The Government Remains Committed to the Criminal Occupation of Afghanistan

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Government Remains Committed to the Criminal Occupation of Afghanistan

For Your Reference – A German View:
Contribution to Operational Command

Ethiopia – For Your Information:
Human Rights Watch: Flawed Methodology, Unsubstantiated Allegations

The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, visited occupied Afghanistan this week, as well as Pakistan, as part of an initiative to strengthen the hand of the Anglo-American imperialists in the region. In Afghanistan he held meetings with the leaders of the Afghan regime brought to power as a consequence of the Anglo-American led invasion. Miliband also visited some of the over 8,000 British troops currently stationed in the country. In an interview for BBC Radio during this visit Miliband did not rule out the sending of reinforcements should they be required to maintain the occupation.

It is now seven years since the invasion of Afghanistan, led by the Anglo-American alliance, which was then given sanction by the UN Security Council. It is generally recognised that the Anglo-American led invasion force has not yet been able to claim military victory and opposition to the invasion and the increasing number of attacks against civilians by the occupying forces is growing inside the country. Even the commander of the British troops has admitted that, as he put it, "we’re not going to win this war, it’s about limiting it to a level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat". The government now claims that it is in Afghanistan "at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghan government". But this government came to power illegally as a consequence of the occupation, has no jurisdiction outside the capital, Kabul, enjoys little support or credibility and is widely seen as corrupt. Recent opinion polls in Britain have shown that at overwhelming numbers of people are opposed to the continued occupation and want British troops brought home.

In the face of growing opposition to military occupation in both Afghanistan and Britain, government ministers have made clear that there are no plans for a military withdrawal, but at the same time have made unsuccessful efforts to find some way in which the situation can be presented in a positive light. The war in Afghanistan remains what it has always been, a war that has no justification in international law led by the Anglo-American alliance for strategic advantage over this so-called cockpit of Central Asia, as part of their whole geopolitical aims to try and maintain global hegemony.

It is clear that the new US administration is going to intensify its efforts to maintain a stranglehold in Afghanistan and throughout the region. It appears to be creating the conditions for an increased military presence, and to this end is intent on further destabilising the region, bringing its own front line closer to Russia, China and India. The Labour government has already signalled its intention to support such efforts, and in this regard Miliband stressed that the British government was committed to what he called a "comprehensive strategy" for Afghanistan. This strategy sees the country transformed from an occupied territory to a fully-fledged satellite with an economic and political system, as well as an army, that serve the interest of the big powers and principally Anglo-American interests. At the same time, Britain, the US and other big powers are squabbling over who should bear the brunt of the military and financial burden of establishing such a state.

What is noteworthy is that Miliband and the government as a whole show absolutely no concern about the cost of the war in Afghanistan, whether in human terms or in financial ones. Indeed there are no official figures for the numbers of Afghan people killed as a result of the invasion and occupation, but unofficial estimates put the figure in the tens of thousands. Increasing numbers of British troops are also losing their lives and many others have been maimed for life as a result of the conflict.

But even in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s there is no "credit-crunch" in regard to the waging of war. What is referred to as "defence" spending is due to rise to around £37 billion by 2011, an increase of over 11% since 1997. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are paid for out of a separate Treasury Reserve and since 2001 another £9.6 billion has been spent from this source. Britain’s military spending is now the second highest in the world after the US.

The circumstances of Miliband’s visit to Afghanistan, as well the statements he and other government minsters have made, show that the British government is fully committed to continuing its military aggression in that country alongside US imperialism and other big powers. WDIE calls on the working class and people to organise for an anti-war government that will empower the people of Britain and end aggression abroad, serving the interests of the people both at home and abroad.

german-foreign-policy.com

Before the new administration in Washington takes office, a new transatlantic accord concerning the future war strategy at the Hindu Kush is in the making. This accord foresees a rise in troop levels to 20,000 soldiers, while the civilian-military accompanying component will be given more importance, as Berlin demands. In addition, efforts will be made to see if the loyalty of individual clan chiefs can be bribed. The programme is very controversial. Critics are warning that this would strengthen the warlords, responsible for the decades of Afghan civil war. The new strategy includes a large portion of Pakistan. The German government is already participating in the initiative, with which the growing frequency of military attacks on Pakistani territory is to be supplemented with a non-military component. Berlin has doubled the "development aide" to Islamabad and reinforced its projects in the border regions with Afghanistan. As was confirmed by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), the "civilian-military" co-operation, which is now to be extended, "has little to do with humanitarian and development aid," but rather contributes to the acceptance of the mission "as well as to operational planning and command".

