.

So how will the promise by President-elect Barack Obama for a new start between the United States and Pakistan be received here? How can it be begun?

One possibility could be some effort to ease Pakistani anxieties, even as the United States demands more from Pakistan. That will probably mean a regional approach to what, it is increasingly apparent, are regional problems. There, Pakistani and American interests may coincide.

American military commanders, including General David Petraeus, have started to argue forcefully that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, where the American war effort looks increasingly uncertain, must involve a wide array of neighbors.

Obama has said much the same. Several times in his campaign, he laid out the crux of his thinking. Reducing tensions between Pakistan and India would allow Pakistan to focus on the real threat — the Qaeda and Taliban militants who are tearing at the very fabric of the country.

“If Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban,” Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last year.

But such an approach faces sizable obstacles, the biggest being the conflict over Kashmir. The Himalayan border area has been disputed since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and remains divided between them.

Pakistan’s army and intelligence agencies have long fought a proxy war with India by sponsoring militant groups to terrorize the Indian-administered part of the territory.

After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan reined in those militants for a time, but this year the militants have renewed their incursions. Talks between the sides made some progress in recent years but have petered out.

Pakistanis warn that the United States should not appear too eager to mediate. First, they caution, India has always regarded Kashmir as a bilateral question. India, they note, also faces a general election early next year, an inappropriate moment to push such an explosive issue.

Second, some Pakistanis are concerned about the reliability of the United States as a fair mediator. “Given the United States’ record on the Palestinian issue, where the Palestinians had to move 10 times backwards and the Israelis moved the goal posts, the same could happen here,” said Zubair Khan, a former commerce minister who has watched Kashmir closely.

Continued  >>

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Pakistan, US policy | Leave a Comment »

Afghans to Obama: End the Occupation

November 24, 2008

by Sonali Kolhatkar | CommonDreams.org, Nov 22, 2008

President Elect Barack Obama wants to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. But the US/NATO occupation is less popular than ever. Eman, an Afghan woman’s rights activist with RAWA tells Uprising host, Sonali Kolhatkar, that Obama must end the occupation. RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, is the oldest women’s political organization in Afghanistan, struggling non-violently against foreign occupations and religious fundamentalism for more than 30 years.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Many on the American left are celebrating the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the US. But while he has pledged to end the Iraq war, he has also promised to increase troops in Afghanistan. What is your opinion of Barack Obama and his stated policy on Afghanistan?

Eman: We can easily judge Obama from what he said in one of his recent interviews that he does not feel the need to apologize to the Afghan people. We do not consider this [the result of] a lack of information. But didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the wrong policies of the US government for the past three decades in our country? Didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the fundamentalist-fostering policies of the US government in creating, arming, and supporting these brutal, misogynist groups like the Northern Alliance and other fascist groups during the past three decades? Didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the occupation of our country under the banner of democracy, the so-called “war on terror,” and women’s rights, but then compromise with terrorists like the Northern Alliance, who cannot be distinguished from the Taliban in the history of their criminal acts? In fact these murderers were the first to destroy our nation. And even after seven years of a very long and very costly “war on terror,” terrorism has not been uprooted in Afghanistan but has become stronger and the Taliban are becoming more powerful. Plus recently [the US is] talking about negotiating with the most wanted terrorist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and with the Taliban, which is in contradiction with what they claimed and what their main objective was in occupying Afghanistan.

From his statements during his election campaign, we don’t think that Obama’s position is different from the Bush administration; it is the continuation of Bush’s foreign policy. As Obama’s first message to our country was that of war, we cannot be hopeful about him.

Kolhatkar: Do you think the troops should be withdrawn and if so, what will happen in Afghanistan if US/NATO forces leave Afghanistan?

Eman: RAWA strongly believes that whatever happens, a withdrawal of foreign troops should be the first step, because today, with the presence of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, with the presence of many foreign countries in our nation, for the majority of our people particularly poor people in the other provinces of Afghanistan outside Kabul, the situation is so bad that it cannot get any worse. Today they are also suffering from insecurity, killing, kidnapping, rape, acid throwing on school girls (as happened just last week), hunger, lawlessness, lack of freedom of speech (with journalist Parwiz Kambakhsh being imprisoned), After seven years of occupation [the US] failed to bring peace, security, democracy, and women’s rights that they claimed. I think seven years is quite enough time to prove that democracy and peace cannot be brought by foreigners. It can only be achieved by our own people by democratic organizations and individuals. It’s our responsibility to become united as an alternative against the occupation, to rise up, to resist and to organize our people.

Obviously it is very difficult. No one can predict how long it will take, how much blood, how much sacrifice, and what price should be paid. But this is the only solution, as RAWA has always emphasized.

Right now our people are under attack from different sides. From one side we have the Taliban, from the other side are the US air strikes, and from another side are the Northern Alliance warlords in different provinces. We are in a political confusion. With the withdrawal [of troops] our people will at least get rid of one of these enemies.

