‘Saving’ Afghan Women Not An Acceptable Justification For Continued U.S. Presence In Afghanistan

 Comments Off
Nov 112009
 

While Obama continues to practice his leadership style of taking a really, really long time to decide pretty much anything, it appears likely that he will ultimately approve a significant increase in troop levels in Afghanistan.  As Sonali Kolhatkar of the Afghan Women’s Mission writes,

There’s no debate within the Democratic Party or in the White House about whether to end the war. The only thing being debated is how to continue the war.

Regardless of why we went into Afghanistan in the first place, the justifications given for our continued presence are bizarrely vague and the results have been devastating. As Kolhatkar points out,

Our actions in Afghanistan have caused a perfect storm of untold numbers of civilian deaths, fundamentalist resurgence, and women’s oppression. We’re protecting a corrupt government with a puppet president and criminal warlords, and our deadly bombing raids have led to a devastated and rightly bitter population and a stronger Taliban. There’s no promising indication that our military operations can improve the situation, no matter how many troops are added. If ever the Afghanistan war ever had any legitimacy, it’s irreversibly gone.

She  goes on to point to the way in which Afghan women’s lives are now being used as a justification for remaining in Afghanistan, despite the deep flaws in that logic.

One of the original justifications for the war in 2001 that seemed to resonate most with liberal Americans was the liberation of Afghan women from a misogynist regime. This is now being resurrected as the following: If the U.S. forces withdraw, any gains made by Afghan women will be reversed and they’ll be at the mercy of fundamentalist forces. In fact, the fear of abandoning Afghan women seems to have caused the greatest confusion and paralysis in the antiwar movement.

What this logic misses is that the United States chose right from the start to sell out Afghan women to its misogynist fundamentalist allies on the ground. The U.S. armed the Mujahadeen leaders in the 1980s against the Soviet occupation, opening the door to successive fundamentalist governments including the Taliban. In 2001, the United States then armed the same men, now called the Northern Alliance, to fight the Taliban and then welcomed them into the newly formed government as a reward. The American puppet president Hamid Karzai, in concert with a cabinet and parliament of thugs and criminals, passed one misogynist law after another, appointed one fundamentalist zealot after another to the judiciary, and literally enabled the downfall of Afghan women’s rights over eight long years.

Any token gains have been countered by setbacks. For example, while women are considered equal to men in Afghanistan’s constitution, there have been vicious and deadly attacks against women’s rights activists, the legalization of rape within marriage in the Shia community, and a shockingly high rate of women’s imprisonment for so-called honor crimes — all under the watch of the U.S. occupation and the government we are protecting against the Taliban. Add to this the unacceptably high number of innocent women and children killed in U.S. bombing raids, which has also increased the Taliban’s numbers and clout, and it makes the case that for eight years the United States has enabled the oppression of Afghan women and only added to their miseries.

This is why grassroots political and feminist activists have called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from their country. After eight years of American-enabled oppression, they would rather fight for their liberation without our help. The anti-fundamentalist progressive organization, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), has called for an immediate end to the war. Echoing their call is independent dissident member of Parliament Malalai Joya, who tells her story in her new political memoir, A Woman Among Warlords. The members of RAWA and women like Joya are openly targeted by the U.S.-backed Afghan government for their feminism and political activism. RAWA and Joya have worked on the ground, risking their lives for political change and echo the vast majority of poor and ordinary Afghan women. It’s they whom we ought to listen to and express solidarity with. If American progressives think they know better than Afghanistan’s brave feminist activists on how liberation can be achieved, we’re just as guilty as the U.S. government for subjecting them to the mercy of women-hating criminals.

The time has come for the U.S. to quit using the lives of Afghan women to justify its presence in Afghanistan.  That is not the reason we went in and certainly not the reason we should  stay.

For more on the impact of the U.S. military’s presence in Afghanistan, please see Malalai Joya’s recent Op Ed which begins poignantly,

Life for most Afghan women resembles a type of hell that is never reflected in the Western mainstream media.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by on November 11, 2009

Women’s Human Rights Under Siege In Honduras

 Comments Off
Nov 102009
 

Excerpted from Axis of Logic:

On Nov. 2 representatives from Honduran women’s organizations presented a grim panorama of violations of women’s human rights by the de facto regime led by Roberto Micheletti before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.

During a fact-finding mission with international human rights experts and observers in August, over 400 cases of violations of the human rights of women were registered. Of these, 240 testimonies were documented. The following facts are drawn from those testimonies.

• Among the principle violations that women experience are physical aggression, including kicking, beating, insults, and deep contusions caused by nail-studded police batons; sexual abuse; psychological intimidation and attacks with tear gas.

