December, 01 2009, 03:13pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Diana Duarte, Media Coordinator,Phone: +1 212 627 0444,Email:,media@madre.org
Six Alternatives to a Troop Surge in Afghanistan
NEW YORK
Tonight, President Obama will tell us that he must
expand the war on Afghanistan in order to end it. He will say that
another troop surge is necessary to prevent al-Qaeda from using
Afghanistan as a base. What he won't say is that al-Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan. He probably won't point out that international forces already outnumber the Taliban twelve to one.
And he's not likely to remind us that throughout history, from the
American Revolution to the Vietnam War, home-grown insurgencies like
the Taliban's ultimately ended when foreign troops withdrew.
More than 80 percent of Afghans don't want more US troops in their country.
One reason is that the US presence is strengthening the Taliban, which
most Afghans oppose. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
has found, "The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in
Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban."
Afghanistan's crisis is in part the result of 30 years of US intervention in the region, including the covert CIA campaign that created the Taliban (and al-Qaeda).
Having unleashed this violence, the US has a legal and ethical
obligation to the people of Afghanistan. That obligation will not be
met by putting more boots on the ground. Instead, we need policies that
address the grinding poverty, mass violence against women, predatory
government and ongoing warfare that plague Afghanistan.
Here are six things the Obama Administration must do to further the prospects for peace in Afghanistan:
1. Protect civilians from attacks
- This will be the third US troop surge in Afghanistan; the first two killed record numbers of civilians.
- In
2007, US/NATO troops were expanded by 45 percent and more civilians
were killed than in the previous four years combined. In the first 10
months of Obama's 2009 surge, more than 2000 civilians were killed-at a faster rate than any time since the war began. - The Taliban is known to attack villages where US soldiers have been. More US troops will make more civilians vulnerable to reprisal attacks.
- President Obama's expansion of the war into Pakistan has further endangered civilian lives. He has authorized as many drone strikes in less than ten months as George Bush did in his last three years in office.
The US should stop constructing military bases and waging air
strikes in or near civilian areas. President Obama must put a stop to
drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2. Uphold Afghan women's rights
- George Bush's lie-that the US is in Afghanistan to defend
women's rights-is now driving the idea that more US forces are needed
to protect Afghan women from the Taliban. - The problem with this argument is that the US has never prioritized women's rights-or anyone's rights-in Afghanistan.
- From
2001 to the present, the US has allied itself with warlords and
fanatical fundamentalists whose track record on women's rights is
virtually the same as the Taliban's. In the creation of Afghanistan's
Parliament, constitution and judiciary, the US has consistently traded women's rights for allegiance from warlords and reactionary clerics. - The
choice in Afghanistan is not between "winning the war" or "abandoning
Afghan women." Upholding women's rights in Afghanistan is not some
idealistic mission: the US is legally obligated to protect
internationally recognized human rights, including women's rights, in
every policy, foreign and domestic. Military force is about the least
suited instrument for securing human rights in any context. - Rampant abuses of Afghan women's rights cannot be eliminated by force.
Ultimately, an end to the armed conflict is a precondition for Afghan
women to create an environment in which they themselves can
successfully assert their rights.
The US should declare women's rights-and all human
rights-non-negotiable and end the US pattern of trading Afghan women's
rights for cooperation from warlords and armed groups.
US economic and political support to Afghanistan should be tied
to human rights improvements, including women's rights to healthcare,
education, employment, political participation and freedom from
violence.
3. Prioritize development and meet humanitarian needs
- Proponents of a troop surge argue that development cannot
be pursued without security; but the inverse is equally true. In a
country with the world's highest infant mortality rate, there can be no security without development. - The US is undermining development by militarizing humanitarian aid. The army's "Provincial Reconstruction Teams" blur the line between combat operations and aid delivery.
They use humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip to extort information
from civilians. The practice turns urgently-needed aid into a weapon of
war and endangers recipients by associating them with the US military.
The US should demilitarize aid operations and fund
community-based, Afghan-led reconstruction efforts to enable access to
food, clean water, health care and primary education. Aid should be
channeled through Afghan organizations to ensure that funds reach those
most in need instead of reverting back to private US-based contractors.
4. Address the underlying reasons for the resurgence of the Taliban
- Grinding poverty and a 40 percent unemployment rate are root causes of the insurgency. Most Taliban recruits join because they are paid a daily wage.
- The
Taliban is also strengthened by popular outrage and fear of US attacks,
the illegitimacy of the Karzai government and the support of Pakistan. - These
problems will not be solved with more troops. They are social and
political problems that must be addressed with development and
diplomacy.
The US should allocate funding for job training and creation
programs for Afghans. Currently, only 10 percent of US funding in
Afghanistan is earmarked for development; the rest is for military
purposes. Allocating more funds to combating poverty in Afghanistan
will weaken the Taliban without endangering civilians and help build
long-term security.
5. Support Afghan civil society
- Civil society, including the Afghan women's movement, is
the country's most moderating force and a vital resource for rebuilding
Afghanistan, advancing human rights and fostering peace in the region. - The
political spaces where civil society can flourish-including a free
press, progressive civic institutions, non-governmental organizations,
and schools and universities-are debilitated by an atmosphere of war
and militarism.
The US should hold consultations with Afghan civil society,
particularly women's organizations, to determine policies that can
support civil society as a critical counter-force to warlords, armed
groups and corrupt officials.
6. Advance diplomacy and peace building
- Ultimately, this war, like other armed conflicts, will end
through negotiations. Yet, compared to the resources poured into the
fighting, the US has barely begun to lay the groundwork for peace talks. - Negotiations
need to include local processes of reconciliation and peace building
and address key grievances of the Taliban without legitimizing their
cause. - A regional process should include Afghanistan's
neighbors and address disputes between India and Pakistan, which are
fueling violence in Afghanistan.
The US should support and facilitate diplomacy and peace
building while recognizing that ultimately, decisions about what
happens in Afghanistan must be made in Afghanistan and not in
Washington.
This resource is also available on MADRE's website: https://www.madre.org/index.php?s=4&news=247
MADRE is an international women's human rights organization that partners with community-based women's groups to advance women's human rights, challenge injustice and create social change in contexts of war, conflict, disaster and their aftermath. MADRE advocates for a world in which all people enjoy individual and collective human rights; natural resources are shared equitably and sustainably; women participate effectively in all aspects of society; and all people have a meaningful say in policies that affect their lives. For more information about MADRE, visit www.madre.org.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular