[Peace-discuss] Gareth Porter interview
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Thu Jul 3 14:07:17 CDT 2008
It's unfortunately not uncommon for forces of popular liberation to become
oppressors themselves. In fact, it's difficult to think of an historical
example when that hasn't happened, at least to some extent. To fight against an
unjust invasion does not in itself make one a paragon of virtue.
But being properly critical of the policies and practices of the Taliban in
power (as RAWA was) does not allow one to give an inaccurate description of what
they were and are -- viz., people engaged in wars of local defense and national
liberation.
The Taliban's harsh rule had elicited substantial internal opposition in
Afghanistan by 2001, the brave members of RAWA being a notable example. Founded
in 1977, RAWA non-violently opposed the Soviet-supported regime, the US-backed
Mujahideen, and the Taliban.
Against this sort of opposition, what saved the Taliban, reconstituted it, and
allowed it to become the center of national liberation struggle today? The
answer is the bombing of Afghanistan by the government for which we are
responsible. Although it led to the ostensible defeat of the Taliban
government, it left the Taliban in the position of leading the struggle against
the invader and its allies.
And what is the situation today, six years later? Noam Chomsky discussed it in
February of this year:
A Canadian-run poll found that Afghans are hopeful about the future and ...
only 20% "think the Taliban will prevail once foreign troops leave."
Three-fourths support negotiations between the US-backed Karzai government and
the Taliban, and more than half favor a coalition government. The great majority
therefore strongly disagree with US-Canadian stance, and believe that peace is
possible with a turn towards peaceful means.
Though the question was not asked, it is reasonable to surmise that the foreign
presence is favored for aid and reconstruction. More evidence in support of this
conjecture is provided by reports about the progress of reconstruction in
Afghanistan six years after the US invasion. Six percent of the population now
have electricity, AP reports, primarily in Kabul, which is artificially wealthy
because of the huge foreign presence. There, "the rich, powerful, and well
connected" have electricity, but few others, in contrast to the 1980s under
Russian occupation, when "the city had plentiful power" - and women in Kabul
were relatively free under the occupation and the Russian-backed Najibullah
government that followed, probably more so than now, though they did have to
worry about attacks from Reagan's favorites, like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who got
his kicks from throwing acid in the faces of young women he thought were
improperly dressed.
These matters were discussed at the time by Rasil Basu, UN Development Program
senior advisor to the Afghan government for women's development (1986-88). She
reported "enormous strides" for women under the Russian occupation: "illiteracy
declined from 98% to 75%, and they were granted equal rights with men in civil
law, and in the Constitution... Unjust patriarchal relations still prevailed in
the workplace and in the family with women occupying lower level sex-type jobs.
But the strides [women] took in education and employment were very
impressive....In Kabul I saw great advances in women's education and employment.
Women were in evidence in industry, factories, government offices, professions
and the media. With large numbers of men killed or disabled, women shouldered
the responsibility of both family and country. I met a woman who specialized in
war medicine which dealt with trauma and reconstructive surgery for the
war-wounded. This represented empowerment to her. Another woman was a road
engineer. Roads represented freedom - an escape from the oppressive patriarchal
structures."
By 1988, however, Basu "could see the early warning signs" as Russian troops
departed and the fundamentalist Islamist extremists favored by the Reagan
administration took over, brushing aside the more moderate mujahideen groups.
"Saudi Arabian and American arms and ammunition gave the fundamentalists a vital
edge over the moderates," providing them with military hardware used, "according
to Amnesty International, to target unarmed civilians, most of them women and
children." Then followed much worse horrors as the US-Saudi favorites overthrew
the Najibullah government. The suffering of the population was so extreme that
the Taliban were welcomed when they drove out Reagan's freedom fighters. Another
chapter in the triumph of Reaganite reactionary ultra-nationalism, worshipped
today by those dedicated to defaming the honorable term "conservative."