Reinforcement

The activities of the western war alliance in Afghanistan are about to be considerably extended. The NATO Supreme Commander (US) Gen. Bantz J. Craddock explained that there was a 40% increase in clashes between units of the international Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and the Afghan military forces with the Taliban in relation to last year. Because of the "harder and tougher" security situation, he called for an ISAF reinforcement of 20,000 soldiers. He also explained that the 26 NATO nations have around 60,000 soldiers deployed in various operations at the moment. Craddock welcomed the fact that the incoming US president, Barack Obama has already announced his intentions to increase US force levels and hopes that other nations will also increase their contributions.[1] The German military (Bundeswehr), with 3,500 soldiers is the third largest contingent participating in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. Under the new parliamentary mandate, it can raise its troop strength to 4,500. Germany is also providing up to 50% of ISAF's airlift logistical support and German aerial surveillance is furnishing up to 45% of the intelligence results.

Wrong Strategy

The German military is quite ready to extend its Afghanistan war activities – but only if their conditions would be met, particularly those dealing with the strategic mission leadership, for which Berlin is demanding a reorientation along the lines of a German model. The US strategy – victory through sheer military might and using every kind of weapon – has failed, declared the editor-in-chief of the leading military policy magazine, "Europäische Sicherheit" collaborating with the German Federal College of Security Studies and the Leadership Academy of the Bundeswehr. Numerous civilian victims during flawed aerial attacks and actions carried out with crude violence against a merely suspected Taliban have repelled a large segment of the population. The Western troops are seen more as occupiers than as protectors.

Positive Prevailing Mood

But with the German strategy – military safeguard and civilian reconstruction – it would be possible, through population contact to win the people and convince them of the purpose of the operations, claims the military magazine's editor-in-chief. In spite of the rising number of attacks on German forces and civilian aide personnel, he can still discern a "positive prevailing mood" in Northern Afghanistan, under German responsibility, due to the numerous cooperation projects with civilian aide organisations. But general approval of ISAF is continually dwindling, against which only the application of the German strategy can help. "There is no alternative to the 'network of security,' but it must be applied throughout Afghanistan."[2]

New Expectations

Though President-elect Obama spoke out in favour of reinforcing troop strength in Afghanistan and asked incumbent Defence Minister Robert Gates to remain in office, experts in Europe and the USA are expecting that the new US administration will take the demands into account that there be stronger consideration of German-European interests [3] – particularly in the war in Afghanistan. The new "European Council on Foreign Relations" think tank, which is supporting the structuring of the EU member states' international activities to form a cohesive EU foreign policy,[4] believes that Washington is prepared to partially revise its strategy, if the EU acquiesces to its demand for a reinforcement of troops.[5] The US Council on Foreign Relations, that plays an important role in formulating foreign policy strategy, confirmed this assessment and sees a possibility that the incoming US administration will place more weight on new negotiations and "civilian-military" projects.[6]

Bought Loyalty

Early indications suggest that such a change of course is already in progress. NATO Supreme Commander Craddock insisted that a purely military solution in Afghanistan is unthinkable. Development aid, civilian structures and the creation good governance must be further reinforced.[7] In addition, the US seems also prepared to use a new tactic to avoid that more areas of the country fall into the hands of the Taliban. Since the central government in Kabul has practically no power in many outlying areas, local leaders are to be induced with money to join the ISAF side. In a pilot project in the Wardak Province, south of Kabul, tribal chiefs are receiving US $200 per month to create tribal councils and pass information about the Taliban on to ISAF. A similar strategy was used in Iraq, where clan chiefs were paid to set up militias to fight at the side of US troops against insurgents. But in Afghanistan, US commanders have been against using traditional local power structures and buying the loyalty of tribal chiefs.[8] Critics warn that this would provide new means to the warlords responsible for the decades of civil war. The old structures of violence would again be reinforced.

