[R-G] From Occupied Afghanistan: Accounts of a Fact-Finding Mission

[Anthony Fenton]

 From Occupied Afghanistan: Accounts of a Fact-Finding Mission
Interview by Kabir Joshi-Vijayan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? 
context=viewArticle&code=SKI20070918&articleId=6806

by Mike Skinner and Hamayon Rag

Global Research, September 18, 2007

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Mike Skinner and Hamayon Ragstar spent one and three months,  
respectively, in Afghanistan in the late spring/summer of 2007 on a  
fact-finding trip investigating how the Canadian and International  
mission is affecting Afghan civilian life.

Below is the edited transcript of an hour-long interview conducted in  
Toronto by Kabir Joshi-Vijayan about their reflections and  
conclusions coming out of the fact-finding mission.

Q: To begin, what was the objective of this trip you undertook to  
Afghanistan, what were you hoping to investigate?

Mike Skinner: The principal objective was to do an activist  
documentary film that asks Afghans what they think of the  
international intervention. We really wanted to listen to Afghans who  
don’t get heard in the West- workers we listened to people on the  
street, and we listened to students in the university and in teachers  
college, shopkeepers, and teachers. That was really the intent, to  
hear Afghans who don’t get heard.

And what parts of Afghanistan were you able to visit?

Hamayon Ragstar: We spent lots of time in Kabul city and walked  
around the neighbourhoods. We went to Kabul University a few times.  
Mike and I went to Bamiyan – we spent about a week in Bamiyan. From  
Bamiyan, we also went to Yakaolang (which is a few hours away from  
the Bamiyan valley) – and we went back to Kabul from there. We spent  
one day in Ghazni, and before Mike’s arrival I went to Ghazni and  
Jaghori. Later I also went to Mazar and Kundus and I spent about 4-5  
hours in Khandahar

What did you see of the international occupation force? Did you have  
any direct interaction with any of the foreign forces present (ISAF,  
NATO, the US-coalition)-and were you able to speak particularly with  
any Canadian soldiers or commanders?

MS: Our most direct personal experience is when we almost got killed  
at one point.

We were in a taxicab in downtown Kabul and our cabdriver wasn’t  
looking as he pulled out into an intersection and almost ran into an  
ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) convoy. As he said,  
fortunately they were Turks. If they had been Canadians or Americans,  
they would have shot us if we had gotten as close to a convoy as we  
did. My door was literally a few inches from this military vehicle  
that almost hit us, so that was our closest experience with ISAF.

In Kabul itself ISAF is always visible, but it’s not an overpowering  
presence either. The Afghan Army and National police are far more  
evident in most places. We were staying on a main highway from Kabul  
to Khandahar and we’d certainly see Afghan army and ISAF convoys  
regularly coming back and forth on that highway. Just a few days  
after I arrived, we actually saw in the distance, a couple of  
kilometres away, one of the ISAF convoys hit by a remote control  
explosive device that blew up a vehicle. So as we were having  
breakfast we saw the smoke cloud from the explosion, and few seconds  
later we felt the concussion shake the building that we were in. The  
reports that came from that were that an American was killed in the  
convoy and that other soldiers in the convoy opened fire on innocent  
civilians who were just passing by the residential area where the  
convoy was hit.

We would have actually liked to meet some of the Canadians there. I  
tried to arrange something – to try and meet with some of the  
Canadian soldiers, but it was a difficult situation. Also it is hard  
to cross the line from talking to Afghan people and than going over  
to talking to soldiers too, so it wouldn’t have been a good situation  
either. So we really didn’t have any direct contact with Canadian  
troops or any other western forces. In a number of informal  
situations, we were able to talk with military contractors who were  
quite informative, but talking off record.

What did you see/hear of civilian deaths while there?

MS: I think on a daily, or almost daily basis during the time that I  
was there, there were news reports of civilian causalities and by far  
the greater number of those casualties were caused by western forces  
in a number of different ways. I already mentioned the hit convoy –  
where by retaliation or fear or reaction in the moment – the soldiers  
blindly fired into a crowd, cases like that. There have also been  
many cases of deliberate targeting from the air or air attacks – this  
is often when there’s a ground battle going on and the ground troops  
call in for air support; air support comes in and they are not  
necessarily firing at the right targets. There was one case when I  
was there where a mosque was targeted in Paktia. It was one of the  
two eastern provinces where there were several young girls that were  
killed in a mosque. So we were hearing these reports on a regular,  
probably a daily basis.