Basu is a distinguished advocate for women's rights, including a long career
with the UN during which she drafted the World Plan of Action for Women and the
draft Programme for the Women's Decade, 1975-85, adopted at the Mexico City
Conference (1975) and Copenhagen Conference (1980). But her words were not
welcome in the US. Her 1988 report was submitted to the Washington Post, New
York Times, and Ms. magazine. But rejected. Also rejected were Basu's
recommendation of practical steps that the West, particularly the US, could take
to protect women's rights...
Sarah Tedrow-Azizi wrote:
> I share Morton's concerns with that position. If you are going to
> state that the Taliban are engaged in a war of local defense and
> national liberation, have you asked whom the Taliban are defending and
> liberating? Is it really liberation if the regime ousting the
> oppressor then comes to oppress themselves?
> (Consider our own foreign policy of "liberation" and "democracy"...)
>
>
> "The Taliban initially had enormous goodwill from Afghans weary of the
> corruption, brutality and incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords"
>
> The key word here is "initially." Afghans might have gained "security"
> at the time, but hardly at a price worthy of defense.
>
>
> "the Taliban reconstituted themselves as the leaders of the national
> resistance against the foreign invaders, the warlords, and other
> comprador elements, like the Karzai government. On that basis they
> seemed to have expanded their appeal even beyond their Pashtun base
> (the Pashtuns being probably more than 40% of the population) to
> become an Afghan liberation movement."
>
> ...And the female base?
>
> Is this liberation?
> http://www.rawa.org/women.php
> http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm
>
>
>> After the US invasion in 2001 and their overthrow, the Taliban reconstituted
>> themselves as the leaders of the national resistance against the foreign
>> invaders, the warlords, and other comprador elements, like the Karzai
>> government. On that basis they seemed to have expanded their appeal even
>> beyond their Pashtun base (the Pashtuns being probably more than 40% of the
>> population) to become an Afghan liberation movement.
>>
>> In destroying secular nationalist movements in the Middle East and financing
>> religious ones (like Hamas) -- Carter's CIA recruited blood-thirsty
>> religious fanatics to oppose "godless Communism" -- the US followed a
>> wide-ranging but single-minded policy that in the 1950s saw Catholics
>> recruited in Vietnam to oppose the Viet Minh and on the campus of Notre Dame
>> University to join the CIA (cf. Agee, Inside the Company). But with the
>> Taliban they reaped the whirlwind.
>>
>> The British journalist Jason Burke, who wrote what is probably the best book
>> on Al-Qaeda, has just published "On the Road to Kandahar: Travels Through
>> Conflict in the Islamic World," on "Islamic militancy, its root causes its
>> evolution and likely future." It may be the best account currently
>> available in English. --CGE
>>
>>
>> Sarah Tedrow-Azizi wrote:
>>> I would hardly put the Taliban in the same catagory as those "engaged
>>> in wars of local defense and national liberation."
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/2/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the reference, Stuart.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the U.S. needs a fantasy Third Reich in the Middle East as an
>>>> excuse for its military descent on the region (and also to justify its
>> cost
>>>> to the US public), because it can't admit the real nature of the enemy
>> whom
>>>> it's ranged against: people in the Middle East who want the US to get
>> out of
>>>> their country and stop taking their resources.
>>>>
>>>> We call them terrorists, insurgents, militants, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and
>> the
>>>> like, but they're engaged in wars of local defense and national
>> liberation
>>>> (cf. anti-imperial struggles from the 18th century up to anti-colonial
>>>> struggles in the 20th). The US encouraged religious identification in
>> the
>>>> region a generation ago to undercut secular nationalism (Nasser, Arafat)
>> and
>>>> succeeded too well: now religious identification is an organizing
>> principle
>>>> for resistance to US plans.
>>>>
>>>> Given the bed-rock US policy -- control of Mideast energy -- the only
>>>> alternative to permanent US war is the neocon fantasy of a region of
>>>> obedient client states -- which admittedly Iran and Egypt have recently
>>>> been, after attempts at national liberation (Iran by coup in the
>> Eisenhower
>>>> administration, Egypt by purchase in the Carter administration).
>>>>
>>>> What the US can't stand in current conditions is for peace to break out.
>>>> --CGE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:50PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't like to summarize his argument, would you, Mort? In my
>>>>>>
>>>> dotage I find it hard to listen to these things, and it seems there's no
>>>> transcript available...
