 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Afghanistan,
Six Years On Six years later, despite the mounting carnage, Afghanistan remains the establishment’s “good war” [1], which even The Independent cannot bring itself to oppose [2]. Here is some of the reality behind the spin. 1. War was not the only option in 2001. The US and Britain chose to invade Afghanistan in spite of Taliban offers to extradite bin Laden [3], and dire warnings from the international aid agencies regarding the likely humanitarian impact. Over 2,000 civilians were killed directly by US/UK forces during the invasion itself [4]. Indirect deaths - as the bombing disrupted vital aid supplies and forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes – were later estimated at between 10,000 - 20,000 [5]. 2. Following the 2001 invasion, militias with horrific human rights records were 'brought to power with the assistance of the United States' (Human Rights Watch), and the political process was manipulated by the US in order to install a weak leader (Hamid Karzai), who was dependent upon foreign backing and the appeasement of these warlords [6]. In the 2004 Presidential elections voters in many rural areas were told by warlords and regional commanders how to vote [7], while during the campaign period for the September 2005 parliamentary elections, Human Rights Watch ‘documented pervasive intimidation of voters and candidates, in particular women’ [8]. Over half of the members of the Afghan parliament are linked to armed groups or have records of past human rights abuses [9]. 3. Six years after the war to “liberate” them ‘[v]iolence against [Afghan] women remains endemic, with few avenues for redress’ (Human Rights Watch, World Report 2007). A 2003 report by Amnesty Intenational even noted that, ‘In some parts of Afghanistan, women have stated that the insecurity and the risk of sexual violence they face make their lives worse than during the Taliban era’ [10]. Last year, Malalai Joya, a female MP, was physically attacked in parliament and threatened with death for criticising other members, notorious for their past and current human rights abuses [11]. 4. Since 2001, torture and ill-treatment of detainees in US custody in Afghanistan is alleged to have included: sleep deprivation, stripping and forced nudity, stress positions, electric shocks, immersion in water, and cigarette burns [12]. Moreover, unlike their counterparts at Guantanamo those held at Bagram airbase have no access to lawyers and no right to hear the allegations against them [13]. 5. US/NATO bombing has killed hundreds – maybe thousands – of civilians since the start of 2006. According to the UN mission in Afghanistan, more Afghan civilians died at the hands of US/NATO forces in the first six months of this year than were killed by the Taliban [14]. Based on their own field research, the respected international policy think tank the Senlis Council, estimates that as many as 2-3,000 Afghan civilians may have been killed by US/NATO air strikes in southern Afghanistan last year [15]. 6. British forces have called in hundreds of airstrikes in recent months, killing dozens of civilians [16]. One such attack, this June, killed 25 civilians, including nine women and three young children [17]. The use of air power, and the human carnage it causes, is central to the occupation. As one NATO official explained: “[W]ithout air, we’d need hundreds of thousands of troops” [18]. 7. British forces have fired more than 2 million rounds in Afghanistan since the beginning of 2006 [19]. In late 2006 UK helicopter commanders in Afghanistan requested the acquisition of thermobaric warheads to improve the ‘effectiveness’ of their Hellfire missiles [20], and British soldiers are being supplied with a shoulder-launched “enhanced blast weapon” based on thermobaric technology. When used in confined spaces like buildings and caves, thermobaric weapons create a pressure wave which rips apart the internal organs of anyone caught inside. 8. US/NATO policies have caused a humanitarian crisis in southern Afghanistan. Last December the Senlis Council reported that ‘famine’ was widespread in southern Afghanistan, ‘directly triggered by the international community‘s policies in the region’ – in particular, ‘the devastation of Afghan villagers’ livelihoods by intense bombing campaigns and … poppy eradication’ [21]. 9. Aerial spraying of Afghanistan’s opium poppies – a policy that “could cause famine” – is likely to begin next year. According to the FT, the new US ambassador to Kabul - who oversaw US-backed coca-eradication programmes in Colombia – ‘is understood to have told the Europeans spraying will begin next year’ [22]. The humanitarian impact of spraying - as people’s livelihoods are destroyed - could be horrific: in February 2006, the then- Minister for the Middle East, Kim Howells, admitted that “aerial spraying could cause famine” [23]. In Colombia, blood analyses indicate that those living near the frontier of spraying suffer chromosomal damage, and are at greater risk of developing cancer, mutations and congenital malformations’ [24]. 10. British hopes of brokering a series of ‘peace deals’ across Helmand province in southern Afghanistan – deals that would have permitted large-scale withdrawal of British troops - were sabotaged by the US earlier this year. In February a potentially precedent-setting deal in the town of Musa Qala, collapsed following the appointment - under intense US pressure - of a new governor who disowned the accord, and a US airstrike which killed the brother and 20 followers of a key local Taliban leader [25]. 11. In May the upper house of the Afghan Parliament passed a motion, calling for a military cease-fire, negotiations with the Taliban, and a date to be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops [26]. According to the secretary of the upper house, Aminuddin Muzafari, the motion reflected lawmakers’ belief that negotiations would be more effective than fighting. 12. A majority of the British public wants all British troops withdrawn from Afghanistan. In a March poll, 53% of the British public said that all British troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan 'more or less immediately' [27]. In an August poll, 65% said that all British troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan ‘immediately’ (28%) or ‘within the next year or so’ (37%) [28]. 13. There are currently more British troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq, and the number in Afghanistan is likely to increase still further. According to Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup ‘the current force of almost 7,700 troops is likely to expand as British influence spreads across Helmand’ (Daily Telegraph, 27 July). ENDNOTES |
| 5 Caledonian Road, King's Cross, London N1 9DX telephone : 0845 458 2564 voicesuk@fastmail.fm |
