THE SPINE JULY 22, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Kabul conference has come and gone, a half day fest which put the finishing touches on the plans for Afghani security and how it can be helped by fully 70 governments, all in attendance, and, of course, with the United Nations represented by its secretary general Ban Ki-Moon. On Monday, Mrs. Clinton was in Pakistan; on Tuesday, Kabul; on Wednesday, South Korea, right onto the edge of its demilitarized zone with North Korea. Today, she is in Hanoi and, of course, she has reproached the government of Vietnam for its well-documented contempt for human rights. So we know she travels well. And we know she has to sleep. But when does she think? One point on which we can all agree is that she is not her daughter's wedding planner.
But back to the Kabul conference. Unreality suffused the event as the following photos will testify:
The gilded surroundings speak to the fiction of the political situation, like the Czar's chambers while the Petrograd revolt was on fire.
President Karzai announced that his government would take over in 2014. In the meantime, President Obama wants American troops to begin
withdrawal exactly a year from now. Britain is committed to 2014. But, surely, it won't overstay the U.S. In any case, Karzai's regime is a fraud: corrupt, inefficient, unprincipled, disloyal, not brave. The tribes and armed gangs for whose fidelity he is straining are by very nature not trustworthy. Most important, Afghanistan is actually not a country, let alone a nation.
In this morning's Times--actually I read it in the International Herald Tribune--David Sanger fleshes out the "double-edged sword" character of the president's begin-withdrawal deadline of July 2012. His Democratic majority in the House has fallen to the "weariness factor," making the policy more and more dependent on the responsibility (and patriotism!) of the Republicans. Lurking in the Obama West Point speech was a mission, as Sanger quotes Senator Richard Lugar, the statesmanlike ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, that is "proceeding without a clear definition of success." Or "we could make progress for decades on security, on employment, good government, women's rights" without ever reaching "a satisfactory conclusion."
Ah, yes, women's rights. Hillary's theme. During the conference In Kabul she assured the assembly that women's rights are "a personal commitment of mine" and that they "would not be sacrificed" in any peace deal with the Taliban. This, if you will excuse me, is nothing but bullshit. Like the bloated address she gave at another United Nations jamboree, in Beijing in 1995.
Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not. As an American, I want to speak for those women in my own country, women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can’t afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.
I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air, and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who find that, after raising their families, their skills and life experiences are not valued in the marketplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, or fast food chefs so that they can be at home during the day with their children; and for women everywhere who simply don’t have time to do everything they are called upon to do each and every day.
But these were all vapors. The Kabul speech deals with the rights and sufferings of real women. If the Taliban are re-established nothing will help anybody, least of all women whose degraded status is a basic principle of the Islamic warriors against whom we are enlisted. From the Guardian's coverage:
The US secretary of state told a conference of the world's foreign ministers that women in the country "will not be sacrificed" and announced a number of initiatives to improve their situation.
Her intervention came when many diplomats assume that any deal with hardline insurgents will inevitably involve compromises that would have been unthinkable nine years ago, when the US-led invasion of Afghanistan was in part justified by the desire to emancipate Afghan women.
But in a meeting with leading Afghan women today Clinton told them that any deal "can't come at the cost of women and women's lives"...
Earlier this month, a report by Human Rights Watch said the Afghan government was already doing little to protect women and that their rights should be a priority in any political agreement with the Taliban.
The organisation said in areas under the control of militants, women suffer from violence and intimidation while girls' schools and female activists are attacked. The report identified one case where a female civil servant had to quit her job after receiving a "night letter" from insurgents threatening to kill her.
9 comments
Methinks you're a little hyperfocused. Clinton was a strong proponent of the invasion, and women's rights were indeed one of the rationales given. Within the administration, she's been pushing for more assertive action there, and I understand was against the timeline. But she's not the president. Perhaps if more like you had supported her in the primary, things would be different. I understand that you want the US to stay there indefinitely. I'd like us to have completely unlimited resources, and soldiers who don't die, ever. But, failing that, I would be REALLY interested in what you propose be done.
- miceelf
July 22, 2010 at 12:56pm
Disparaging Hillary for upholding women's rights is like knocking Albert Pujols for hitting homeruns: it's one of her strengths as an American leader. I was not a supporter of her Presidential candidacy, for good reasons, but I am not so jaundiced towards her to deny the value and positive contributions she brings to her position. Marty's lack of objectivity on the subject of Hillary amounts to a vendetta, and a boring one at that.