• Two women, Wendy Avila and Olga Osiris Ucles, died of complications from tear-gas exposure. Nine women LGBT activists were killed, with their bodies showing evidence of torture. The state refused to provide a forensic autopsy for two of the women: Vicky Hernandez and Valeria Ucles.

• The most prevalent forms of police and military violence against women involve insults and beatings aimed at women’s vaginas, breasts, hips and buttocks.

• Of the 240 cases registered, 23 women were victims of groping and beatings targeted to the breasts and crotch area as well as sexual insults and threats of sexual violence.

• Of these 23 cases, 7 involve rapes that occurred in the cities of Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, El Progreso and Danli. These were all gang rapes carried out by police and used explicitly to “punish” women for their involvement in demonstrations. It is suspected that all were pre-meditated as the police involved used condoms. These rapes all occurred while the women victims were apprehended after peaceful demonstrations or during curfews. Of these 7 cases, only 1 woman has presented a formal case to the authorities (the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights). The other victims have presented their testimonies to women’s human rights organizations but have refused to register their cases with the Honduran government Office of Human Rights or Office of Women’s Rights.

• While it is certain these are not the only cases, all the women who are victims give three reasons why they do not register their complaints with the authorities: 1) they fear that the inevitable police investigation will involve the men who perpetrated the crime; 2) since the coup, women do not trust the judicial system to provide an effective response; and 3) where cases have been reported, the police have refused to register the complaint, as in the case of a 17-year-old raped in the company of another woman on September 22nd.

• Since June 28th, there has been an increase in the incidence of femicide. According to a report on violence against women produced by UNDP and the Autonomous University of Honduras, 312 women were violently murdered between January and February of 2008; an average of 26 femicides per month. Until March of 2009, there were 16 per month. According to figes from the Office of Women’s Rights, 325 femicides had been reported through the end of September (an average of 31 per month), and during the month of July alone there were 51 femicides.

• Under the dictatorship there has been a rollback of gains in women’s reproductive rights. On June 29th, one day after the coup, an initiative to ban emergency contraception (earlier vetoed by President Zelaya) was approved.

• Since the Decree of September 21st that removed guarantees for individual freedoms, peaceful protests have moved from the main streets to the neighborhoods and communities. To suppress these demonstrations, the de facto government has armed the military with rubber and wooden bullets, nail-studded clubs, batons, metal tubes, eargas and pepper gas. ’. Neighborhood attacks have had a disproportionate affect on women. Attacks are often carried out in the middle of the night by patrols of 4 or more police officers who break into houses and then stay there for many hours. Women with children are unable to flee and are thus trapped in their homes, a situation that increases their sense of vulnerability and defenselessness.

• Women attempting to flee such attacks have been shot during fire fights, There are numerous cases of women who have been detained by police or the military for more than 3 or 4 hours. Detainees report that they were not informed of the cause of their detention and were denied the right to a legal defense. They were also been deprived of medicines, food and water during detention.

• Human rights lawyers are defending 12 cases of women who have been accused of sedition under the decree PCM-16-2009, 22nd of September, which restricts constitutional guarantees.

• The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights required the Supreme Court of Honduras to provide protective orders for 92 women who are under surveillance and who fear for their lives. No action has been taken by the de facto government.

• Numerous women human rights defenders have been persecuted and watched by security forces.

• Feminists and women leaders in the resistance, along with teachers and lawyers with the Lawyers Front against the Coup, have received death threats direct from the police and military, or by e-mail or on cellphone voicemail. The most high-profile women leaders have received threats where the caller uses their name and profession, indicating the level of police and military surveillance of women in the resistance.

• Three radio programs of women’s organizations have been taken off the air and denied broadcasting licenses under coup decrees that suppress freedom of expression. Documents justifying their removal cite their “disrespect for the Constitution” for broadcasting their legal and political analysis and for condemning the coup.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by on November 10, 2009

Women’s Childbearing Blamed For Carbon Emissions

 2 Responses »
Nov 092009
 

While many of us are still reeling from the Saturday late night Congressional massacre of women’s reproductive rights, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know that women’s childbearing is responsible for global warming.  Who knew.  In an excellent piece on the harms of ‘solving’ global warming with population control, Betsy Hartmann writes in On The Issues,

Overconsumption by the rich has far more to do with global  warming than population growth of the poor. The few countries in the world where population growth rates remain high, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, have among the lowest carbon emissions per capita on the planet.

Serious environmental scholars have taken the population and climate change connection to task, but unfortunately a misogynist pseudo-science has been developed to bolster overpopulation claims. Widely cited in the press, a study by two researchers at Oregon State University blames women’s childbearing for creating a long-term “carbon legacy.”

