Skip navigation

Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues

What happened after the war on Afghanistan?

Cambridge IMC | 15.01.2004 23:00 | Analysis | Culture | Terror War | Cambridge | World

On 7 October 2001, the US and UK began air attacks on Afghanistan. At that time, so soon after 11 September, there was some support for military action (1). On 7 December 2001, Kandahar, the last Taleban stronghold, fell prompting those in the West to declare the war to be won. (2).

But what was the end result of this war? Certainly Osama Bin Laden wasn't captured, though some Al-Qaeda infrastructure may have been destroyed. In the immediate aftermath of the war, it appeared that the UK and US' most obvious achievement had been the overthrowing of the Taliban - harbourers of Bin Laden, supporters of Al-Qaeda and oppressors of the local Afganistan population. So what did this mean for the people of Afghanistan?

Bande Amir: Reconstruction after the war in Yakawlang (Sep 2002)
Bande Amir: Reconstruction after the war in Yakawlang (Sep 2002)


Tony Blair said at the Labour party conference in September 2001 that "To the Afghan people, we make this commitment. We will not walk away... If the Taliban regime changes, we will work with you to make sure its successor is one that is broadbased, that unites all ethnic groups and offers some way out of the poverty that is your miserable existence." So is this what happened?

The links below may help to answer this question. In particular it is worth considering such factors as:

  • The immediate legacy of war: There are serious ongoing problems with clusterbombs(3); Foreign troops continue to cause serious distress to the local population(4,5); Indirect deaths from hunger, cold and poverty have increased since the war(6), in addition to deaths caused by ongoing bombing and other violence(7,8);
  • The peace on the ground: Afghanistan has been described as a `patchwork of instability'(9) with evidence that the security situation has decreased in 2003(10) to the point that `every Afghan' is affected(11); Furthermore the Taliban appears to be, once more, on the rise(12);
  • The part that the UN and other NGOs are playing in Afghanistan: The UN has said that it may `have to pull out'(13) as aid workers have been targetted by violence(14); Read personal accounts from aid workers in Afghanistan(15, 16);
  • The human rights situation: Amnesty has produced a report on the situation(17) while both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch continue to monitor Afghanistan(18,19); Particular problems include the history of human rights abuses which seems to dog prospective leaders of the country(20) as well as the ongoing abuses of the country's warlords(21); In addition life for women does not seem to have improved as much as had been predicted(22);
  • The input and investment from foreign governments: The Afghan President has asked for massive aid from the West(23) however it seems not to have been forthcoming(24); American descriptions of their reconstruction efforts(25) seem to be undermined by a lack of foreign investment (26);
  • The role of drugs in Afghanistan:After the invasion of Afghanistan, production of opium poppies leapt from 30 to 285 square miles; 95 per cent of the heroin sold on London's streets is still of Afghan origin (27); Some efforts are being made to clamp down on production by the new administration(28) but the contrast between below-subistence returns on growing food and the lure of opium profits means that this will be difficult to enforce(29);
  • The path towards a viable government:A Loya Jirga, or grand council, has been set up(30) to produce a constitution for Afghanistan(31); It faces several problems, including ethnic division, claims of sexism in appointing delegates to positions of power, security threats(32) and claims of undemocratic process(33); There are concerns about the viability of lasting stable government in Afghanistan(34) and there are many powerful interests active in Afghanistan which will pose potential problems for any new government seeking to exert its authority(35).

All these links, and others, are reproduced below, grouped by source. General overviews are also included(36,37).

  1. From the BBC:
  2. From ZNet:
  3. From The Guardian:
  4. From the US Government:
  5. From RAWA:
  6. From the Pak Tribune:
  7. From Amnesty International:
  8. From Professor Marc Herold:
  9. From Human Right's Watch:
  10. From other sources:
Kabul - bomb damage
Kabul, Afghanistan - bomb damage (May 2002). Photo courtesy of the Post-Conflict Assessment Unit of the United Nations Environment Programme.