>>>>
>>>>> The page Mort pointed to does have a link to Gareth Porter's
>>>>> pretty readable article though, as well as the 45-minute interview.
>>>>> Note especially the last paragraph I'm quoting here: that the analysts
>>>>> he's talking about are pressing for a (US) attack on Iran -- *not*
>> because
>>>>> Iran is strong, dangerous, irrational, and liable to marshal its own
>> and
>>>>> other forces to retaliate if attacked -- but because, they say, Iran
>>>>> is relatively weak, knows that it's weak, would do little in response,
>>>>> and so attacking it wouldn't be such a risky venture.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the public story is that Iran is the new powerful Third Reich,
>>>>> liable to destabilize the world, while their private analysis calls
>>>>> for attacking Iran *because* it's vulnerable now. "A nuclear-armed
>> Iran
>>>>> could dangerously alter the strategic balance in the region," write
>> the
>>>> WINEP
>>>>
>>>>> authors, "handcuffing Israel's room to maneuver on the Palestinian
>>>>> and Lebanese fronts…."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=13072
>>>>>
>>>>> Anti-Iran Arguments Belie Fearmongering
>>>>> New arguments by analysts close to Israeli thinking in favor of U.S.
>>>>>
>>>> strikes
>>>>
>>>>> against Iran cite evidence of Iranian military weakness in relation
>> to
>>>> the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>> and Israel and even raise doubts that Iran is rushing to obtain such
>>>>>
>>>> weapons at
>>>>
>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The new arguments contradict Israel's official argument that it
>> faces
>>>> an
>>>>
>>>>> "existential threat" from an Islamic extremist Iranian regime
>>>>>
>>>> determined to get
>>>>
>>>>> nuclear weapons. They suggest that Israel, which already has as many
>> as
>>>> 200
>>>>
>>>>> nuclear weapons, views Iran from the position of the dominant power
>> in
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> region rather than as the weaker state in the relationship.
>>>>>
>>>>> The existence of a sharp imbalance of power in favor of Israel and
>> the
>>>> United
>>>>
>>>>> States is the main premise of a recent analysis by Patrick Clawson
>> and
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>> Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)
>>>>>
>>>> suggesting
>>>>
>>>>> that a U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is feasible. Chuck
>>>>>
>>>> Freilich, a
>>>>
>>>>> senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center on Science and
>>>>> International Affairs, has also urged war against Iran on such a
>> power
>>>>> imbalance.
>>>>>
>>>>> All three have close ties to the Israeli government. WINEP has long
>>>>>
>>>> promoted
>>>>
>>>>> policies favored by Israel, and its founding director, Martin Indyk,
>>>>>
>>>> was
>>>>
>>>>> previously research director of the leading pro-Israel lobby, the
>>>>>
>>>> American
>>>>
>>>>> Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Freilich is a former
>> Israeli
>>>> deputy
>>>>
>>>>> national security adviser.
>>>>>
>>>>> These analysts, all of whom are pushing for a U.S., rather than an
>>>>>
>>>> Israeli
>>>>
>>>>> attack, argue that Iran's power to retaliate for a U.S. attack on
>> its
>>>> nuclear
>>>>
>>>>> facilities is quite limited. Equally significant, they also
>> emphasize
>>>> that Iran
>>>>
>>>>> is a rational actor that would have to count the high costs of
>>>>>
>>>> retaliation.
>>>>
>>>>> That conclusion stands in sharp contrast to the official Israeli
>> line
>>>> that Iran
>>>>
>>>>> cannot be deterred because of its allegedly apocalyptic Islamic
>>>>>
>>>> viewpoint on
>>>>
>>>>> war with Israel.
>>>>>
>>>>> [... and lots more, but much less than 45 minutes worth...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A very illuminating interview with Gareth Porter about the Iran
>>>>>>>
>>>> situation, the Israeli lobby, and related topics.
>>>>
>>>>>>> (You'll have to click the appropriate link.)
>>>>>>>
>> http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/01/gareth-porter-30/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list