Should we abandon Afghanistan?
After the stupidity of the Mohammed cartoon, I wondered when the next incident of 7th century religion meeting up with the present (or at least the Magna Carta) would occur. Well it's here. The trial of Mr Rahman is exactly that. Apparently we (the modern world) have spent billions and lives to 'liberate' the Afghan people so that they can execute someone from going from one religion to another. This is in direct contradiction to right to free-belief and you would think the newly minted constitution may protect him but it is written exactly to not solve something like this. If we let this one slide saying they are a new country and haven't gotten their legs yet we bare some of the guilt. It would mean all we have done is help another bunch of fascists rise to power. The west (specifically those paying and with troops) should make it crystal clear that if Mr Rahman is tried as a criminal we will pull resources and troops. I will not support a government that does not recognize human rights.
If you agree write to our government, Peter Mackay is the Minister of Foreign affairs: MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca
If you agree write to our government, Peter Mackay is the Minister of Foreign affairs: MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca
posted by Eddie | 6:24 PM
6 Comments:
My letter:
Hello,
The case of Mr Rahman is of paramount importance to my support for our Afghan mission (despite being an atheist). I do not want my money and troops used to prop-up a fascist regime with no regards to human rights. I support a clear statement (hopefully made with our allies in Afghanistan) explaining clearly the consequences of Mr Rahman's trial. His execution must be followed by our with holding of funds and removal of troops, but imprisonment should also be met with monetary penalties. Don't let our money and our troops support an inhumane government.
Actually the US encouraged them to include the muslim stuff. They even encouraged them to have all there judges well versed in Sharia Law so all the members of the supreme court are also clerics!!
see here, exert:
Legal experts have said the case against Rahman is based on contradictory laws.
Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which states that any Muslim who rejects Islam should be sentenced to death, according to Ahmad Fahim Hakim, deputy chairman of the state-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.
But the constitution adds that "the state shall abide by the ... Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Article 18 of the declaration guarantees the freedom to worship and to "change" religion or belief.
It's ridiculous that Canadian soldiers are anywhere but home. Our government has no business being in Afghanistan. What do we hope to accomplish there? All we are going to do is create resentment where previously there was none over the fact that we are a foreign occupier meddling in their internal affairs. If anything that puts Canadian lives in danger by inducing Afghanis into retaliatory acts. I don’t think the Afghanis care whether or not the mission is approved by the UN, the soldiers weren’t invited and represent an occupying force. It is amazing how people seem to forget the lessons learned during the heyday of imperialism during the 19th century. It was morally bankrupt two hundred years ago and still remains so today.
I disagree that our troops should not go on these types of missions. If a counrty is destabalized a force must be inserted in order for the government to regain order (but not to stay and be the police force), such as Haiti. A necessary condition to civilization is order and if force is not concentrated in the government armed gangs will fill in the gap. Also the Afghan government has asked us to stay. If they told us to leave we would. But if this human rights thing doesn't clear up we should pull out regardless.
I will concede that peacekeeping is sometimes not without merit, although I have no idea what business we have in Haiti (where we are in fact policing, but I digress). However, we are not doing any peacekeeping in Afghanistan, we are waging war.
Another interesting point that pertains to Igor’s comment: The official name of Afghanistan is ‘The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’. I think that it is difficult for many Westerners to understand and comprehend the level of religiosity present among the populations of some countries. However, it is not up to the United States of America or Canada to impose our traditions on other people at the end of a gun barrel. To you and I, constitutionally ingrained Sharia Law seems baffling and ridiculous, but that is their sovereign prerogative.
Now this is where the crux of the argument lies. Eddie has touched upon it, but only because of his atheism. There are two options; one is whereby we impose Canadian traditions and values upon the Afghani people. Or we allow our troops to fight and die for ideals that are inherently non-Canadian in a barren and desolate land far from home. Either situation is morally bankrupt and decidedly against a society that respects liberty and democratic order. The only conscionable remedy is to bring our troops home; they deserve better than to die in a place like Afghanistan.
Here’s a litmus test: When Canada joined the Korean War, the initial ranks were filled with volunteers. They all had their individual reasons, but they probably felt that Canada’s values had to be defended against the scourge of Communism. How many modern citizens of Canada would volunteer today to wage war in Afghanistan? Few indeed, as this is not our war.
My friends in the military have told me theat they support there mission in Afghanistan, but that could be anectdotal. Although those I have spoken to have said the don't fight for ideals (that's a selling point) they fight for their buddies and a check.
I don't believe demading (not with a gun but with the threat of abandonment) humanitarian values is unethical, but it can be counterproductive, like the cartoon reprisals.
Also, we aren't a democracy we are a consitutional democracy (technically monarchy). But the important part is the consitution that means the will of the people cannot override the rights of the one. So the will of the ignorant Afghan people must be ignored since the consitution protects their rights.
But Kurt's objections and reasons are a good litmus test as to what countries we should help. For instance any country with a majority that embraces Sharia law should be left in the 7th century. If we need to take out terrorist strong holds, do it covertly or by air strike. Just because the counrty is broken doesn't mean we should (can) fix it. We need to be more proactive in places like Sudan and ask our generals if we can win the war and not just the battle.
Post a Comment
<< Home