Author: Scott Neigh

Afghans mark Independence Day with anti-occupation protests
by Derrick O’Keefe, from Rabble, August 19, 2010. (Link via P.C.)

Today marks 91 years since Afghanistan gained its freedom from the British Empire, following three bloody wars of independence. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued a video statement to mark the occasion. It’s worth watching or reading the text in full, if only to appreciate the new Empire’s irony-laden platitudes.

This August 19th, on behalf of President Obama and the American people, I want to congratulate the people of Afghanistan on 91 years of independence.

This is an occasion to celebrate the freedom your nation achieved more than nine decades ago — a proud moment in your long and rich history. It is also a chance to look to the future — a future that people across Afghanistan are working hard to build, in partnership with citizens from many nations, joined together in a shared vision of a secure, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan.

I had the honor of visiting Afghanistan last month — the fifth visit I’ve made in my lifetime and my second as Secretary of State. And every time I return, I’m reminded of the warmth of the Afghan people and the resilience that you show in the face of great challenges. I have seen for myself the progress that you’ve been making and that we’ve been honored to support you in doing — one street at a time, one community at a time — promoting peace and planting the seeds for long-term progress.

The people of the United States share a stake in your future. So we are proud to join you today in celebrating your past. But more importantly, as we extend to you our best wishes for a happy and safe Independence Day, to send you our strong support, our partnership and our friendship for all of the years ahead. Thank you very much.

Of course for almost nine years now the U.S.-led occupation has denied freedom and independence to the people of Afghanistan. Whatever sheen of consent and legitimacy the U.S./NATO project once had is now long gone. Wikileaks has just confirmed for the rest of us some of the reality that Afghans have been facing: year after year of increases in troops and overall violence, and a Special Forces war running rampant on both sides of the Af-Pak border.

I reached Malalai Joya somewhere in Kabul yesterday over a crackling phone line. She informed me that Afghans would be marking their August 19 independence day by protesting against the NATO occupation. She explained that for security reasons she would be personally unable to attend, but that she knew of supporters planning to take part in anti-occupation protests in Jalalabad. As the New York Times reports, residents there have already been taking the streets in response to the type of brutality that puts the lie to Clinton’s goodwill message. The conflicting casuality reports are now very familiar to anyone remotely paying attention to media coverage of the war:

The disputed raid occurred early Wednesday in the Surkh Rod district of Nangarhar Province, about nine miles from Jalalabad, the largest city in eastern Afghanistan. It was at least the third raid in the district in four months, and in each, the military’s account and that of local people have been sharply at odds, with local residents insisting that those killed were civilians and the military asserting that there were Taliban present.

Hundreds of suburban residents of Jalalabad blocked its main east-west highway on Wednesday to protest the killings.

Local residents said that the two men killed were both civilians, while a NATO military spokesman said that they had been shot by American troops only after opening fire themselves…

Meanwhile, on the homefront the propaganda war continues. TIME magazine’s cover story about Afghan women earlier this summer has been widely discussed and debated. Long-time correspondent Ann Jones and others have called into question the veracity of the narrative, while a number of organizations explained the real political and historical context of Afghan women and the war.

One noteworthy statement, which I was happy to sign, was issued by the South Asia Solidarity Initiative (SASI). I hope this statement makes the rounds of the networks that make up the mostly-dormant U.S. anti-war movement. It’s well past time to shake off the slumber induced by Obama and seriously mobilize for an end to this war. That would be the least we could do for Afghans, who continue to show resilience “in the face of so many challenges” by fighting for a true and lasting independence from foregin domination.

‘What Happens if We Stay in Afghanistan’: A Response to TIME Magazine

The August 9, 2010 issue of TIME magazine featured a striking cover photograph of an 18-year-old Afghan woman, Aisha, who was disfigured by the Taliban last year. The cover title read, “What happens if we leave Afghanistan.” While Aisha’s story and the stories of many other women like her may depict some part of the reality of women’s lives under the Taliban, TIME’s conclusion that continuing the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is necessary, is highly misleading and troubling.

Afghan women, like women around the world, have lived under very oppressive conditions for decades. Many women remain indoors, without education or health care, or economic security, have early marriages, and are unprotected from domestic violence. Today, after a decade of the U.S.-led occupation, the lives of Afghan women have become worse, not better: in addition to facing continued oppression under the Taliban and the equally oppressive Northern Alliance, they also live in a war zone.

TIME’s statement echoes and resurrects the same justification for the war given during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan: if U.S. forces withdraw from Afghanistan, any rights gained for Afghan women will be reversed by fundamentalist forces. However, this false logic grossly ignores the history of the U.S. imperialist relationship and presence in the region and its effect on women’s rights. During the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, the U.S. armed the anti-Soviet Mujahideen forces, who were at one point led by Osama Bin Laden. In subsequent years the Taliban rose to power, with the United States as its ally. In 2001, when the Bush administration sought to topple the Taliban regime, the United States armed and enlisted the help of the Northern Alliance, a coalition of warlords with its own track record of human rights abuses. Indeed, the United States has consistently chosen the side of fundamentalist allies at the expense of Afghan women, and has always sought its own gains in the region.

In its nine long years, the U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan has done nothing to improve the conditions for people in Afghanistan, especially for women. As the classified documents recently leaked by WikiLeaks.org corroborate, the coalition forces have been killing hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, the 2009 civilian death toll, close to 2,412 civilian deaths, was the highest of any year since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, and an increase of 24% from 2008. There has been a general increase in violence and civilian deaths because of occupation. A Human Rights Watch Press Alert in 2005 stated that up to 60% of law makers in the lower house of Afghanistan’s newly elected parliament are directly or indirectly connected to human rights abuses. By 2009, the U.N. human development index ranked Afghanistan 181 out of 182 countries. The maternal mortality rate in Afghanistan reveals the highest ever documented. Over the past decade, the immensely corrupt, U.S.-backed Afghan regime led by Hamid Karzai has passed and maintained numerous misogynist laws, including the one that put Aisha in jail after she fled from her in-laws.

For the last decade, the occupying forces of the U.S. and its NATO allies have nourished warlords and supported a corrupt government, leading many to join the Taliban and increasing their influence across Afghanistan. Increased civilian deaths, a fundamentalist resurgence, and deadly bombing raids have led to a devastated country and a Taliban stronger than ever before. TIME’s claim to “illuminate what is actually happening on the ground” falsely equates the last decade of occupation with progress. The occupation has not and will not bring democracy to Afghanistan, nor will it bring liberation to Afghan women. Instead, it has exacerbated deep-seated corruption in the government, the widespread abuse of women’s rights and human rights by fundamentalists, including Karzai’s allies, and stymied critical infrastructure development in the country. The question should not be “what happens if we leave Afghanistan,” the question should be “what happened when we invaded Afghanistan” and “what happens if we stay in Afghanistan.”

The Afghan people are capable of creating their own democratic future. Progressive groups and democratic parties in Afghanistan are fighting to reconstruct the peace and safety of their country, and more often than not, are forced underground for fear of their safety. Despite the repression from the U.S.-backed Karzai government, thousands of brave students and women have come out on to the streets of Kabul to protest the bombings and the continued war. It is from these forces that a larger progressive movement will emerge that could play a role in bringing real democracy to Afghanistan. If the United States continues the occupation, the space for progressive forces becomes increasingly limited.

We must know and remember, that liberation never comes from occupation. We must know and remember, that there will always be resistance to occupation. Occupations, no matter where they take place, from Iraq to Palestine to Turtle Island, are unjust. The American people must come out in support and solidarity with the resilient peoples of Afghanistan and elsewhere who are fighting for their own liberation, and must call for the end of all U.S. wars and occupations.

Initial Signatories:

South Asia Solidarity Initiative
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Derrick O’Keefe co-writer of the autobiography Malalai Joya — A Woman Among Warlords
Veterans For Peace
Courage to Resist
Anjali Kamat, Producer, Democracy Now!
Robert Jensen, University of Texas, Austin, TX
The South Asia Solidarity Initiative (SASI) is an organization based the United States that is in solidarity with progressive social movements and democratic politics in South Asia. We believe in the shared history and common struggles of South Asia and break from the confines of nation-states to carry forward an alternative vision for South Asia and its peoples.

Why we should welcome boatful of Tamil refugees into Canadaby Harsha Walia, from Vancouver Sun, August 14, 2010. From the Komagata Maru carrying 376 Punjabi passengers and the SS St. Louis travelling with 900 Jewish asylum seekers, to the boats with 600 people from China’s Fujian province and the Ocean

Why we should welcome boatful of Tamil refugees into Canadaby Harsha Walia, from Vancouver Sun, August 14, 2010.From the Komagata Maru carrying 376 Punjabi passengers and the SS St. Louis travelling with 900 Jewish asylum seekers, to the boats with 600…

Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation
by Nick Davies and David Leigh, from The Guardian, July 25, 2010.

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers’ website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and more than 1,000 US troops.

Their publication comes amid mounting concern that Barack Obama’s “surge” strategy is failing and as coalition troops hunt for two US naval personnel captured by the Taliban south of Kabul on Friday.

The war logs also detail:

• How a secret “black” unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for “kill or capture” without trial.

• How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles.

• How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.

• How the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.

In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of “under-resourcing” under Obama’s predecessor, saying: “It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009.”

The White House also criticised the publication of the files by Wikileaks: “We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations, which puts the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact the US government about these documents, which may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our partners, and local populations who co-operate with us.”

The logs detail, in sometimes harrowing vignettes, the toll on civilians exacted by coalition forces: events termed “blue on white” in military jargon. The logs reveal 144 such incidents.

Some of these casualties come from the controversial air strikes that have led to Afghan government protests, but a large number of previously unknown incidents also appear to be the result of troops shooting unarmed drivers or motorcyclists out of a determination to protect themselves from suicide bombers.

At least 195 civilians are admitted to have been killed and 174 wounded in total, but this is likely to be an underestimate as many disputed incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the ground and then collated, sometimes erratically, by military intelligence analysts.

Bloody errors at civilians’ expense, as recorded in the logs, include the day French troops strafed a bus full of children in 2008, wounding eight. A US patrol similarly machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers, and in 2007 Polish troops mortared a village, killing a wedding party including a pregnant woman, in an apparent revenge attack.

Questionable shootings of civilians by UK troops also figure. The US compilers detail an unusual cluster of four British shootings in Kabul in the space of barely a month, in October/November 2007, culminating in the death of the son of an Afghan general. Of one shooting, they wrote: “Investigation controlled by the British. We are not able to get [sic] complete story.”

A second cluster of similar shootings, all involving Royal Marine commandos in Helmand province, took place in a six-month period at the end of 2008, according to the log entries. Asked by the Guardian about these allegations, the Ministry of Defence said: “We have been unable to corroborate these claims in the short time available and it would be inappropriate to speculate on specific cases without further verification of the alleged actions.”

Rachel Reid, who investigates civilian casualty incidents in Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said: “These files bring to light what’s been a consistent trend by US and Nato forces: the concealment of civilian casualties. Despite numerous tactical directives ordering transparent investigations when civilians are killed, there have been incidents I’ve investigated in recent months where this is still not happening.

Accountability is not just something you do when you are caught. It should be part of the way the US and Nato do business in Afghanistan every time they kill or harm civilians.” The reports, many of which the Guardian is publishing in full online, present an unvarnished and often compelling account of the reality of modern war.

Most of the material, though classified “secret” at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. Wikileaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its “uncensorable” servers.

Wikileaks published in April this year a previously suppressed classified video of US Apache helicopters killing two Reuters cameramen on the streets of Baghdad, which gained international attention. A 22-year-old intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, was arrested in Iraq and charged with leaking the video, but not with leaking the latest material. The Pentagon’s criminal investigations department continues to try to trace the leaks and recently unsuccessfully asked Assange, he says, to meet them outside the US to help them. Assange allowed the Guardian to examine the logs at our request. No fee was involved and Wikileaks was not involved in the preparation of the Guardian’s articles.

Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupationby Nick Davies and David Leigh, from The Guardian, July 25, 2010. A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of

Check out this great video of testimony by a U.S. veteran of the occupation of Iraq, talking about the evils of the occupation, and its connection to class oppression and racism. Everything he says applies equally to the Canadian role in the occupation…

Check out this great video of testimony by a U.S. veteran of the occupation of Iraq, talking about the evils of the occupation, and its connection to class oppression and racism. Everything he says applies equally to the Canadian role in the occupation of Afghanistan. Found via Ms. Marx.

The Haudenosaunee ‘right of return’by Steven Newcomb, from Indian Country Today, July 12, 2010. (Link found via RDO.) For some 30 years, the Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse), often known as the Six Nations Confederation, have been accustomed to traveling internationally from and back to North America on Haudenosaunee passports.

The Haudenosaunee ‘right of return’
by Steven Newcomb, from Indian Country Today, July 12, 2010. (Link found via RDO.)

For some 30 years, the Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse), often known as the Six Nations Confederation, have been accustomed to traveling internationally from and back to North America on Haudenosaunee passports. Now, however, the United States government has evidently taken issue with the Haudenosaunee passports.

As a result, the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team has been delayed from its scheduled July 11 departure from New York to Manchester, England for the 14-day 2010 World Lacrosse Championships.

The United Kingdom government has refused to grant travel visas to the 23 Haudenosaunee players because the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Homeland Security have refused to guarantee that the United States will allow the Iroquois Nationals players to return to Haudenosaunee territory by re-crossing the international boundary of the United States.

Even under the George W. Bush administration, the United States government did not attempt to stop the Haudenosaunee from traveling internationally on Haudenosaunee passports. Now it appears that the U.S. government may have shifted its position. Under President Barack Obama’s watch, it appears that the United States is not going to honor Haudenosaunee passports despite Obama’s statements during his election campaign in Indian country that he was going to respect the nation-to-nation relationship between the United States and indigenous nations such as the Haudenosaunee.

The United States has treaties with member nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederation and those treaties recognize that a nation-to-nation relationship of peace and friendship exists between the Haudenosaunee and the United States. Furthermore, the Haudenosaunee right to travel to and from their home territory is an ancestral birthright, a fundamental right, and an international human right.

It is conceivable that the United States might try to say that the Haudenosaunee players traveling on their own national passports is an issue of “national security” for the United States. Yet to make this argument in any credible manner, the U.S. government would have to explain how Haudenosaunee lacrosse players pose any sort of threat to the United States by traveling on Haudenosaunee passports. There is no such argument to be made because, quite simply put, international travel by lacrosse players on Haudenosaunee passports poses no national security threat to the United States.

The United States government evidently desires to demonstrate a position of authority, dominance if you will, in relation to the Haudenosaunee. To their credit, the Haudenosaunee chiefs are determined to exercise Haudenosaunee sovereignty by insisting that the Haudenosaunee be able to travel internationally to and from Haudenosaunee territory by crossing and re-crossing the international border of the United States.

A major issue seems to be: Do the Haudenosaunee have a right of return to their traditional homeland and territory after traveling internationally on their Haudenosaunee passports?

There is an even more basic question that needs to be addressed by the people of the United States. Since Sept. 11, 2001, has the United States gradually and steadily moved into a state of fear? Since that fateful day, the government of the United States has failed to heed Benjamin Franklin’s warning. “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

The Haudenosaunee model of liberty served as a powerful and inspirational model for the British colonists who founded the United States of America. The Haudenosaunee Confederation gave the founders of the United States a tutorial on the framework of a democratic republic, and thereby greatly influenced a number of those men who constructed the United States system of government.

In 1987, the United States Congress passed Concurrent Resolution S. 76, formally recognizing the Haudenosaunee contribution to the United States constitutional system. It is ironic, indeed, that the U.S. government – which has been considered by many to be a beacon of liberty in the world – is now moving to restrict the liberty and sovereignty of the very Confederation that inspired many of the founders of the United States.

Are we to understand that the United States government that previously recognized by Senate Resolution the Haudenosaunee contribution to the founding of the U.S. constitutional system, now refuses to recognize Haudenosaunee passports and the right of 23 peaceful Haudenosaunee lacrosse players to return to their home territory?

The Haudenosaunee played a vital role in introducing lacrosse to the world. (For them lacrosse is ceremonial, for they consider it to be “the Creator’s game.”) How ironic, then, that the United States government may prevent the Haudenosaunee players from competing internationally in a world lacrosse championship.

The United States has already made it virtually impossible for the Haudenosaunee lacrosse players to travel in a timely manner and rest up before their competition with England’s lacrosse team on July 15. Immediate phone calls to the White House and U.S. Department of State in support of the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse players are in order.

Steven Newcomb, Shawnee and Lenape, is co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, author of “Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery,” and a columnist for Indian Country Today.

Toronto G20: Remembering Politics, Celebrating Activismby Mitu Sengupta, from MRZine, July 6, 2010. As news of the G20’s Toronto Summit recedes from the headlines, which memories shall prevail? The answer to this question will not only shape official decisions, such as whether allegations of police brutality are seriously investigated, but

Toronto G20: Remembering Politics, Celebrating Activism
by Mitu Sengupta, from MRZine, July 6, 2010.

As news of the G20’s Toronto Summit recedes from the headlines, which memories shall prevail? The answer to this question will not only shape official decisions, such as whether allegations of police brutality are seriously investigated, but may also have a profound impact on the political sensibilities of a generation of Canadians. Given the constant deluge of upsetting imagery and negative reportage, many seem ready to dismiss the masses of people who protested the summit as troublemakers who achieved nothing, and because of the likes of whom, such events should never be held in Toronto again.

A potential shift, and not only among Canadians, is deeper cynicism about the value of activism, an exaggerated view of its dangers, and much greater faith in the strong arm of the state. Such disturbing forms of memorialising are already underway, and must be resisted. In what follows, I try to highlight the significance of what the G20 protesters accomplished, despite the millions of dollars spent on security, a metres-high concrete and metal fence that closed off parts of the city, and a set of special powers that were arbitrarily granted to the police. I also suggest that the perils of marching the streets in protest were greatly overstated.

