Here is my position on the Afghanistan debate: get out, we don't belong there!
Article 1 of the United Nations is the right of a people to determine their own future.
In the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Culturals Rights the right of a people to self-determination is Article 1.1 -- again, important enough to be listed first.
In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the right of a people to self determination is Article 1.1 -- again, again important enough to be listed first.
The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (whew!) declares:
"All peoples have the right to freely determine, without external interference, their political status ... and every state has the duty to respect this right ...""Self-determination of nations," folks.
It is not an "install government of choice" or a "right to forceful corporatization" or a "right to impose American values worldwide."
Now, I acknowledge that the Taliban government's tolerance of al-Qaeda was intolerable to the US after 911 and justification for an American (and Allies) expeditionary force seeking al-Qaeda's destruction was pretty much an easy thing to rationalize. But an expeditionary strike only. Nothing more can be achieved after that. After withdrawal of the expeditionary force one would have expected an embarrassed and humiliated Taliban government to keep a tight reign on any re-emergence of al-Qaeda.
But the expeditionary force stayed! Now the Taliban must work with any and all anti-American forces to throw out the Allies and their imposed government. The war against the Taliban is illegal in every respect. And in waltzes Canada, militarily. Shame.
The Taliban was not Canada's enemy. It is a rightful government; albiet, a stupid one. Every "Taliban" killed now is an Afghani citizen or a freedom fighter.
Yes, some Americans citizens were killed in 911. But the response was, and is, excessive and unjustified. Just as the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah provoked an excessive and unjustified invasion of Lebanon. Perhaps Israel should have occupied all of Lebanon and installed a friendly and highly sympathetic government? I see little, if any, difference. Israel was wrong. The US is wrong. And Canada is wrong.
Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are five nuclear nations practically on the border of Afghanistan. Any difficulties the world may have with that country would have more effectively been dealt with in a regional manner. And if the Americans would learn to talk and negotiate with its perceived enemies then the world would be a far, far better place.
And what really screams hypocracy in all of this is that the US has, all over the world, armed guerrilla groups, funded opposition parties, and usurped legitimate governments. "[The] U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood," stated Sunera Thobani, and she was castigated for stating such a clear and obvious analysis of fact. The US can fund and arm resistance groups but no other countries may?I am a Canadian citizen. The activities of the US are not my purview. But, for Canada, being in Afghanistan is a sin against the community of nations.
And the US in Iraq !!! Totally illegal.
No Afghanistan. NO NATO.
Some things are just wrong. And Canadian foreign military adventurism in Afghanistan is just wrong.
The Green Party will bring Canada back from being a beligerant nation (and would never have allowed it). The party of peace. Non-violence, pacifism, is one of our six tenets. That is one reason why I'm in the party. Why aren't you?
So, the policy should have been "scare the Taliban into abandoning al Qaeda, and then hand the people of Afghanistan back to their rule"??? The Taliban is a "rightful government"??? OK then. I guess by that logic, Israel is the "rightful government" of the Palestinian territories. Because the agreement of the people is not, apparently, the definition of "rightful government", merely the ability to exert power.
ReplyDeleteAs the Government House Leader said recently, ""The UN wants us in Afghanistan, NATO wants us in Afghanistan, the whole world wants us in Afghanistan. Only the Taliban and NDP want us to leave". I guess he really should have said "the Taliban, the NDP and the Greens", so, correction noted.
As for why I'm not in the Green party, I guess it would be because they value pacifism over justice. The thought that there is a political party in Canada that wants to give Afghanistan and her people back to the Taliban is sad. The fact that there's two makes me downright scared.
One other thing. You quote the right of people to self-determination, ""All peoples have the right to freely determine, without external interference, their political status ... and every state has the duty to respect this right ..."
ReplyDeleteTell me, just how was the Taliban respecting the right of the people of Afghanistan to self determination? Because I'm pretty sure all they were doing was defending the people's "right" to live in a medeival caliphate, and be stoned to death for living outside of the Taliban's fundamentalist dictates. You claim to detest the "installation" of a democratic system of government in Afghanistan by force, but have no problem with the previous regime installing an Islamic theocracy by force???
Better that than "American style" democracy I suppose. Those poor people. Deprived of their "right" to be brutalized by fundamentalist theocrats. The UN should be ashamed for backing this effort to put down the legitimate Taliban rulers of Afghanistan. If the UN can't defend the "right" of the people of Afghanistan to be ruled by force under Islamic fundamentalists what is the world coming too?
Your arguments are hypocritical, specious, and arbitrary. Your kind makes a dangerous world.
ReplyDeleteCould you clarify a bit as to which arguments were hypocritical, which were speciuous, and which were arbitrary?
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt my arguments could all have been better stated.
To tell the truth, I think my brain stopped functioning at 100% capacity upon reading that the Taliban was a "rightful government" (a term which, ironically, applied to the Taliban could simultaneously be described as hypocritical, specious and arbitrary).
All kidding aside, I actually would like to read a more thoughtful critique of my comments. As it stands, your last post amounts to little more than "I know you are, but what am I". Can I get a little more to and fro, or do you not engage in discussion with "my kind"?
Oh, come on, you know it would be a waste of words on both our parts. We have postured to diametrically opposite opinions. Now if a third party injected a question between our positions then I would bite further.
ReplyDeleteMinds with more in common might discuss things further in a forum setting. Like, here, at GreenerPolitics.com.
I think I understand your point of view. And I can enjoy assuming your perspective. The reference points upon which I base my opinion are not the same as yours, sorry.
Here's the intermediate view:
ReplyDeleteIt's my view that the Taliban was an intolerable government, deserving of being deposed by the international community. The Taliban only came about because the two super-powers used Afghanistan as one of their 'fronts', and then both left, leaving a power and money vaccuum. The Warlords came to power...always a bad idea to have a government made of thugs.
In my opinion, the Taliban should have been sanctioned and overthrown by the international community long before 2001, but it took them harbouring Bin Laden for action to be taken.
So where does that leave us? Herbinator, I agree that our military is being misused in Afghanistan, but I don't believe they should be brought home. But Kitchener, that doesn't mean that I think that their current operations are copacetic.
We need to get our guys out of being on the offensive, and instead protect a good portion of the country and build what they are protecting. And as the infrastructure behind our protection stabilizes, we can 'move the front', the area we protect, peacefully and quickly. We should be building, helping Afghani's build their country and halping them build peace.
G.L.
GL: "...deserving of being deposed by the international community"
ReplyDeleteIf such activity is at all acceptable then it should be under the guise and auspices of the "international community." Certainly not a mob lynching.
And "our guys", if they are to be deployed on foreign adventure, should be deployed by logical, policy-driven decision ... not willy-nilly here'n there deployments that can't withstand any measure of fair, non-hegemonic critique. And with the sanction of whatever the "internation community" has established to maintain world order.
The fuzzy logic you exude would have Canada raising an armed force 1000 times the size of that which we have now ... and the result would be intrasigence throughout the world. I'm surprised you couldn't even argue for blue helmets. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Now if a third party injected a question between our positions then I would bite further.
ReplyDeleteI don't see what is "hypocritical, specious, and arbitrary" about the comment. Could you please elaborate.
G.L
ReplyDeleteActually, I think that's pretty much MY point of view too, which is why Herbinator attacks it. I think I might take a little more proactive view as to what constitutes "protection" than you, and I'm not sure how one "moves the front" without attacking the people who are on the front attacking you, but still, I don't disagree with adjusting our tactics, and learning from our experiences. We're going to lose troops no matter what though. Our troops are killed when they move in to the mountains to attack the Taliban away from civilian populations, and they're killed when they're not attacking the Taliban, and simply handing out candy to children. This leads some to conclude that we're failing, but to me, one can't call a war a "failure" simply because the enemy refuses to stop attacking us. Especially when the enemy are crazy religious fundamentalists who believe in jihad.
What I can't agree with, is Herbinator's pretending that the Taliban was a legitimate government that we overthrew (as opposed to a bunch of religious fanatics, who took power by force in 1996 with the help of Pakistani intelligence and have been ruling 90% of the country with an iron fist of violent Islamic fundamentalism ever since) or with the idea that we have "imposed" a government on the Afghan people by "forcing" 80% of the country's eligible voters to give 55% of their votes to President Karzai. The man's government received a higher proportion of the vote, from a larger proportion of the population than any Canadian government has in my lifetime, in an election monitored and approved of by the United Nations, and still people act like we've "imposed" this government on the people who elected it, and actually question it's legitimacy in comparison to the Taliban.
The TALIBAN!!!
Seems to me, Herbinator's view is that the "international community" is only whatever the UN says it is. So you can have, The U.S., the U.K., Canada, France, New Zealand, Australia, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Latvia, the Ukraine, Georgia and Afghanistan's Northen Alliance all join forces to attack the Taliban to remove them, and this is a "mob lynching" (of course, that's just the initial attack on Afghanistan mind you, the ISAF force there now also includes troops from Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, and non-Nato partners including Croatia, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and those notorious imperilaists the Swiss). Of course, the ISAF mission is a UN mission, so I guess that means "international community" means whatever the UN says it is, unless the UN sanctions missions Herbinator doesn't like, or signs off on election results he doesn't like, in which case the UN itself isn't "international" enough, I guess. Personally, I stop seeing a mission as an attempt to secure U.S. hegemony in a region pretty much the moment the UN, France, Switzerland and Sweden are involved, but clearly "my kind" are spreading our imperialist ambitions to many countries and international organizations one never would have thought were in the pockets of the American war machine. Which must be frightening for supporters of the Taliban, because, once you've lost France (who were in Afghanistan from the beginning) whose left???
As for Herbinator's longing for the blue helmets, given that the UN established ISAF's mandate in 2001, and expanded it in 2003 (with a UNANIMOUS vote in the Security Council) does the colour of the helmets really matter? I think the blue helmets are meant to keep combatants from shooting at UN soldiers, but given that the UN's mission is to keep the Taliban from re-taking Afghanistan, I'm pretty sure the Taliban will attack them even if they change the colour of their helmets. If it were that simple, I'd say ship a bunch of blue helmets to the ISAF force tomorrow. But it won't help. ISAF is a UN mission commanded by NATO. It's commanded by NATO, rather than an individual country, precisely to help take away the impression that this is anything other than an "international" mission. If a UN mission commanded by a large multilateral alliance isn't "international" enough for some, nothing ever will be. If one is going to argue that ISAF isn't international then it's commanded by NATO, what about all those other UN missions commanded by individual countries? Is the Un mission in Lebanon an example of French imperialism if it is commanded by the French? To me, that just doesn't make sense.
Here is my position on the Afghanistan debate: get out, we don't belong there!
ReplyDeleteI realise other people have differing positions. That's fine with me. It takes all kinds. I prefer not to use the military as an instrument of foreign policy. I'm kinda crazy that way. Must be like those "crazy religious fundamentalists" who are trying to remove foreign occupiers as part of their domestic policy -- it matters not, as I'm not a citizen of Afghanistan.
I'm in the Green Party because I believe it to be a haven for people of peace. The NDP always uses the words but they invariably support foreign military expeditions and then only change when the inevitable stupidity of such actions become clear.
Green party tenet is peace (one of six tenets). But, many Greens would consider foreign military action if greens voted overwhelmingly for it AND if the UN explicitely sanctioned it as a UN activity. Even then, Sparkies, I, personally, would not support traditional military action unless Canada was attacked and in dire danger.
So here's the deal, Sparkies, I have a commitment of nonviolence and a culture of peace. I know it's crazy but that's me. So as Afghanistan did not attack Canada then I don't think we should attack Afghanistan. Ergo, no troops.
Now, I know you types who love guns and killing and stuff are always just itchin to invade or bomb some place or another in all parts of the world. The justifications are legend. I'm sure Afghanistan isn't the first place you all have been clambouring to commit military action. There is no changing your kind.
This is a blog of peace. The concept, I know, is difficult for you to understand.
Most of you have your own blogs where you can satisfy your urgings for military actions, and discuss your tactics of too and fro. I suggest you slake your urges there.
Putting "crazy religious fundamentalists" in quotation marks doesn't make the Taliban sane, secularist democrats.
ReplyDeleteSaying that the people who are attacking the UN forces in Afghanistan are just regular Afghanis trying to remove "foreign occupiers" only holds water if you believe the Taliban are regular everyday citizens nobly fighting an "occupation" and that they have every right to attack UN troops asked to support the democratically elected government of Afghanistan, by both the democratically elected government of Afghanistan and the United Nations.
The thugs who took power through military force in Afghanistan in 1996 were NEVER the legitimate government of Afghanistan. There's a reason only Pakistan EVER recognized the Taliban government as legitimate. The legitimate government of Afghanistan is the one that was overwhelmingly elected by the PEOPLE of Afghanistan, in free and fair elections monitored by the UN (with STAGGERINGLY higher voter turnout than any Canadian election) and the Taliban and al Qaeda are free to call our presence an "occupation" all they like (and you are free to repeat the falsehood ad nasuseum), it doesn't hold water so long as the government of Afghanistan insists that we stay, and help them keep the thugs who ruled their country through military dictatorship from re-conquering the country. We're "occupiers" in the eyes of the thugs and terrorists who used to control that country through violence and repression. And frankly, I don't care what they think of us. I care what the democratically elected government of Afghanistan thinks of us. I care what the United Nations thinks of us.
That being said, I do agree that a pascifist, isolationist, "it's their country, and if they can't keep it free from military dictatorship without us that's not our problem" is a legitimate position. In fact, I believe it's Pat Buchanan's position. I just think it's a position that dooms a large portion of the world's population, who weren't lucky enough to be born in a rich democracy, to lives of servitude, violence and repression. Personally, I think there are times when we need to say, "You know what, I know they live far away, and they are different from us, but no one deserves to be oppressed and brutalized the way those people are being oppressed and brutalized". Even still, that point aside, once we committed to freeing these people from the Taliban's dictatorship, it seems to me to be the height of dishonour to say "Oops, sorry, didn't really mean it!" It seems to me to be intolerably cruel to allow the people of Afghanistan a few short years of freedom and democratic government, only to say "You know what, the Taliban REALLY wants to control you people again, and return you all to strict Sharia law, with the stonings and beheadings, and we're really tired of fighting them, so, good luck with that! Call us if you ever manage to force them out yourselves, but until then you'll just have to do what they say. Or, be stoned. Really, not our problem."
I'm not big on war. I think Iraq is a travesty. I certainly don't "love guns and killing and stuff". But if the price of nonviolence and the "culture of peace" is that I get to sit comfortably in my home in Toronto, and the people of Afghanistan get to lose their democratically elected government and go back to the cruel dictatorship of the Taliban, then for me that price is too high.
Your rationalizations are hypocritical, specious, and arbitrary. You can't possibly be in education, the sciences, the arts.
ReplyDeleteWell, actually, I'm a university librarian and all my degrees are all in English Lit. (well, except my Library degree, which is obviously a Master of Library and Information Studies degree) but that's neither here nor there as you have clearly pigeon-holed me as an imperialist warmonger, and will no doubt ignore anything put forward by "my kind" (or the UN, or the democratically elected government of Afghanistan, or I suspect anyone who isn't either Ghandi or Mullah Omar).
ReplyDeleteBut I know when I'm beat.
My arguments are hypocritical, specious and arbitrary, a priori.
Resistance is futile.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
Hello, hello, again, again, why must I keep repeating myself ... our national interests end at the border!
ReplyDeleteThe definition: Imperialism is defined as "a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires".
redjenny seems to agree: the War in Iraq -- What is there to say? Imperialism by any other name is still... Imperialism.
Those who love guns and killing and stuff (there's that echo again) just don't get it.