GW66
Ending this
Asian War
Twenty years ago,
defeated by US-armed guerillas, the last Soviet
soldier marched out of Afghanistan. This winter,
more than 100,000 American soldiers and tens of
thousands of British and other European troops will
be fighting in Afghanistan. Joint Green Party
International Coordinator, Farid
Bakht,
relates the Green Party’s opposition to the war as
ratified at the autumn conference.
UK public opinion is shifting against the
war, despite the barrage of propaganda from
the three main UK parties and the media. To
paraphrase David Cameron, the differences
between the Conservatives, New Labour and the
Liberal Democrats are as thin as a cigarette
paper. Calls for ‘savage cuts’ at home are
accompanied by demands for resources:
helicopters, armoured vehicles and cannon
fodder needed for a war in Asia.
The Green Party of England & Wales stands 180 degrees against the political consensus. We regard the war on the basis of real-politik, not just on the grounds of morality and justice.
As in Iraq, the war has a lot to do with fossil fuels.
The reality is that the war’s primary concern is the stabilisation of the region to enable US energy companies, such as Unocal, to lay pipelines, primarily to feed India. Indeed, the TAP pipeline agreement was signed in December 2001, only weeks after the invasion.
Hamid Karzai, the puppet President, previously worked as a consultant for Unocal. He was a facilitator for the Taliban in the US visit in 1996, negotiating over the same gas pipeline for Unocal (now Chevron) to supply gas from Turkmenistan to India, via Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now he is widely discredited and stands accused of stealing up to one-third of the votes in the August election. So much for promoting democracy.
Aid money has been looted, with precious little reconstruction, and Afghan peasants have little choice but to grow opium just to survive. So much for nation-building. Drones recruit more fighters by killing innocent civilians. So much for liberation.
The war also follows the longstanding doctrine of controlling central ‘Eurasia’, a modern variant of the Great Game. The UK has a misplaced sense of historical mission. We have no need for the gas of Central Asia. We no longer have an empire and do not have to revisit our battlefields. We do not need to engage in geo-political games with Russia and China.
The ‘luxury’ of ‘punching above our weight’ means the UK spends twice as much per capita on the military than the other European nations. If we require energy security, it would be better to open more Vestas-type wind turbine factories, not close them down.
Ultimately, this war is unwinnable and the voters would agree with us, if they knew. We need to shout louder.
Our policy is to demand an end to this adventure, an immediate withdrawal of NATO soldiers and peace negotiations with all the main players.
The Green Party of England & Wales stands 180 degrees against the political consensus. We regard the war on the basis of real-politik, not just on the grounds of morality and justice.
As in Iraq, the war has a lot to do with fossil fuels.
The reality is that the war’s primary concern is the stabilisation of the region to enable US energy companies, such as Unocal, to lay pipelines, primarily to feed India. Indeed, the TAP pipeline agreement was signed in December 2001, only weeks after the invasion.
Hamid Karzai, the puppet President, previously worked as a consultant for Unocal. He was a facilitator for the Taliban in the US visit in 1996, negotiating over the same gas pipeline for Unocal (now Chevron) to supply gas from Turkmenistan to India, via Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now he is widely discredited and stands accused of stealing up to one-third of the votes in the August election. So much for promoting democracy.
Aid money has been looted, with precious little reconstruction, and Afghan peasants have little choice but to grow opium just to survive. So much for nation-building. Drones recruit more fighters by killing innocent civilians. So much for liberation.
The war also follows the longstanding doctrine of controlling central ‘Eurasia’, a modern variant of the Great Game. The UK has a misplaced sense of historical mission. We have no need for the gas of Central Asia. We no longer have an empire and do not have to revisit our battlefields. We do not need to engage in geo-political games with Russia and China.
The ‘luxury’ of ‘punching above our weight’ means the UK spends twice as much per capita on the military than the other European nations. If we require energy security, it would be better to open more Vestas-type wind turbine factories, not close them down.
Ultimately, this war is unwinnable and the voters would agree with us, if they knew. We need to shout louder.
Our policy is to demand an end to this adventure, an immediate withdrawal of NATO soldiers and peace negotiations with all the main players.
Putting the Opium to good
use
Richard Lawson
One of the ironies of the Afghanistan tragedy is that if the government would adopt the Green Party’s proposals to buy and medicalise the opium crop, they could achieve their aims and leave Afghanistan in a more prosperous and secure condition.
Every year, some 6 million people die of cancer in the Global South without the benefits of opiate painkillers. The Afghan opium crop, which at present supplies 90% of the heroin used on our streets, should be bought up by the World Health Organisation, purified to medical grade, and used to treat terminal pain. Caroline Lucas has been conducting a long correspondence with the Foreign Office, who respond with the absurd argument that some of the produce “might leak onto the black market” – absurd because at present ALL of it is leaking onto the black market. They are deaf to the argument that it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers when their livelihoods are dependent on the opium crop, which is valued at up to 50% of the Afghan economy. They are deaf to arguments that to legitimise and purchase the opium would pull the financial rug out from under the feet of the Taliban. They refuse to understand that the policy would slash the criminal activity and health problems associated with illegal Afghan heroin. They are blind to the corruption associated with the drugs trade, which penetrates high into the Afghan administration. And they are blind to the immense suffering associated with untreated terminal pain in Africa.
The Green Party’s policy is shared by the International Council on Security and Development, the Afghan Red Crescent and the Italian Red Cross. The core objection by the government is that the Afghan government does not have the necessary control mechanisms in place; but this puts the cart before the horse. At present, the Afghan government’s writ does not run in opium producing areas because the crop is illegal, and the Taliban is the farmers’ buyer. If the government were to become the buyer, the allegiance of the farmers would change.
We have a strong case for our policy, and should use every opportunity to publicise the irrationality of the government’s position.
Richard Lawson
One of the ironies of the Afghanistan tragedy is that if the government would adopt the Green Party’s proposals to buy and medicalise the opium crop, they could achieve their aims and leave Afghanistan in a more prosperous and secure condition.
Every year, some 6 million people die of cancer in the Global South without the benefits of opiate painkillers. The Afghan opium crop, which at present supplies 90% of the heroin used on our streets, should be bought up by the World Health Organisation, purified to medical grade, and used to treat terminal pain. Caroline Lucas has been conducting a long correspondence with the Foreign Office, who respond with the absurd argument that some of the produce “might leak onto the black market” – absurd because at present ALL of it is leaking onto the black market. They are deaf to the argument that it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers when their livelihoods are dependent on the opium crop, which is valued at up to 50% of the Afghan economy. They are deaf to arguments that to legitimise and purchase the opium would pull the financial rug out from under the feet of the Taliban. They refuse to understand that the policy would slash the criminal activity and health problems associated with illegal Afghan heroin. They are blind to the corruption associated with the drugs trade, which penetrates high into the Afghan administration. And they are blind to the immense suffering associated with untreated terminal pain in Africa.
The Green Party’s policy is shared by the International Council on Security and Development, the Afghan Red Crescent and the Italian Red Cross. The core objection by the government is that the Afghan government does not have the necessary control mechanisms in place; but this puts the cart before the horse. At present, the Afghan government’s writ does not run in opium producing areas because the crop is illegal, and the Taliban is the farmers’ buyer. If the government were to become the buyer, the allegiance of the farmers would change.
We have a strong case for our policy, and should use every opportunity to publicise the irrationality of the government’s position.
▾
▾