Politically Sensitive

In return, the German government is already supporting the extension of the Afghanistan war into Pakistan. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, along with his counterparts in the newly established "Friends of Pakistan Group,"[9] have recently reached agreement on an extensive programme of a non-military component to accompany counterinsurgency measures in Pakistan,[10] financed by previously promised millions in Euros [11] as well as large sums of so-called development aid. An agreement was reached, during the German-Pakistani government negotiations a few days ago, to considerably expand German involvement in Pakistan and increase development aid to a total of 80 million Euros – nearly double the amount committed in 2005. Germany also agreed to step up its involvement in the politically sensitive region along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan – in developing the school system and public health care.[12]

Popularised Image

German government advisors seek to extend "civil-military" activities also in Afghanistan. Since it is practically impossible to militarily cover the entire country, the influential SWP suggests that better use be made of the Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) capacities and strengthen CIMIC by increasing its personnel. In a recent study, SWP proposed various measures to "step up the involvement" of NGO experts in mission preparations. "Efficient cooperation in the theatre of operations" requires early collaboration, the SWP writes.[13] With "impressions of constructing bridges and drilling wells", the German contribution to the war, would also become more "popularised – because of its civilian image". "This would help to legitimise the Afghanistan military mission within the German population, facilitating the prolongation of the parliamentary mandate." To avoid misunderstandings concerning the character of the "civil-military" measures, SWP underlines: "Being an integral part of military operational planning, CIMIC has little to do with humanitarian or development aid. (...) Activities in the framework of CIMIC are aimed at facilitating the cooperation with the civilian environment, to increase the acceptance among the civilian population and therefore heighten the protection of the troops and contribute to operational planning and leadership. Its military use is clearly in the foreground."

Visible – and Accessible

It is mainly the civilian aid workers who have to bear the consequences of this forced "civil military" strategy: Attacks on aid organisations in Afghanistan have considerably increased this year. By September, 146 attacks on aid workers have been reported – the highest amount since attacks began being documented in 2002. Violence is used against aid organisations, because they are obviously "the only visible – and accessible – institutions" on a local level, according to Anso, an NGO dealing with the security of aid workers. Anso suggests that aid organisations strengthen their independence, and keep a distance from those at the political and military levels.[14]

Further information on German Afghanistan policy can be found here: On the Ruins of War, The Greens' local in Kabul, The Retreat Option, Hopeless, To Accomplish a Mission, Perspective of Withdrawal, Paramilitary, Human Intelligence, The Next War and Part of the Problem.

[1] Nato sucht 20.000 Soldaten für Afghanistan; Spiegel online 24.11.2008. NATO Commander Hopes For Obama Boost To Afghan Effort; RFE/RL 24.11.2008
[2] Henning Bartels: Der gefährliche Einsatz in Afghanistan; Europäische Sicherheit November 2008
[3] see also Wann, wenn nicht jetzt and "Struggle of the Major Powers"
[4] see also Raison d'Etat
[5] "The EU should – and can – play a greater role than is currently the case. In exchange, the US may have to reconsider parts of their strategy, including how to engage more effectively with the Taliban and the military-heavy approach to broader region. But if the EU does more – and the U.S., in return, is open to re-consider its strategy – the stabilisation of Afghanistan could be the issue that the trans-Atlantic alliance is rebuilt around rather than what tears the U.S and Europe apart." Enhancing the EU's role in Afghanistan; ecfr.eu 05.11.2008
[6] "Obama's plan could see the United States turn to neighbours like Iran, and negotiate with elements of the Taliban. Efforts are also underway to work with Afghan tribes to loosen the Taliban's grip on rural reaches of the country (...) A number of analysts also say the United States and the broad coalition of international actors in Afghanistan will have to vastly improve reconstruction efforts that have failed to resolve severe problems since the Taliban's ouster in 2001. Drought, poverty, and persistent unemployment (...) in one of the world's poorest countries now mix with a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda as chief concerns for the international community." The Road Ahead in Afghanistan; http://www.cfr.org 19.11.2008
[7] Nato sucht 20.000 Soldaten für Afghanistan; Spiegel online 24.11.2008
[8] Neue Nato-Strategie: Geldzahlungen sollen Afghanistan Frieden bringen; Financial Times Deutschland 26.11.2008
[9] see also Without Perspectives
[10] Unterstützung für Pakistan; http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de 18.11.2008
[11] see also The Next War
[12] Deutschland weitet Hilfe für Pakistan aus; http://www.bmz.de11.11.2008
[13] CIMIC am Beispiel des ISAF-Einsatzes. Konzeption, Umsetzung und Weiterentwicklung zivil-militärischer Interaktion im Auslandseinsatz; SWP-Studie 2008/S 31, November 2008
[14] Gewalt gegen Hilfsorganisationen nimmt zu; http://www.tagesspiegel.de 14.10.2008