We also need to keep in mind that our military is causing far more  
damage than just civilian deaths. Many people are injured to die  
later or suffer miserably. Many people are forced to become refugees  
when their homes and livelihoods are destroyed. Large areas of the  
countryside have become uninhabitable because of the war. We were  
told that the Canadian military is forcing evacuations of villages.  
Many people also suffer human rights abuses such as home invasions,  
arbitrary arrest and detention.

We occasionally hear about some of the worst cases of civilian deaths  
in the Canadian media, but most of the damage our military is doing  
remains undocumented.

Through the interviews and discussions you were able to have with  
regular Afghans - what were their perceptions of the international  
mission? How did they view the initial invasion, and how do they see  
the current military occupation?

MS: There were mixed reactions. There were people, when we were doing  
the actual interviews – some people who wholly supported the invasion  
and occupation – there were people that didn’t. There were some  
people that were fully against it from the beginning –and they had a  
really good analysis for that. There were also a large group of  
people –now I haven’t gone through the tapes and added up the  
numbers- but I think that probably the largest number of people  
actually had some really mixed feelings; a lot of people said  
initially they’d hoped there would be some progressive change. The  
Taliban were a repressive regime, certainly an incredibly anti-woman  
regime- so people held out hope for some progressive change- but that  
hope has dissipated in the past 6 years because those changes have  
not occurred.

Conflicts between various colonial and imperial powers have been key  
in shaping Afghanistan’s history- whether this was colonial Britain  
and Russia, or the social imperialist Soviet Union against the US in  
the 70’s and 80’s. Do inter-imperial rivalries have a role in the  
current conflict?

MS: There are certainly many indications that they do, and there are  
a number of players in the mix now – certainly Russia is still very  
important in the region, China is aggressively moving beyond its  
borders- and Afghanistan is a neighbour of China, Pakistan and India  
– which are all regional players in this. Iran is very important,  
there is also Saudi Arabia, which has been a big player in  
Afghanistan for a long time. The United Arab Emirates are very  
influential as well, along with all the western states aligned with  
the United States that are playing a big part. And certainly Canada  
has some real interest, and I expect particularly economically in  
mining in Afghanistan – because there are some very rich mining  
resources that are largely unexploited. I’m sure Canadian mining  
companies would love to get in there and get their hands on it.  
However, that is not what was driving the invasion. But it’s one of  
those side benefits that, while we’re there, lets make some money by  
developing those mines.

A number of ‘progressive’ forces in Canada and elsewhere, such as the  
Senlis Council and the NDP, often draw a distinction between the  
‘developmental’ and military role Canada plays in Afghanistan-  
claiming that the re-construction and developmental aid we are  
lending is playing a positive role. What evidence did you see of  
Canadian developmental projects while you were there- and do you  
agree with this distinction?

MS: There’s a new developmental concept, a 3-D approach. It’s  
supposed to balance defence, diplomacy, development- and actually  
this concept of provincial reconstruction teams that is being applied  
in both Iraq and Afghanistan is supposed to do this- where you have  
the military and development agencies actually working hand in hand  
in the same base going out and working together.

We asked for a list of CIDA projects from the Canadian embassy in  
Afghanistan and they said they would contact us and we never heard  
back from them. We stumbled across one CIDA project that was an  
artificial insemination project – with a sign on an office – it was  
closed and the windows were broken. That was the only CIDA project we  
actually found on our own, but we didn’t go looking very hard, we  
kind of stumbled across it. (There was) an interesting situation in  
Bamiyan, a New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team- a PRT base, a  
typical military base- a well-fortified military base. It had a large  
airstrip so that planes could come in and out and it was on a high  
point of land, a plateau above the town of Bamiyan, about 8 km out of  
the town. And they did build a development project; they built a high  
school for girls. But they didn’t build it in the town of Bamiyan;  
they built it immediately below the base so that the workers at the  
base would be protected by the military. Bamiyan has been one of the  
most stable regions since the invasion.

This is the town where the Taliban destroyed the giant statues of the  
Buddha. But since 2001, the Taliban has been gone. It’s a Hazara  
ethnic area - and the Hazara have really acquiesced to the  
occupation, and there’s been to my knowledge no attacks on coalition  
forces or ISAF in this area, so there’s not a big security problem -  
it’s as stable as its going to get. The school was built immediately  
beside the base below this plateau so as to provide security. It’s a  
clear shot from the base down to this area, with a clear view of the  
surrounding valley and a good secure place to build this thing.  
However, it is a 16 km round-trip walk for the girls from Bamiyan to  
get to the school and back, and you get pretty severe winters in this  
area as well. It’s not the ideal place to put the school; it should  
have been in town. The university student who pointed it out to me  
said that this is just typical of the way these projects are – it was  
obviously considering the interests of the people who built this and  
not considering the interest of the Afghans who actually have to use  
it – and it was done without the consultation of the people who live  
in the area.

Along with development, the Afghan government is also constantly used  
as a justification for maintaining the occupation. We are told that  
the current government represents a vast improvement from the time of  
the Taliban- and that international troops are needed to support and  
help it. What changes in the government have we actually seen since  
the Taliban?

HR: I don’t think anything substantially has changed since the time  
of the Taliban – the Taliban was representing the feudal comprador  
ruling class of Afghanistan – especially the Pashtun ruling classes.  
This current government is again representing the ruling classes of  
Afghanistan and is directly at the service of an imperialist  
occupation. There have been some very minor cosmetic changes. Lets  
say in relation that this government is giving some positions of  
power to the non-Pashtun nationalities - the Taliban didn’t – this  
government is giving some symbolic positions to women – the Taliban  
didn’t bother with those kind of things. But I would say all these  
changes are cosmetic changes, there is nothing substantial.

For example, the imperialists during the invasion talked a lot about  
the issue of women and in that regard have given to some women  
individuals and groups some positions in the ranks of the puppet  
regime; this has nothing to do with rights of women of Afghanistan,  
rather it is purely for the purpose of turning the question of women  
a political tool at the service of imperialist occupation. It’s still  
a chauvinist government - a male chauvinist government, an ethnic  
chauvinist government. It’s a theocratic government. Taliban was a  
single party theocracy; this government is a multi-party theocracy.  
This government also states in its constitution that no law shall be  
put into place in Afghanistan that is in contradiction to Sharia law  
– and Sharia law is obviously not very friendly towards women or  
religious minorities. I would say there is no change substantially  
from the time Taliban. On so many levels this government is worse  
than the Taliban. For example, this government is more corrupt. There  
was no bribery during the Taliban’s time- it was much cleaner on  
those issues. However, in this government, from the President to the  
very low ranking officials of the government, everyone is taking  
bribes – so it is much, much more corrupt than the Taliban ever was.

There is a position put forward, by RAWA (Revolutionary Association  
of Afghan Women), Malaia Joya (former Afghan parliamentarian), and  
sections of the international ‘left’ who recognize the presence of  
warlords and drug barons in the Afghan government, but who say the  
regime as a whole cannot be dismissed. That is, they claim that  
people like Karzai are different from these warlords, and can still  
be worked with. Do you agree with this assertion?

HR: I don’t agree with this position at all because it does not  
reflect the reality on the ground – Hamid Karzai’s government is  
corrupt from A to Z – if anyone would be complaining about the  
warlords stealing and drug dealings, Hamid Karzai’s brother himself,  
Ahmad Wali Karzai, is the largest drug lord in the southern  
provinces. Hamid Karzai himself had links with the Taliban; he was  
working with the Taliban government. There is no substantial  
difference between Hamid Karzai and the people who would be regarded  
as warlords. I think Hamid Karzai is as much a warlord as the others  
around him; and we must never forget that in the context of  
Afghanistan that the biggest warlords are the coalition forces of the  
NATO troops who are killing the people with much more sophisticated  
and modern weapons than the warlords could ever have done. I don’t  
buy that kind of argument that is also put forward by the mainstream  
western media, the mainstream politics - that they have put in place  
a democratic government led by Hamid Karzai that is surrounded by bad  
warlords. This is buying into this imperialist discourse of the issue.

The reality is that Hamid Karzai is the head of this puppet  
government and this puppet government is a multi-party puppet  
government that has different people within it: previous warlords,  
Mujahideen commanders, some remnants of the Peoples Democratic Party  
of Afghanistan, remnants of the bureaucrats from the time of the king  
– they are all coming together and they are all in the body of this  
puppet government which is supported by the American imperialists. So  
to distinguish between a good section of the government and the bad  
section of the government, I think is playing into the politics of  
the western imperialists. They all are equally taking part in the  
national treason.

