In a message dated 23/12/2002 05:42:28 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Yet the Taliban waged a brutal war against women for years, and you're saying that wasn't justification for intervention? >> Well, it *wasn't* the justification used, was it? I was under the impression that the pretext for bombing Afghanistan was that it was harbouring Osama Bin Laden and significant numbers of people who were active members of Al Qaeda. Ousting the Taliban was seen as a "fringe benefit", albeit a considerable one. I agree that the Taliban's regime seems to have been particularly misogynist. However, it wasn't exactly a picnic before: Afg was a pretty lawless state, women lived in constant fear of being raped, and women's rights were pretty low on the list of priorities of the various warlords who were running the country. There were reports from inide the country that in some ways (and only some, and this does not excuse the anti-women measures that were brought in when the Taliban assumed power), women felt safer during the Taliban regime, in that the incidence of rape fell quite sigificantly, because everybody knew that the Taliban had imposed some kind of order on the country (the cities, at least), and that this kind of crime would be punished. There was also evidence (including a TV report from a UK journalist called Saira Shah) that some of the more extreme policies (such as women not being allowed to work) were either being slowly revoked or a blind eye was being turned to them, as even the crazed leaders of the Taliban were realising that they were unworkable. A ghastly regime, yes. Justification for declaring war? No. And I maintain that there are countries with equally bad human rights records - in addition to the ones I mentioned before, what about Burma/Myanmar, which incarcerated its democratically elected leader and has introduced what amounts to slave labour? And why didn't we bomb South Africa during the apartheid regime, which was surely as inhuman as any regime the world has seen? I still believe that the real reasons are not being declared, and that the tentacles of the most cynical realpolitik reach far into all of the West's decisions about where it wants to stick its oar in. For me, the bigger question remains. What is The West going to do to take responsibility for its actions, and when is it going to do it? As with Saddam Hussein, who is still in power by the grace of The West (as I'm sure I don't need to reiterate), so it was with the Taliban: they were trained, funded and armed in part by The West, to fight of the Soviet invasion of Afg. They were the heroes of the Mujahideen, plucky locals defending themselves against the beastly Soviet threat. When are we going to learn about the perils of making monsters? An objection to this point of view that is often raised is "yes, that's true, but it doesn't help us NOW - how do we deal with this monster/monstrous regime?" Well, yes, that is a very difficult question: however, if we don't answer the bigger question, we will just do the same thing over again, and will have even more intractable situations to worry about, some of them possibly much closer to home. People are talking now about installing a better regime in Iraq once Saddam has gone - some might call it a puppet regime. Maybe it would work for a while, then maybe the "puppets" would get a bit restless, sever the strings, and start doing things we didn't like. So we'd send in the bombers again? It's not a long-term solution. As to Bosnia, that was a whole different ball game, and I'll be honest: I simply don't know how that situation compares. I have read so much conflicting opinion and so many "facts" that were diametrically opposed to each other, and the situation was historically so complex, that I don't have a point of view about that conflict as it relates to the forthcoming campaign against Iraq. Azeem in London