- JackR
July 22, 2010 at 1:17pm
better that Peretz goes back to admitting his ignorance on Afghanistan than this poor excuse of a blogpost. Grumpy old man with too many personal vendettas. Today would have a been a good day for Peretz to read any British paper about this Associated Press report: "World court says Kosovo's independence is legal" By MIKE CORDER (AP) – 43 minutes ago THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Kosovo won a major victory on the world stage Thursday as the United Nations' highest court said its 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia was legal. The nonbinding opinion by the International Court of Justice sets the stage for Kosovo to renew its appeals for further international recognition. The tiny Balkan country has been recognized by 69 countries, including the United States and most European Union nations. It needs 100 for full statehood. ... The opinion — passed in a 10-4 vote by court judges read by court president Hisashi Owada — says international law contains "no ... prohibition of declarations of independence" and therefore Kosovo's declaration "did not violate general international law." ... Serbia and Russia have led opposing countries in condemning Kosovo's statehood, with Serbs arguing it has been the cradle of their civilization and national identity since 1389, when a Christian army led by Serbian Prince Lazar lost an epic battle to invading Ottoman forces. ..." [no wonder the PKK is threatening to declare Kurdish independence from Turkey] or the Financial Times instead of the NYT-IHT on Afghanistan: "America must give the south to the Taliban" By Robert Blackwill http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7caa5128-94f3-11df-af3b-00144feab49a.html
- K2K
July 22, 2010 at 2:00pm
What miceelf said. Also, the women of whom Hillary speaks in America are real too. We don't (generally) suffer the obvious adversities of women under the extremist regimes but the struggles here are just as "real" and that most certainly includes ageism and "lookism" as well as sexism. In the current economic climate it's especially difficult, with real unemployment fluttering around 20% in some areas - people who've lost their jobs or who have given up years of productive work to care for children then aging, dependent parents wake up to find themselves completely marginalized and often poverty stricken at an age when we still have a lot to offer. We need to look hard at the effects of a youth and beauty driven culture, one which exploits both to sell products, and consider what happens to the person when the shell starts to crack a bit. Economically life can be brutal for divorced women or women who otherwise lose their mates; it's especially difficult if we're older which of course compounds economic and social problems times ten. So maybe we ought to be looking more closely at age as well as sexism and racism in America - people who've had long, well-paid and settled careers simply do not get what it's like to be poor and age 50+. Anyway, women's issues are, I think, key to advancing human rights issues in general but they're also a mirror of economic struggle as well as an obvious factor in the struggle against repressive regimes of all types. So, I wouldn't mock Hillary's words - but that leaves the problem of what to do about the whole issue of interventionism on behalf of human rights especially when it comes to armed conflict. For sure though we could be taking a more honest look at our own society.
- Sophia
July 22, 2010 at 2:24pm
In all honesty, Sophia, there's a very strong case to make specifically about reproductive freedom for women and the many positive effects it can have on society. For one, such freedom, over the long term can greatly reduce poverty and the arguably even bigger societal problem of a plethora of young men.
- miceelf
July 22, 2010 at 2:51pm
miccelf, I agree completely.
- Sophia
July 22, 2010 at 6:49pm
Add me to the consensus. A sure sign of societal advancement is the inclusion of women into public life, business and the professions.
- NR114746
July 22, 2010 at 7:30pm
Even thought it's easy to snark at the grandiosity of Hilary Clinton's expressed intentions, I think that she was nevertheless right to express her concern about the status of women in Afghanistan. Misogyny is built into Islam. Politically timid liberal and left-wing feminists have mostly failed to deal with that, preferring to go after easier, more fashionable, targets.
- amidut
July 23, 2010 at 4:11pm
"better that Peretz goes back to admitting his ignorance on Afghanistan than this poor excuse of a blogpost. Grumpy old man with too many personal vendettas" Ah, k2k, bashing Marty, eh? Awhile back, you knocked me for doing the exact same thing. Well, welcome to the club. Marty makes it too easy with the way he sets himself up so well for a knockdown, not unlike a low hanging fruit.
- scrubby
July 23, 2010 at 5:02pm