So to distinguish between a good section of the government and the  
bad section of the government, I think is playing into the politics  
of the western imperialists. Above all it shows a kind of  
capitulationism towards the imperialist occupation and thinking if  
they would put a lot of resources in hands of the Karzai led  
“national government” (which I would call the puppet government)  
things would change for the better. The people who are with Karzai  
are also with his imperialist masters. Thus, they should be  
considered pro-imperialists, and they are not forces of the left to  
me. In these kinds of situations we should have no illusions about  
who our friends are and who our enemies are?

The people in Afghanistan loathe the puppet regime. That is why  
resistance to the puppet regime and the occupation are on the rise.  
People there very frequently hit to the streets with radical slogans  
like “Down with America” and “Down with the puppet regime”.

Can you talk about these various factions within the Afghan  
government, and what relation they have with the inter-imperial  
issues and rivalries Mike described earlier.

HR: The principal agents of American imperialists in Afghanistan are  
Karzai and his cronies in the government. For example, the minister  
of finance Anwar-ul-Haq Ahadi, who is the leader of the Afghanistan’s  
Social Democratic party, the minister of defence General Wardak, the  
ex-minister of the interior Ali Ahmad Jalali – they are usually the  
Pashtun ruling classes, and they are the principal agents of American  
imperialism. The Russians and Iran has another base of support with  
the puppet government, which are famous in the west as the warlords;  
they are usually the ruling classes of the non-Pashtun nationalities,  
though some Hazara reactionaries are with Karzai – they are divided.

So we should remember that the puppet regime in Afghanistan, which is  
a result of the Bonn conference in December 2001, was a compromise  
between different imperialist players: the US, the Russians, the EU  
and also the regional players like Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,  
India and China – they all compromised over what the future  
settlement in Afghanistan should be. But gradually the US wing of the  
regime gained strength and is kicking out and cleaning the puppet  
government of the Russian backed players (the Northern Alliance for  
example), so Russia is not happy with the whole situation. All the  
imperialist powers have their representatives in this government;  
even Germany has its representative in this government. For example,  
the German representative in the government is the foreign minister,  
Rangin Dadfar Spanta. The parliament doesn’t like him very much, the  
parliament wants to kick him out, but because of the German pressure,  
he is still in the cabinet. In the larger inter- imperial rivalry  
between the US and the Russians, of course the Germans side with the  
US in this case, so the US is also standing behind a person like  
Spanta, who is in the Karzai cabinet. So this is the composition of  
the different factions – some are representing US interest, some are  
representing Russian interests, and definitely no one is representing  
the interests of the people of Afghanistan in this puppet government.

One regional issue directly tied to the government and situation in  
Afghanistan is in Pakistan. We constantly hear of the charges against  
Musharraf (Pakistani President), that he is not doing enough to fight  
‘terror’ in Afghanistan etc., and of the ongoing tensions between him  
and Karzai. Can you talk about this conflict between the Afghani and  
Pakistani governments, and its historical origins?

HR: The conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan has a long history.  
When Pakistan was created in 1947, Afghanistan was one of the  
countries that opposed the creation of Pakistan as a country. It has  
its roots and effect that in the late 19th century, Afghanistan and  
Britain signed an agreement that handed over territories of  
Afghanistan to British India at the time. Those territories are  
Balochistan province and North West Frontier Province (NWFP) in  
Pakistan. That agreement was for 100 years- 100 years passed in 1993,  
these territories should have been handed back to Afghanistan. So it  
had its roots in there. The Afghanistani ruling classes have always  
had its ties to these territories- emotional, historical and  
nationalist attachments to the lost provinces of Afghanistan, which  
is now under Pakistani control. It goes to that.