The entire piece is highly recommended.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by on November 9, 2009

Dems Sell Women’s Rights Down River Of Health Care Denial (corrected)

 Comments Off
Nov 082009
 

A few thoughts on last night’s health care reform vote and the Stupak Amendment.  First of all, 26 out of the 64 Democrats who voted for Stupak then proceeded to vote against the health care reform bill. In other words, women’s reproductive rights were severely compromised to appease 41 members of Congress.  The final vote on the health care bill was 220-215, so only a few of those votes were needed in the first place to secure the vote. For this, in the 11th hour, Nancy Pelosi made a deal with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Many reproductive justice advocates watched the final train wreck on C Span last night in stunned anger, trying to understand how this happened.  Jodi Jacobson, who has covered this issue very thoroughly on RH Reality Check wrote,

Why when millions of women need basic sexual and reproductive health care is it important for the USCCB to be “working out” any plan?  What does Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or any other member of Congress owe the Catholic Bishops that they do not owe the majority of women in this country?  What does Obama owe the Bishops that he does not owe you and me, for example, most of those of us who gave money and time and our lives to his campaign?Do we live in a theocracy?

Honestly: I would like an answer. From the White House.  From the House Leadership.  And you should want one too.

One reaction that I do take issue with is Jane Hamsher‘s assertion that NARAL and Planned Parenthood shoulder part of the blame for what happened.  As much as I  generally respect Hamsher, her reasoning is baffling.

But let’s be clear about this. The only reason that we are in the position where the price of passing health care reform is allowing even liberal Marcy Kaptur to sneeringly dismiss choice activists as narrow class warriors who don’t care about working women is because Planned Parenthood and NARAL have allowed it to happen.  They collect millions of dollars in revenue each year. They’ve exacted no price from the Marcy Kapturs of the world, who actually have to care what liberals think of them, and focused instead on anti-choice Republicans who are only empowered by their ire.  They have no scalps. There is no price for bucking Planned Parenthood and NARAL.  It isn’t a fight that the Democrats want to spend “political capital” on, and these groups insure that they don’t have to.

Forget about the fact that more Americans are now anti-choice than pro-choice for the first time since Gallup has been polling the issue.  More and more Democrats in Congress each year are anti-choice, despite the fact that the party is .  It’s acceptable now.  These groups have the lobbyists, the money, the access, and their leadership uses it for their own personal advancement while the cause they purport to defend withers on the vine.

The national Planned Parenthood organization listed $126 million in assets in 2007.  Cecile Richards made $385,163 .  The state chapters whose employees put their lives on the line so women can have the right to choose deserve support and protection within the Democratic party that she is not providing.

NARAL paid Nancy Keenan $145,538 from the Foundation in 2007, which listed total assets of $4,119,329.  But the NARAL PAC reports $87,125 cash on hand as of September 30, 2009.

And that kind of money was a match for the Catholic Church, Big Pharma and the Insurance companies?  I don’t think so.  No question there are things over the years both organizations could, in hindsight have done better.  But their accomplishments speak for themselves and victim blaming is just not acceptable here.

As @mikkipedia on Twitter said, “Had a nightmare that extremists took healthcare hostage and the Dems bargained away women’s rights to get it back. Wait…”  Imagine if instead we had a dream where our elected officials  stood up against the few in defense of our human rights.  Imagine.


DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by on November 8, 2009

State High Risk Health Insurance Plans Charge Women Higher Premiums

 1 Response »
Nov 062009
 

In recent months we’ve learned that health insurance companies frequently charge women more than men for health insurance.  But they aren’t the only ones.  State High Risk plans that are designed to cover people who have ‘pre-existing conditions’ or for other reasons cannot obtain insurance in some case also discriminate.

First the good news, some states don’t discriminate.  Among them–Montana, Alaska and Minnesota.  Among those that do, the rates are all over the place.  For comparison’s sake, I arbitrarily looked at rates for 33 year olds with $1000 deductibles.  In Kentucky, a woman would pay $501, a man $249.  In Connecticut a woman pays $664, a man $393.  And most insidious (albeit the cheapest of the ones I compared) in Arkansas, a non-smoking woman pays $267 and a man who smokes pays only $247.

This isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list and I have no idea how or if this is handled in the small print of the voluminous healthcare bill that may or may not be passed this weekend.  But I am just speechless that the problem of gender discrimination has not been limited to private companies but has also been perpetrated by state-run programs.  The women of America are  due a major rebate.  Call it the Gender Discrimination Insurance Reparations Act of 2009.

Data quoted above came from state plans found via the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 Posted by on November 6, 2009
 Older Entries  Newer Entries