Press Statement of the Ethiopian Government, November 26, 2008

The Government of Ethiopia has decided to make public the results of an investigation into the allegations made by Human Rights Watch in a Report of June 2008 entitled "Collective Punishment: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity in the Ogaden area of Ethiopia’s Somali Region". This is just one of several reports that HRW has written about Ethiopia in recent years, using inflammatory language apparently intended to attract international attention but relying on hearsay and secondary sources to make extensive accusations. In this case, to increase the drama, HRW claimed the use of satellite imagery could demonstrate responsibility for burning villages.

Despite the Government’s conviction that the allegations were unfounded and that Human Rights Watch’s methodology was seriously faulty, it decided to undertake a detailed investigation of its claims on the ground. The Government is fully aware of its accountability to the people of Ethiopia. Allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot be taken lightly; equally, the Government, as always, remains determined to take immediate corrective measures should they prove to have any factual basis.

The investigation was carried out by an independent team which visited the Somali Regional State in August and September. The investigation team carried out dozens of interviews in towns and villages through the region, visiting virtually all of the areas and places mentioned by HRW. They interviewed residents and clan elders, local officials, NGO personnel, members of the security forces, the Ethiopian National Defence Forces, prison inmates, and former members of the Ogaden National Liberation Front

They found villages untouched that HRW alleged were burnt by the ENDF; others, according to former residents, were burnt by the ONLF whose terrorist activities HRW hardly notices. Former ONLF members confirmed this was ONLF policy; HRW, however, opts to accuse the Ethiopian government instead. Supposedly relocated populations were found in their original homes. People, alleged seen tortured and killed, were found alive and well. Villagers and elders alike denied allegations of extra-judicial killings, rape or torture by the security forces. The investigation did find one case of torture: the officer responsible had immediately been court-martialled. No evidence could be found of forcible recruitment into the militia; no evidence of mass detentions could be seen in any prison throughout the region. There was no sign of any "economic war". However, the Government had successfully limited the flow of illegal weaponry and contraband last year by designating specific border crossing points to control smuggling.

In fact, the on-the-ground investigation found no trace of serious human rights violation let alone war crimes or crimes against humanity during the security measures taken against the ONLF following the slaughter of over seventy workers in April last year. It did, however, find a mass of evidence of further systematic abuses committed by the ONLF.

The investigation demonstrated clearly that HRW, perhaps unwittingly, had allowed itself to be used as a propaganda tool by the ONLF, a terrorist organisation which it has clearly romanticised. It found that HRW’s report was crammed with fabrication and misrepresentation, exaggeration and misinterpretation. The Government of Ethiopia believes all this could have been avoided if HRW had made any serious effort to understand the realities of the situation in the region, and if it had been prepared to work in good faith with the Government to ascertain the facts for itself rather than rely on claims by ONLF supporters outside the region. HRW completely failed to use first-hand, on-the-ground, evidence. Its conduct in the production and dissemination of this report amounts to a virtual betrayal of its own mandate and vision.

The Government hopes the results of this investigation will encourage HRW to reconsider its methodology and re-commit itself to the necessity of basing its work on verifiable fact, not on hearsay. The Government of Ethiopia is reluctant to ascribe HRW’s failures to malevolence or malice despite its refusal in this and other reports to reflect the reality of human rights progress in Ethiopia. The Government is convinced it should be possible to have a meaningful relationship with HRW, even perhaps collaboration. It now believes HRW should aim for the sort of balanced and constructive engagement it has resolutely rejected in the past.

The full text and a video of the investigation, including detailed testimony, are available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: http://www.mfa.gov.et/

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Addis Ababa