The other aspect of this whole thing is that American Imperialism has  
always played Afghanistani politics through Pakistan - in 1970s, when  
President Daoud led a coup against his cousin and declared  
Afghanistan to be a republic, Afghanistan became very close to the  
Soviet Union. America supported Islamic fundamentalists against the  
Daoud government from 1973 onward. This whole thing happened through  
Pakistan – Pakistan was supporting the Islamists in Afghanistan  
against Daoud’s government. In 1978, when the People’s Democratic  
Party of Afghanistan led another coup against Daoud, the Soviet Union  
became much more involved in Afghanistan, and then America pumped up  
all the support for the Islamists in Afghanistan – again through  
Pakistan. Since 1970, until the time of the government of the  
Taliban, all the governments of Afghanistan had sour relationship  
with Pakistan – Pakistan was supporting the Islamists against the  
Daoud’s government, and later against the People’s Democratic Party  
of Afghanistan’s government -and all these governments’ again, were  
claiming these two provinces. For the first time in the history of  
Afghanistan, the only pro-Pakistani government was the government of  
the Taliban. Taliban was the only pro-Pakistani government in the  
history of Afghanistan. Now that the Taliban is gone, there are talks  
about the re-mapping of the Middle East. America put out another map  
of how to re-map and re-shape the Middle East, and according to that  
map, America is planning to make Balochistan an independent country -  
but to give North Western Front province and that of Pashtun  
population – to Afghanistan. And this is very much what the Pashtun  
ruling classes in Afghanistan want. So maybe this is why they have  
stepped up criticism of the Musharraf government – “Musharraf is not  
doing very much to curb terrorism in Afghanistan” etc. – this has to  
do with these international politics and the immediate politics of  
the region - the re-mapping of the Middle East.

How to solve the problem of Balochistan and NWF province? The  
progressive forces in Afghanistan have always had the position that  
it is not the business of politicians in Islamabad or the politicians  
in Kabul to determine the future of millions of people living in  
Balochistan and NWF province of Pakistan – it is their own business.  
They should have the right of self determination – they are the  
oppressed nationalities within Pakistan – so its up to them to decide  
if they want to go to Pakistan in a voluntary unity – if they want to  
have their own independent state or if they want to join Afghanistan  
– but this has to happen from a bottom up resistance in a fight of  
the oppressed nationalities and oppressed peoples, in the process of  
the new democratic revolution. This problem (of oppressed  
nationalities) also exists in Afghanistan.

On the armed resistance actively fighting the occupation troops in  
Afghanistan-which forces are involved in this insurgency, who is  
funding/arming them, and how should we in the anti-war/ anti- 
imperialist movement be viewing them?

HR: Right now two political forces are actively engaging in armed  
resistance to the occupation. The most important is the Taliban,  
after the Taliban is the Islamic Party of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is also  
somewhat active but it is a very minor player. The Taliban is much,  
much more active, especially in the south - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is  
somehow active in the northern province of Kunduz. Who is supporting  
the resistance in Afghanistan? There are some indications that  
elements in the Pakistani establishment are supporting the Taliban - 
giving them arms. There are also some accusations against Iran, that  
Iran is supplying arms and resources to the Taliban and to the  
resistance against the American occupation, but these accusations  
cannot be proven. One thing that is very clear is that the Taliban is  
buying most of its arms from within Afghanistan – they are buying  
them – either they had them from before, or they are buying them. The  
price of a kalashnikov in Afghanistan right now is around 1000  
dollars – which is very expensive according to Afghanistani  
standards. Why is it expensive? Because the Taliban are buying all  
the kalashnikovs; the demand is very high. They are buying them from  
the underground markets- so that as guns get smaller and smaller they  
are more expensive. A Mekarov pistol, for example, would be much more  
expensive than a kalashnikov– the bigger guns are significantly  
cheaper – because no one is buying them - they are not good for  
guerrilla warfare, which is the type of war the Taliban are leading.

The anti-war movement should be putting all its energies against the  
occupation – because this occupation is the root of all the problems.  
As long as the imperialist occupation continues in Afghanistan, it  
means the war will continue. It means many, many innocent people will  
die. So the antiwar movement should be focusing on defeating this  
imperialist occupation- forcing the Canadian government, or in the  
case of America, forcing the American government, to withdraw from  
Afghanistan. Currently the Taliban are not the principal enemy – the  
principal enemy is the imperialist occupation and all the resources  
should be focused on that.

MS: I think something Hamayon has pointed out that is important– is  
that we can’t allow the Taliban and the Islamic party to maintain the  
monopoly on resistance. That there has to be an alternative to those  
radical Islamic organizations as far as resisting imperialism, and  
that as long as our military is in place we’re creating the  
environment to encourage more recruits for the Taliban for sure. I  
mean for every person we injure, every person we kill, every person  
we make a refugee, we are angering so many people that we are making  
recruits. As an example of some of the things that are happening; I  
talked about the air attacks that are called in and the  
indiscriminate retaliatory attacks when convoys are attacked, but one  
of the tactics that the Canadian military is doing which a number of  
people told us about, in their search and destroy missions - in the  
counter insurgency tactics – we are in a counter insurgency war, this  
is what is being undertaken, the same as in Vietnam, same as in  
Central America – this is counterinsurgency. This is what we  
condemned the Americans for in the past and what we are now partners  
in. The Canadian military will give 24 hours warning to a village –  
they’ll tell the people we are coming to your village – evacuate –  
and if you don’t evacuate you risk being killed. So of course people  
evacuate, the forces come in, they are looking for weapons,  
explosives, but because it is considered unsafe to go into a building  
because it might be booby-trapped –they just destroy every building,  
they destroy the homes, they destroy the farm buildings, they destroy  
the wells because there might be weapons hidden in the well and than  
they leave and tell the people they can go back. Then for some reason  
the Canadian military is shocked when these people become refugees  
instead of going back and starting all over again to rebuild their  
homes and their farms. This is considered to be the more humanitarian  
tactic that the Canadians are doing as opposed to what the Americans  
have often been doing - which is outright bombing of homes and farms  
without any warning.

In terms of eliminating that monopoly of Islamic forces over  
resistance to imperialism- what leftist/progressive forces are there  
in Afghanistan sincerely opposing the occupation? And were you and  
Mike able to meet with any of them?

HR: Mike and I had an informal chat with one of the members of the  
Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan and he was talking about the  
importance of an international support for the leftists in  
Afghanistan. He gave an interesting example - when the Americans  
invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the invasion and occupation happened  
with this huge international coalition of countries- all the  
imperialist powers are either there directly supporting the Americans  
in the occupation or indirectly supporting it through political and  
economic means. Either their soldiers are there or they are sending  
money or doing different things. The political Islamists in the form  
of the Taliban who are resisting the imperialist occupation also have  
a huge international coalition; Islamists across the Arab world, from  
South Asia through East Asia are supporting Taliban in their resistance.

The Taliban alone cannot do the kind of resistance that they are  
doing, the Americans cannot alone occupy this country, and the left  
in Afghanistan, since it is an international struggle, cannot play  
their role alone. So the left in Afghanistan need the support of the  
left internationally to have a foothold in Afghanistan in the  
resistance against the imperialist occupation. The left has a long  
history in Afghanistan – they have resisted the Soviet social  
imperialist occupation in Afghanistan, they have resisted the  
Islamists, now they are engaging in an ideological and political  
struggle against the American imperialist occupation and they say  
they are in a stage of preparing for a national people’s war of  
resistance to the imperialist occupation. They have a base in there–  
people are looking up to them. They have much respect across Afghan  
society – especially the Maoist variant of the left. People consider  
that they, unlike all other political forces, have not engaged in  
human rights violations, and in selling out the country. They have  
been the people who have always asked for the independence of the  
country, for the pride of the people of Afghanistan for self-  
determination, and have always been there with the people kind of  
thing. So the people are looking up to them.

Sometimes the people are even joking and saying that all the  
political forces in the history of this country have ruled  
Afghanistan for a while – the People’s Democratic Party of  
Afghanistan, - they ruled Afghanistan - the Islamists ruled  
Afghanistan for a long time through the Mujahideen, then the Taliban  
variety, the chauvinist, pseudo-fascist version of Afghanistan’s  
social democratic party are in power with Hamid Karzai right now. So  
the only movement in Afghanistan that have not been in power are the  
Maoists- the people are saying now it is your turn. So for that kind  
of thing to materialize, I think the left should understand its  
international duty – that it is not only enough to condemn the  
American imperialism, the imperialist occupation– to get to the  
streets when denouncing the imperialist occupation - it is not enough  
to complain about the reactionary nature of the Taliban. What the  
left should do – the left have always been internationalists – they  
should extend their support and solidarity to the revolutionary and  
progressive forces in Afghanistan. I think Mike’s thing to go to  
Afghanistan and talk to the people is an excellent example of that  
kind of internationalist solidarity; this is what internationalist  
solidarity should be all about and in the future they (the left)  
should be doing those types of things. If they cannot send their Che  
Guevara’s to go and pick up guns – then do it by having reporting of  
the situation on the ground and to do support by other means. They  
should coordinate and cooperate with the left in Afghanistan on joint- 
projects. I think these things can definitely change things on the  
ground in Afghanistan.