G20’s Politics Out in the Open . . .

At its Pittsburgh summit in 2009, the G20 announced that it would replace the more elite and First World-centric G8 as the new permanent council for international economic cooperation. The decision, backed by the Obama administration, seemed a landmark in terms of meaningfully enlarging the voice of developing countries on the global stage.

This gain in representation did not, however, translate into a diversification of policy options. The G20’s response to the crisis was narrow and technocratic, invested in prescriptions that had arguably precipitated the crisis in the first place — free capital mobility and an unwavering faith in unfettered markets. Recovery hinged on debt-socialization schemes and stimulus packages that were obviously designed to benefit the financial and corporate sectors rather than small business, workers and marginalized communities. At Pittsburgh it was clear that the same old hat-tricks were being performed beneath a façade of expanded representation, and that the G20 was yet another arena for the celebration of state power, capitalism and nationalism, not of genuinely inclusive people-centred alternatives. This is perhaps sufficient reason to oppose the G20, and indeed, a rallying point for protesters. There is, however, a larger concern.

Forums like the G20 — which pretend to represent voices from the Global South — are particularly treacherous because they depict the sort of neoliberal, corporate-dominated globalization prevalent today as a natural and open process, and one on which there is a broad, global consensus. What it is, of course, is a very deliberate process, driven by political deals worked out behind closed doors (or, as in Toronto’s case, an impenetrable fence). An important challenge, in the face of such obfuscation, is to confront and resist the G20’s efforts to depoliticize and normalize highly political decisions, which are made by a very narrow circle of global powerbrokers.

Given this, the dozens of rallies, marches and demonstrations that marked the ‘Days of Action’ achieved a hugely important objective: they forced the politics of the G20 to the forefront. Despite the differences in their specific agendas, the labour unions, feminists, environmentalists, disability rights advocates, and other activists that came together at the Toronto People’s Summit — held in the weekend prior to the G20 summit — sent a signal to the world that something questionable was afoot at this benign-looking meeting, and that people know and are prepared to demand answers. In fact, one could argue that the generally liberal city of Toronto facilitated the effective articulation of this message and was, in this sense, a far better space to hold the summit than a more routinely securitized site such as Doha or Singapore. If the G20 must exist, along with its dreadful summits, open cities such as Toronto are perhaps the best bets for venue.

Nose-to-Gas Masks: Protesting without Fear

The media’s reports of Toronto’s descent into a ‘war zone’ over the summit weekend were ridiculously inflated. I walked around the city for more than six hours on June 26th (the main day of protest), and saw people milling around, eating ice cream, strumming guitars, and photographing everything in sight, especially smashed-in shop windows. Throngs of Ghana soccer fans hooted past every now and then (Ghana’s victory against the US in the World Cup was the other big news of the day). I came across several barricades of police and RCMP too — decked out in gas masks and riot suits — but even here, there was often a surprising calm. Dressed in T-shirts and sandals, groups of protesters napped, prayed, smoked and chatted at the cops’ feet.

I am not trying to minimize what happened in other parts of the city (several police cruisers were set on fire: the police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets). But given the alarmist tenor of virtually every newsflash and sound-bite, the point that the vast majority of protests were peaceful, even serene, cannot be emphasized strongly enough.

It must also be stressed that everyone who smashed shop windows was not a ‘criminal,’ especially because of what the label implies — that this person’s actions are random, senseless and purely for self-gain, and that we, as citizens and protesters, are possible targets. The protesters who adopted ‘Black Bloc’ tactics were not, of course, devoid of rationality or guiding ideology (though they were clumsily branded ‘anarchist’). While I personally do not subscribe to the argument — which I feel is meant to punish, not change — the breaking of shop windows may be regarded a reasonable response to the violence inflicted by capitalism and authoritarian states. In fact, the former is obscenely dwarfed by the latter.

It is also dwarfed by the well-documented excesses of the police, which have included beatings, taunting, indiscriminate arrests, and detention for hours in cramped and inhumane conditions (hundreds of bloggers and independent journalists poured in with evidence, including a fairly mainstream TV personality, Steve Paikin). These reports suggest that the police were a greater danger to the city during the summit than the small, youthful minority who selected vandalism as a means of protest. This is crucial to remembering that turbulent weekend truthfully. Even more important, however, is to stay focused on the tens of thousands who walked the streets of Toronto freely and without fear, registering their opposition to the states and governments that consistently place profits before people and, when in trouble, hide behind fences and convenient political rhetoric.