obama
Afghan Children at 'Picnic for Peace' (Oxfam photo)
(Editor’s Note: The author posts as an individual blogger and activist, not on behalf of any organization.)
More troops or not more troops, that is the question the international media has been obsessed with for weeks. As Obama announces the deployment of at least 30.000 more troops, ordinary Afghans are concerned that this will only mean more conflict in and around their villages. An Afghan man interviewed by Oxfam explains:
At night, the Taliban come and take shelter in our villages and then leave. The next day, when the coalition forces become aware of the Taliban in our areas, they bomb us.’
(via The Cost of War: Afghan Experiences of Conflict, 1978 – 2009)
These are the realities on the ground that Afghanistan expert Matt Waldman, of the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University, believes the narrow US focus on troops fails to take into account. In a recent article in the Guardian he argues the following:
To defeat the Taliban insurgency we need an approach based not on a military solution but on the interests of ordinary Afghans. Two key elements of the current counter-insurgency strategy are killing insurgents and “winning hearts and minds” through military-sponsored assistance projects. Both are largely futile and fail to address the underlying causes of the insurgency: poverty, lack of security for civilians, local and tribal grievances, and corrupt and unjust government.
When asked in an Oxfam survey, almost 70% of Afghans agree with Mr. Waldman, saying that poverty and unemployment are the root causes of the current war. So why doesn’t the international community stop and listen for a change? The key issue at stake here is not simply numbers troops. It’s how best to secure a safe and peaceful future for a nation and a people devastated by more than 30 years of war.
This point was made by Oxfam America’s vice president Paul O’Brien in a statement issued in advance of Obama’s announcement December 1st:
The well-being of ordinary Afghans will be undermined if aid is based on military objectives, rather than Afghans’ needs. Afghanistan needs more than military solutions. Aid should support a stronger agriculture sector, better infrastructure, humanitarian assistance for the poorest, as well as improved schools and health services.
A disproportionate share of aid has been allocated to the southern provinces where international forces are operating. Too much of this aid is also tied to security objectives. This short-term approach fails to promote local ownership and isn’t the way forward
(via: Humanitarian agencies call for aid based on Afghans’ needs, not the military’s )
Or, in the words of and Afghan citizen from Kunduz:
We need peace. Afghans have seen the worst wars and worst periods. Now all Afghans are tired of war and conflict. We need peace to educate our children and have a good life.
The US has been here before (check out the ending of the movie Charlie Wilson’s War to remind yourself: “No one cares about building schools in Pakistan…”). Let’s hope Washington has finally learned the lesson from the last couple of decades: A narrow focus on guns and troops alone is not going to “fix” Afghanistan. It’s time we start really caring about the Afghan.
Learn More:
- Jeb Sharp of PRI’s The World speaks with the Oxfam report’s author, Ashley Jackson from Kabul
- Photos: Afghan people want peace and they are vocal about it
- Asia Society Online Debate: Can Presdient Obama’s Afghanistan strategy succeed?
This chart isn’t an Apple’s stock price jump after a Steve Job’s announcement, it’s Twitter traffic for ‘Copenhagen‘ after news broke Wednesday that Obama would be heading to Denmark. This is by far the largest portion of traffic the term has seen in the past 180 days. Same goes for ‘climate‘, ‘warming‘, and ‘COP15‘.
(more…)
<img class=”flickrcc alignleft” src=”http://futuremediachange.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/2174935053.jpg” alt=”Barack Obama” width=”240″ height=”161″ />The <a id=”aptureLink_1QNC2l4GbJ” href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate.html”>NYTimes is reporting</a> that President Obama will be in Copenhagen for <a id=”aptureLink_NhsSzm3M7P” href=”http://tcktcktck.org/events/major-moments/cop-15-copenhagen-climate-conference”>COP15</a> and that he will:
<blockquote>”tell the delegates to the climate conference that the United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions ‘in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020,’ according to a White House official.”</blockquote>
Obama attending is a strong signal of his administration’s commitment to the issue. However, the floated 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 is well under the 25%-40% reduction below 1990 levels the International Panel on Climate Change is <a href=”http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/cache/offonce/lang/en/pages/gateway/the-science;jsessionid=EF9ACB051D3F4988EFC5D6FDF566C8A5″ target=”_blank”>recommending</a> for developed countries and on the low end of proposed carbon emissions <a href=”http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/gtrends/gtrends270.htm” target=”_blank”>reduction goals</a> from other countries (16%-23%). From one of the world’s top emitters, this is a soberly realistic goal rather than a hopeful or ambitious one. The arrival at 17% clearly stems from Sen. Baucus’ public support of the number. He has made other comments that he would be open to a larger reduction of 20% — as a “trigger” – if other nations “play by the same rules”. Not insignificant as he chairs the all-important Senate Finance Committee. Also necessary, given the need for Congress to approve any proposed cuts.
(PHOTO BY <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/37996583933@N01/2174935053″>marcn</a>)Rich Text Area “tell the delegates to the climate conference that the United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions ‘in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020,’ according to a White House official.” Obama attending is a strong signal of his administration’s commitment to the issue. However, the floated 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 is well under the 25%-40% reduction below 1990 levels the International Panel on Climate Change is recommending for developed countries and on the low end of proposed carbon emissions reduction goals from other countries (16%-23%). From one of the world’s top emitters, this is a soberly realistic goal rather than a hopeful or ambitious one. The arrival at 17% clearly stems from Sen. Baucus’ public support of the number. He has made other comments that he would be open to a larger reduction of 20% — as a “trigger” – if other nations “play by the same rules”. Not insignificant as he chairs the all-important Senate Finance Committee. Also necessary, given the need for Congress to approve any proposed cuts. (PHOTO BY marcn)
The NYTimes is reporting that President Obama will be in Copenhagen for COP15 and that he will:
| Word count: 172 | Last edited by Ryan Brack on November 25, 2009 at 11:32 pm |