To finish off Mike- from your time in Afghanistan, is there a message  
you have? Something you think the left internationally, but in Canada  
in particular, isn’t getting or is not doing?

MS: One thing the left can do, and particularly considering a  
Canadian election is imminent, is taking a stand against our military  
presence in Afghanistan. I think we need to really do some much  
deeper analysis of what it is we’re doing there. I don’t think there  
is a politician in Canada that could stand at a podium and speak to  
an audience here and say we should send our military into a place  
like Afghanistan to a fight for the capitalist empire. We need to  
force politicians to be in that position where they have to be honest  
about that statement, because that is exactly what we are doing in  
Afghanistan right now. Yet we are not forcing our politicians to be  
honest about that. The only politician that I’ve ever heard honestly  
make that statement is Michael Ignatieff in his book “Empire Lite”  
where he says exactly that in those explicit terms and he’s never  
been brought to account by the media to actually have to own up to  
that since becoming a politician. Yet I think most Canadians and  
those in positions of leadership understand that that is what they’re  
doing – we are fighting a war to expand a capitalist empire  
throughout the world. But there is not a politician that has the guts  
to say that and bring that out for discussion.

  So that is certainly a role of the left to put that on the table  
before an election. We need to ask our politicians: “Are you  
supporting fighting a war for capitalist empire - is that what we are  
going to send soldiers to do? And if Canadians are unwilling to  
support that, which I highly doubt they are, then we should be  
bringing the troops out of Afghanistan. There is certainly no  
evidence that the troops are in Afghanistan to improve human rights,  
to improve women’s’ rights. Even after six years of occupation, only  
3% of girls are going to school. I can’t see how that means we’ve  
improved women’s rights very significantly. Even though there are  
some marginal improvements for some privileged women, there is no  
doubt that there have been some minor improvements, but overall very  
minor. That’s something the left has to grapple with, because the  
left has been very confused up to this point. I think – particularly  
because the Taliban was so repressive, so misogynist, that this is  
being seen as a choice between a Taliban rule or an authoritarian  
occupation by the West and I don’t think those are the only two  
alternatives.

We have to provide some other options for Afghan people -  
particularly the progressive Afghans and particularly secular Afghans  
and moderate Muslims who don’t agree with the theocratic state that  
exists and that we’re fully supporting. What the Canadian government  
has done is sided with one radical Islamists regime at war with two  
other radical Islamists regimes and we’ve left absolutely no space  
for progressive alternatives in that. And I think the left in Canada  
is not helping that because we’re not seeing any space for  
progressive alternatives in Afghanistan.

  So it’s essential that these issues are put on the table - that the  
soldiers are pulled out of Afghanistan and in their place – we should  
have 30,000 doctors in Afghanistan rather than 30,000 soldiers. This  
could have a very positive effect –and some of those things we’ve  
promised – like building hospitals and schools and creating  
infrastructure could actually be positive influences, but not having  
the troops. Particularly not having the troops in the kind of  
counterinsurgency war where human rights abuses and war crimes are  
inevitable, because these crimes are part of the counterinsurgency  
process.

Finally, if we really believe in democracy and self-determination, we  
need to ask Afghans what they need and want, rather than force them  
at gunpoint to do what is in our best interest.

Mike Skinner is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of political  
science at York University and a Researcher at the York Centre for  
International and Security Studies (YCISS). A well-known activist and  
researcher, he is also a member of the Canadian Union of Postal  
Workers Toronto Local and the Canadian Union of Public Employees,  
local 3903.

Hamayon is an Afghan-Canadian who grew up in his country of origin-  
and experienced a foreign occupation under the Soviet Union first  
hand. He is finishing his last year as a political science student at  
York University, and has a thorough understanding of Afghan politics  
and history. They have, along with fellow-researcher Angela Joya,  
recently formed the Afghanistan-Canadian Research Group- of which the  
trip represents the first phase of the work.

To read the dispatches written by Mike from Afghanistan and to learn  
more about the Afghanistan-Canadian Research Group visit: http:// 
www.tuaw.ca/other/dispatch0.html

Kabir Joshi-Vijayan: kabirjv at hotmail.com