We believe that even with the withdrawal of the troops they have a moral duty towards Afghanistan as they have empowered these dangerous fundamentalist groups economically; and given them arms which were a big threat to the security of our country. If the US and its allies are kind enough to try to help us and they are honest in their claim of helping our people then they can prove it in other ways. They can prove it by the disarmament of armed groups. They can prove it by stopping any kind of support, help and compromise with any fundamentalist groups by helping our people to prosecute our war criminals of three decades. They can do this by supporting democratic voices. So they have other alternatives to help us if they really want to.

Kolhatkar: Hamid Karzai’s tenure is up next year and there are to be new elections. What do you think needs to happen before the elections, and is there any chance the elections could bring some positive change inside Afghanistan?

Eman: We have two kinds of elections ahead of us: parliamentary and presidential. About the presidential election, everyone knows that the White House determines who is going to be the next president. Our public’s votes are just used as a formality. But what we are sure of is that the next president will not be independent or a real democrat. So our people are not so hopeful about those elections.

About the parliamentary elections, it is important to state that this election, like the last one, will be conducted under the shadow of guns, airpower and money. So we cannot call it a fair and free election. For a fair and free election to be held we think that disarmament of the powerful warlords which have private armies in different provinces, is a necessary factor. Otherwise it will be a repeat of the last election. For example, according to a law made by the Election Commission, warlords cannot take part in the elections. The last time, our people appealed to the election commission against criminal candidates and drug lords with evidence but nobody paid attention to them and these most-wanted murderers found their way to parliament. There were just a very few exceptions who were really elected by the people. The majority were well-known murderers, criminals, and rapists.

Kolhatkar: In RAWA’s recent statement on the 7th anniversary of the US war on October 7th, you say “Our freedom is only achievable at the hands of our people.” How strong are democratic grassroots forces in Afghanistan, and are they capable of rising up and leading the country?

Eman: Unfortunately the democratic forces are very weak due to many reasons. The two main reasons are, firstly, financial problems because there is no government support at all, and powerful international forces like the United Nations have never been interested in supporting democratic groups, individuals, and voices. Secondly they are weak for security reasons, which have always suppressed these groups. We believe that the main source of power lies with our people. Today they have become hopeless with false promises from the West of establishing democracy. And moreover people are fed-up of the fundamentalism of the Taliban, Northern Alliance, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, etc. So today if we witness demonstrations organized by our suffering and tired people, tomorrow they will be much more organized under the leadership of democratic movements. So we should not lose our hope. The groups are weak but they exist. I think it’s the duty of democratic forces all over the world to support democratic movements in Afghanistan and they should show their practical solidarity with them.

Kolhatkar: When we started our conversation, you weren’t very optimistic about Barack Obama’s stated policy on Afghanistan. What advice would you give President Elect Barack Obama, when he takes office in January?

Eman: We believe that if the American government does not have any bad, expansionist, hidden intentions regarding our country then they have to accept and change their long-term mistakes and wrong policies in our country. In the early 1990s they supported the anti-democratic, anti-women forces and they still have not learned a lesson and still they rely on and compromise with the different fundamentalist groups, which makes the situation of our country even worse. So from one side they are still nourishing and working with those drug lords and warlords of the Northern Alliance. And from the other side they complain about drugs, corruption and insecurity which is a painful game with the destiny of our people, who do not want more troops and war. Our people want justice, peace, and democracy.

As the US failed with spending billions of dollars on the presence of thousands of troops for the past seven years, I’m sure that they will fail even if they bring millions more troops as long as the American government does not change its policies in Afghanistan.

Kolhatkar: Finally, what advice would you give the American anti-war movement on what Afghanistan needs from them?

Eman: Since the US government has always supported fundamentalist groups and ignored democratic voices in our country, I think that the US government does not represent all American people. But there are great American people and great peace movements who have always raised their voice against war and defended peace with justice. History shows that these movements have always affected government policies, for example on the Vietnam war. So I think that they have a great responsibility to put pressure on their government and especially its foreign policy, to change the policy and to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan. And they have to show their solidarity with the democratic movements in Afghanistan. It’s very very important for us and we need their voices. But I just read an article that some parts of the US peace movements are supporting the Iranian government. We condemn this position because we consider the Iranian government a fundamentalist, fascist government. But as long as the peace movement is concerned, we need their solidarity and we are very happy to have their support.

Find out more about RAWA at www.rawa.org. Sonali Kolhatkar is host and producer of Uprising, at KPFK, Pacifica Radio, www.uprisingradio.org.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Human rights, imperialism, US policy, War Criminals | Leave a Comment »

POLITICS-INDIA: Separatists Battle Moderates in Kashmir Polls

November 24, 2008


By Athar Parvaiz |  Inter Press Service


SRINAGAR, Nov 23 (IPS) – India’s Jammu and Kashmir state votes Sunday for the second round of staggered, seven-phase, provincial elections that have pitted separatists against mainstream political parties.

The voting follows violence on Saturday in Baramulla town, 55 km north of Srinagar, where police shot dead two young men participating in demonstrations to promote a separatist-sponsored boycott of the polls.

