Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Debunking Bush Administration Bull About Afghanistan

By Katherine Spillar, Ms. Magazine. Posted March 28, 2007.


Human rights advocate Sima Samar gives a from-the-field perspective on the daily lives of men and women in Afghanistan since 2001.
Advertisement

Dr. Sima Samar is a hero to Afghan women. Today, she heads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, and her longtime advocacy for human and women's rights continues to upset fundamentalists -- while drawing admiration from feminists worldwide. During a recent visit to the U.S., Samar sat down with Ms. executive editor Katherine Spillar to discuss the current state of affairs in Afghanistan.

Eds. Note: The full transcript of this interview is available in the Winter 2007 issue of Ms. Magazine.

Katherine Spillar: The Bush administration maintains that Afghanistan is a success and claims democracy and human rights have replaced terror. But what is the real situation?

Sima Samar: While there have been some positive steps in Afghanistan, there is still a long road ahead. We did adopt a new Afghan Constitution, and it includes an equal-rights provision for women and guarantees women's representation in the Afghan parliament.

The first presidential and parliamentary elections in three decades also were held, with fairly good participation by women, and women were elected to 25 percent of the seats in parliament. However, the elections were flawed. In some districts, only a few women were seen voting. In the parliamentary elections, many human-rights violators and warlords stood for election, and many won seats despite constitutional and regulatory requirements that should have disqualified them.

But the gains that we have made are in jeopardy. Over the last year there has been a significant increase in violence and terrorist attacks. Suicide bombers, who were never present in Afghanistan before, are now killing innocent people throughout the country, even in the streets of Kabul. These tactics of intimidation and outright violence prevent the social, economic and political participation of many Afghans, particularly women....

KS: There was so much hope and optimism in the beginning. What has gone wrong?

SS: People see very little change in their daily lives. They lack food, shelter and work, and this situation has changed little since 2001.

The judiciary also has been filled with corrupt and unqualified judges. People see there is no rule of law, and do not believe there is justice. Human rights problems in Afghanistan remain great: arbitrary arrest, torture, inhuman conditions of detention and the absence of due process.

Not enough Afghan soldiers and police have been trained and they are not paid enough in wages, so they can easily be bribed. Meanwhile, commanders with private armies still rule large sections of the country, even though the militias have been outlawed. The U.S. military entered into agreements with many of these militias, allowing them to remain intact. The commanders protect drug smugglers and extract bribes and illegal "taxes" from people. There are kidnappings and assassinations.

KS: So the U.S. decision to accommodate these regional warlords has contributed to the violence and lack of stability?

SS: Yes, these warlords used their connections to the Americans to commit human-rights violations. There was no monitoring and evaluation of their acts and behavior.

KS: What about progress for women and girls in regaining their rights?

SS: Although things are better today for women and girls than under the Taliban regime, violations of women's rights are still widespread, including forced marriage, child marriage, restrictions on movement, job discrimination and child abduction and trafficking. Domestic violence is very common in Afghanistan.

The women in Afghanistan have little access to law enforcement or the judiciary. Even if women reach the police or judiciary, they are treated as criminals, not as victims. The women who run away from abusive family male members end up in jail or are killed by a family member. The family is then immune from prosecution for this "honor" killing. In order to escape these situations, women try to commit suicide and burn themselves.

Even though women had victories in the parliamentary elections, today there are no women among the advisors to the president and there is now only one woman in the Cabinet (down from three before the parliamentary elections). If women are not part of decision-making, decisions will be made by men who do not understand women's problems, and those men will never address these problems.

KS: What can U.S. feminist groups do?

SS: If not for the intense pressure from women's-rights groups around the world when we were exposing the abuses of the Taliban, when we were developing the Bonn Agreement for a transitional Afghan government, and when we were debating our new Constitution, women would have been entirely omitted. We need solidarity to free women -- solidarity with women everywhere Women must support each other; we are our own class.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: human rights, afghanistan, sima samar

Katherine Spillar is the executive editor of Ms. Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Expose the 9/11 lies, end the 9/11 wars
Posted by: LeftWright on Mar 28, 2007 3:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Afghanistan has known nothing but war and destruction for almost 30 years, all due to the meddling of the U.S.

If you want to help the people of Afghanistan work to expose 9/11 Truth and end the phony global war on terror that is the rationale for these illegal invasions and immoral occupations.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I have a multi-track mind Posted by: LeftWright
» WTC 7 - brunowe - WTC 7 Posted by: LeftWright
Lies, Lies and more lies
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 28, 2007 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republicans who still believe President Bush walks on water should review the following list of White House transgressions, deceptions and outright lies:

George W.'s bogus biography reported by the Boston Globe on 02/28/04 that I found on the Internet.
So-called Iraqi WMDs.
"Immediate" threats.
Yellow-cake uranium.
Aluminum tubes.
Mobile biological weapons labs.
Ties to Al Qaeda.
A 9/11 connection.
The Valerie Plame/CIA leak case.
Secret overseas prisons.
Torture.
Warrantless wiretaps of United States citizens.
Phony Al Qaeda plots.
False claims that the America is safer now from terrorism than before 9/11.
Concealing the real cost of Gulf War 2.
Understating Iraqi civilian casualties.
Embellishing U.S. successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Misrepresenting the only wartime tax cut in American history.
Economically betraying senior citizens, the middle class and working poor.
Downplaying global warming.
Bush going on vacation during Hurricane Katrina while his fellow Americans drowned in New Orleans.
Claiming wounded GIs got the best treatment possible at Walter Reed.
Preventing the coffins of returning troops from being seen by the public.
Hiding injured Iraq veterans from the press after landing stateside.
Declassifying intelligence information for political purposes.
Firing U.S. attorneys for the same reason.

Considering a record like that, reasonable people with open minds can only conclude that whatever the Bush White House says, they should believe the opposite.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moles In The White House? Pt 1
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 28, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it possible to imagine an administration that could do more harm to America's ideals and America's national interests than the current incumbents?

At every stage, in every way, they have managed to demolish what the world believed America stood for and have shamelessly violated their own promises in doing so.

Take Pakistan, for instance, and what it says about US support for regimes which back terrorists, proliferate nuclear technology and trample on democracy. The LA Times editorial today gets it:

President Bush...argues that radical Islam showed that where freedom and opportunity were squelched — as in much of the Middle East — extremism would flourish. "We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people," Bush declared in his second inaugural address. "America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed."

Yet Bush is failing to live up to his own standard, acting instead very much under Cold War rules...President Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a coup more than seven years ago, continues to squelch his democratic domestic opposition and appears determined to engineer his reelection as president while retaining his post as army chief, in violation of the constitution. Yet so long as he mouths anti-terrorism bromides, Washington seems loath to mention his anti-democratic behavior — even as it shells out billions in aid to Pakistan each year. This flawed notion that there is no alternative to the friendly dictator, even when he is behaving like, well, a dictator, is the same logic that led the U.S. to cozy up to such anti-communist leaders as Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua and the shah of Iran .

The Bush administration's unwillingness to distance itself from Musharraf, or to at least express disapproval of his behavior, is shortsighted in the extreme. To sacrifice U.S. values to fight terrorism is to lose the broader struggle.
At home too, the Bush years have been characterized by a totalitarian push that is more reminiscent of Soviet Russia than anything Americans would recognise as being the "heart and soul" of their national experiment in freedom. Today, Glenn Greenwald has yet another example of the Gulag Mentality:

The documents disclosed by the DOJ shed very interesting light not only on the process by which the U.S. attorneys were fired, but also on the related conduct of federal law enforcement agencies. One of the claims made by the DOJ as to why it fired Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton is that Charlton wanted to institute a policy of requiring law enforcement agents to tape record or videotape interrogations and confessions of criminal suspects -- a request which the DOJ refused and, shortly thereafter, fired him.

...the Justice Department denied Charlton's request, concluding that it did not want mandatory recording of interrogations and confessions. The DOJ solicited the views of all federal law enforcement agencies -- the FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshall's Service -- and each of them vigorously opposed mandatory recording. In doing so, one of the principal arguments was that they wanted to conceal from jurors the conduct of law enforcement agents in interrogating defendants and obtaining confessions, because that conduct would appear coercive and improper to jurors.
And we're all familiar by now with the underbelly of corruption which has led to so many cases of coverups and obsessive secrecy. Far from being a transparent and free experiment in democracy, the Bush administration has turned American government into KrelminWatch D.C.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moles In The White House? Pt 2
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 28, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then there's Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Nicholas Kristoff writes for the New York Times today that if Dick Cheney were an Iranian mole, the Bush administration could hardly have done a better job than their incompetence has managed at making Iran the regional victor of American misadventures. It's Times Select material, but luckily Ron at Middle Earth Journal has the meat of Kristoff's article. Kristoff concludes:

Mr. Cheney isn’t an Iranian mole. Nor is he a North Korean mole, though his we-don’t-negotiate-with-evil policy toward North Korea has resulted in that country’s quadrupling its nuclear arsenal. It’s also unlikely that he is an Al Qaeda mole, even though Al Qaeda now has an important new base of support in Iraq.

...Our national interests are as vulnerable to incompetence as to malicious damage. So we must identify and abandon the policies that backfired so catastrophically. The common threads of those damaging policies are clear: a refusal to negotiate with “evil”; an aggressive willingness to use military force to solve problems; contempt for our allies; and the bending of legal and moral principles to allow indefinite detention and even torture, particularly for anyone with olive skin and a Muslim name.

Whenever we’ve suspected a mole in our midst, we’ve gone to extreme lengths to find the traitor. This time, betrayed not by a mole but by failed policies, let’s be just as resolute. It’s time to uproot policies that in the last half-dozen years have damaged American interests incomparably more than any mole or foreign spy ever has in the last 200 years.
I believe Kristoff is correct in this. But in idle moments I remember that all of the prominent original leaders of the neoconservative movement were originally communist Trotskyites - a fact they've been at pains to cover up. Disillusioned by the Soviet failure to bring about a Trotskyite victory and hegemony over the world, they jumped from the extreme Left to the extreme Right, where their Soviet thinking and habits of totalitarian thinking found a fertile ground...and thus to the Bush White House and the current situation.

So yes, there's little doubt that Cheney at al are just out to line their own pockets and those of their cronies, and in so doing have had a short-sighted incompetence in preserving the national interest. The asset-strippers don't care about the people who work for USA Inc.

But maybe, just maybe, there are some old-style Soviet moles among the neoconservative Wormtongues whispering in White House ears - still pursuing their mission of destabilizing and wrecking America long after their spymasters in the Kremlin have passed on. If so, they must be laughing up their sleeves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This makes me mad
Posted by: xconservative on Mar 29, 2007 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is just another example of catastrophic bungling by neocon imperialists playing power games with people's lives. There may actually have been an opportunity to help build a successful, peaceable new regime in Afghanistan. But as soon as the Taliban was toppled from power Bush and his playmates got sidetracked into their Iraqi adventure. The result? Two wars, two bleeding nations, two civilian populations trying to exist without basic necessities, two countries with bleak futures staring at them.

And in two years that fool in the White House will just shrug his shoulders, walk away and retire comfortably to his Texas ranch, thinking he did the world a favor and if it doesn't turn out right, it was everybody else's fault.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]