Cambridge IMC


Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Excellent - please help us keep Afghanisatn in public eye

12.02.2004 13:14

This report is really excellant reporting.

It is very important that Afghanisatn is not forgotten. Afghanistan and Guantanamo bay are the barbaric future if we let the American empire have its way. Invade anywhere, kidnap anyone, torture anyone. Might is right. If you are not with us you are with the terrorists.

On the Swindon Stop the War Web Site, we try to keep a running up to date commentary on Afghanistan, with news from diverse sources:  http://freespace.virgin.net/swindon.stopwar/afghanistan.htm

If you have any stories please send them to our web-master:  swindon.stopwar@virgin.net

There is also a news archive, including some more reflective and analytical pieces:
 http://freespace.virgin.net/swindon.stopwar/afghanistan_allnews.htm

New Labour lied through their teeth to justify their blitzkrieg on Afghanistan. Amongst the most pernicious lies was the claim the war was fought to benefit women. It is iportnat to challenge those politciians who peddled this untruth. Here is a lteer I sent to our por-war MP on the subject:
 http://freespace.virgin.net/swindon.stopwar/Afghanistan_letter_Andy_Newman_2003_06.htm

These are just some of the lies told by New Labour politicians justifying the Blitzkrieg on Afghanistan, pretending this was a humanitarian intervention:

14 October 2001 - John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that Britain was determined to "win the peace" in Afghanistan through a massive aid effort and the creation of a democratic, post-Taliban government.Mr Prescott, who was in Moscow for talks on terrorism and the environment, called for the international coalition to be turned into a wider campaign against global poverty once the conflict was over.

05 October 2001 - Jack Straw sent a direct message to the people of Afghanistan promising help from the outside world once the Taliban were overthrown and Osama bin Laden faced justice. In a text broadcast on the BBC World Service, the Foreign Secretary promised generous assistance to provide schools, clinics, roads and secure livelihoods in the future. He said: "Our commitment to the Afghan people is simple and sincere. You have been ill-served by those who made your country a haven for terrorists across the world. … As soon as this stops, the world will work with you to build a better future for you and for your children."

Peter Hain - 06 October 2001 "Let's use this great coalition to fight world poverty. The solidarity shown to the US could promote an end to unilateralism and isolationism. The international community must work together to minimise the suffering of the Afghan people and to ensure them a peaceful, stable and free future in their country. That means helping to rebuild Afghanistan after its terrorist bases have been eliminated, not just with food aid but with development assistance for infrastructure, jobs, hospitals, schools and homes."

Tony Blair 02 October 2001
"With every bit as much thought and planning, we will assemble a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition "

Andy Newman
mail e-mail: Swindon@stopwar.org.uk
- Homepage: http://freespace.virgin.net/swindon.stopwar/index.htm


Why hasn't Bin Laden been apprehended though?

09.02.2005 23:40

Its not surprising that Osama has not been apprehended when it comes to light that his brother co-founded Bush's Oil company.

This is something that is forgotten by the media, buried in many instances and now we start to hear that the CIA were active with AQ right up until the drop.

The Taleban was created as is public knowledge under the auspices of the CIA through the Pakistan government's secret police network, it is of no surprise that we hear of such collusions in Iraq now and with Iran in the sights of their war machine, whats going to be left of the people of the middle east?

It seems to me that the tools of the US all end up with their final payoff anything other than expected, the Taleban, Hussein, Contra's, the emerging MEK in Iran, all get stiffed in the end by the US, why on earth do they ever trust a country that cannot hold its word.

In all of the global seizures of the funds used by the Taleban, AQ, why has this not been invested in countries like Afghanistan that really could use it right now, where is this seized money going?

I notice though that Osama has not had any major dents into his millions, nor that his inherited part of Bush's oil company is ever disclosed.

My last thought is that people are dying of others greed and mismanagement, its time to stop this now and push America back within her own borders, a country that causes more problems than it can ever solve, a country on the take

Ancient One UK

Ancient One
mail e-mail: postmaster_rpssuk@yahoo.com


Links