Separatist political parties have been appealing for a boycott of any electoral exercise until there is a resolution of the Kashmir issue, whereas mainstream political parties are encouraging people to participate in the formation of a government that can negotiate a political settlement.

“More than the government formation these elections are seen as an open contest between the mainstream politicians and separatists who stand locked against each other over the issue of participation or nonparticipation,’’ noted political commentator Mohammad Sayeed Malik told IPS.

“These elections have two strands; one is the wider one involving politics surrounding the Kashmir issue, and the other involves a struggle for power wherein mainstream political parties are contesting for government formation,” he added.

Several separatist political leaders who were running anti-election campaigns have been detained by the government. These leaders include Shabir Shah, Yasin Malik, Nayeem Khan, Ghulam Nabi Sumji and others. Apex separatist leaders Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Farooq were repeatedly put under house arrest and there have been frequent curfews to thwart anti-election programmes.

While most separatist leaders favour independence from India, some advocate merger with Muslim Pakistan. Separatist politicians and militant groups are opposed to the polls because they believe that elections could strengthen India’s claim over the Muslim-majority territory.

Lying dormant for years, separatism received a shot in the arm about three months ago through a controversial land transfer by the government to a Hindu shrine, triggering regional and communal clashes in the state and revived the freedom movement in Kashmir.

In July, the state was put under direct central rule after the elected government collapsed over the land row amidst mass street demonstrations and clashes with security forces that left some 50 people dead.

Elections were announced in the immediate aftermath of this controversy, though after considerable dithering. Many voices cautioned against holding elections in the state at a time when it was reeling under regional clashes and a renewed freedom sentiment.

In the end, India’s Election Commission, which has a reputation for fairness, went ahead and announced a schedule for the Nov. 17 – Dec. 26 exercise.

It was expected that the polling percentage would be low given the complex setting in the state and the repeated calls for a boycott of the elections. However, the first phase on Nov. 17, covering the three constituencies of Bandipore, Sumbal and Gurez, showed an impressive 65 percent voter turnout.

“This is mainly because the space for mainstream political parties has been increasing ever since the 2002 assembly elections,” says Sayeed Malik. “Political discourse in Kashmir has changed after those elections. Presently there are many common points between the mainstream and separatist politics — both regard Kashmir as a dispute though they have their varied perspectives on it.”

The mainstream political parties in Kashmir are now openly advocating for the resolution of Kashmir issue and maintain that they are only participating in the elections for governance. “We are simply contesting elections for governance; Kashmir issue needs a resolution and the separatists are fighting for that,’’ says former chief minister of the state Farooq Abdullah.

Abdullah’s National Conference (NC), which has ruled the state for about three decades, has unveiled an exhaustive manifesto. “It is for the first time that the NC has come out with an elaborate election manifesto or vision document in which the party talks about the need for the resolution of Kashmir issue through its greater autonomy formulation,’’ says Gul Mohammad Wani who teaches political science in Kashmir University.

“However, in the vision document much space has been given to development and governance issues probably for separating conflict-resolution from governance.”

The other main political party in the state, People’s Democratic Party (PDP), has also come out with an election manifesto in which it has talked about issues ranging from self-rule to the concept of a loose sovereignty and the need for development in the state.

“Broadly speaking, the regional political parties have sharply positioned themselves on several important and critical issues facing the state ranging from good governance to conflict resolution,’’ says Wani.

According to him parties like the NC and PDP have enough stakes in these elections. “NC lost power to the PDP and Congress [combine] in the 2002 elections after ruling the state over decades. So it would be keen to get back to the seat of power. Should it fail to do so, it faces the danger of disintegration,” Wani told IPS.

“Similarly, the PDP, which is a nascent political party and fancies itself as a viable alternative to the NC, badly needs to perform better in these elections for its political survival,” Wani said.

Wani says that the stakes are even higher for the Congress which is a pan-India party. “Congress’s victory or defeat in Kashmir is likely to influence its performance in the parliamentary elections in India next year. So the party is fairly cautious and has, in its election manifesto, not gone beyond the need for decentralisation of power and overall development in the state.”

Smaller parties, apart from laying focus on a resolution of Kashmir issue, have emphasised the need for relaxation of the live border with Pakistani Kashmir, setting up of a commission for disappeared persons and building a consensus in India regarding the Kashmir issue.

The stakes for Kashmiri separatist leadership are also high. “More than anything else, the separatist leadership has its political legitimacy and reputation at stake. They badly need good response from people about their election boycott calls; should people ignore their appeals, it would be quite precarious and embarrassing for them,’’ says political analyst Noor Ahmad Baba who teaches in Kashmir University.

Till the other day, the equation was tilted in favour of the separatists, but after the good turnout of voters in the first phase it looks as if people may participate with enthusiasm in the remaining phases as well.

“It would not be fair to criticise the separatists if people come out to vote. After all, they were not allowed to campaign against the elections and most of them have been put behind bars under false pretences,’’ said human rights activist Showkat Sheikh.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Commentary, India, Kashmir, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »