Laying the Foundation

Matthew 7:25
'The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.'

I think the Bible has it right. One cannot construct something and expect it to hold unless it is built upon a solid base. This is why I believe that the Obama administration should focus on building stability rather than democracy in Afghanistan.

This may seem overly simple, and yet, the questions is also a simple one. Should the Obama Administration focus on building stability or democracy in Afghanistan? This was one of the issues discussed briefly in the article from The Washington Post, titled, "The deflated Arab hopes for Obama".

In my opinion, democracy will follow stability, and not the other way around. Thus, the United States should be doing all in its power to establish the kind of stability that will bring trust between the politicians of Afghanistan and it's inhabitants both of urban centers and rural areas. Stability, not democracy, will build links between the citizens of a country and it's leaders. Farmers will not trust their national army or police force just because the government is democratic; however, if there have been years of peace and, if not prosperity, then constancy within the economy, there will be a greater appreciation for and trust in them.

We have all seen in the recent Afghan elections that democracy will fail without sincerity and honesty. These qualities are not necessarily encouraged by democracy, where a vote can be secured with money, or bent a certain way through force and threats of violence. Stability, however, will mark a peaceful time when leaders are doing what is best for the people. At the very least, stability ensures there are little to no protests, riots, and violence, and therefore less civilian casualties. This cannot be promised with democracy, where everyone wants to have their say.

In the end, it all comes down to a foundation. If we lay the foundation of a stable country, democracy will blossom. The people will trust one another and fear will dissipate, and the government will be able to talk of matters other than war, fraud and elections.

If you are still not convinced, ask yourself this: would you rather see a peaceful Afghanistan, or an Afghanistan with a democratically elected leader? I, for one, think it unlikely that the two will co-exist.

Obama's War... Unveiled.

I recently viewed two videos concerning the Taliban and the war in Afghanistan. The first was Frontline's video, "Obama's War". It outlined the United States' involvement in Afghanistan and how Obama's war strategy is affecting the people and the troops in Afghanistan. It included interviews with generals, politicians and diplomats. It did not include interviews with Afghan citizens. The second video was "Afghanistan Unveiled," a short documentary shot by female Afghan journalists trained in their own country. These women had never before left Kabul, and so the journey to interview Hazara women whose lives have been uprooted by the Taliban was as much a first for them as for the audience. This documentary was solely about the citizens of Afghanistan, and all it showed of the international community's involvement was to mention the change that had occurred since the Taliban's defeat.



These two videos showed two sides of Afghanistan, and both were very informative on different issues. "Obama's War" showed where generals and other very important players stand on the issue of international involvement. It showed the efforts of the American troops to befriend the inhabitants of both urban and rural areas of Afghanistan, and the difficulties of doing so. It also explained the problem of Pakistan, with politicians and military men alike agreeing that this war will not end until Pakistan acknowledges that the Taliban are a terrorist group and makes an effort to displace and destroy their organization. It was a video that was directed towards ordinary citizens of the Western world, and more specifically, the United States. After watching this video, the general public will understand the reasons for and the importance of US involvement in protecting Afghan citizens and eliminating the Taliban, and this is perhaps the most important tool for Obama right now as he makes decisions about troops that could decrease his popularity amongst voters. If the voters are informed as to why the troops are there in the first place, they can make an educated decision as to which front they support.

"Afghanistan Unveiled" was a much more personal story and showed how the people of the country our troops are in are reacting to their new found freedom; it allows for the comparison of Western women's idea of freedom to that of Afghan women. It showed the true havoc and destruction the Taliban wrought on the women of Afghanistan: the loss of their personal freedom and security; the murder of their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons; and in the case of Hazara women, the displacement from their homes, whereupon they were forced to move into caves and other primitive dwellings. (More information about women's rights in Afghanistan can be found here, here and here.) The female journalists were in considerable danger while filming, especially as they went unveiled and wanted to interview other women. When they weren't turned away by tribal elders, the women they interviewed were generally veiled and restrained the passion of their misery lest they endanger themselves or their families for speaking out against the Taliban. The journalists were excited at the prospect of travelling, and honest in their commentary. They listened to their fellow countrywomen with earnest interest and empathy, weeping when they heard the stories of brutal rape and killings executed by the Taliban and the confinement and repression of women in urban areas. They showed the world what women in Afghanistan were going through, and the change that has occurred since the Taliban were overthrown.

Both these videos taught me something new about Afghanistan; I learnt of both the international affairs of the country and it's internal state, what it's people are concerned about and the hardships they suffer. These videos should be shown to more average citizens, so they come to know the invisible foe that we have all been turned against. Perhaps in learning more about the culture of this country we can unmask that foe, and know him better. After all, you can't help what you don't know.

You Say You Want A Revolution?

In their tune Revolution, the Beatles tell us, "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao/You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

Well, much as I hate to contradict the Fab Four, it appears that in some places, you just might make it. One such place is India. Maoists control over 40, 000 square kilometers in India, and in the past three months they have been "reclaiming" land lost to the previous generation. I read about this in an article in today's Globe and Mail.

The article tells of an insurgence taking place in Eastern India. Maoists have taken it upon themselves to "redistribute" land owned by farmers in rural communitites. The Maoist groups are mainly comprised of India's Aboriginal population, the adivasis, or tribals. The "landless labourers and tribal people" who have been pushed down by the caste system in India, forced off land and generally denied their rights, are now claiming what is theirs. They are rebelling against the powers, fighting for what is theirs, acting as modern day Robin Hoods.

At least, that's how they see it.

They have, however, been undeniably wronged. According to a judgement made by the Supreme Court in 1995, tribals have rights to land; as this land was taken from them for little money in past years, they feel they have no choice but to reclaim it. Unfortunately, they do this by using force. This includes destroying houses, killing police and civilians who complain to the police, and mercilessly seizing rice paddies and fields which provide families with their sole income. Maoists want the land to go to the tiller, not the landlords, whether or not the landlord happens to be just as poor as they are.

The Maoists are, according to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, "the greatest internal threat to India's security." They are claiming land the government wanted to sell to mining companies. They are increasingly more powerful than the police forces. The central government is advising it's states to beef up their police forces; this has worked effectively in only one state, Andhra Pradesh. In the rest of them, the farmers must manage for the most part on their own.

I do not believe this kind of issue would ever take place in Canada, mostly because we do not have a caste system that allows for the separation of classes so dramatically. Regardless of this however, we have not always treated the native people of our own land with respect. This leaves many somewhat divided on this issue.

On the one hand, land has obviously been taken from someone, whether it was the tribals of the past or the farmers of today. People have been killed, injured and rendered homeless, denied their rights and thrust into a violent and frightening situation. It certainly seems more likely that the victims are the farmers of today.
On the other hand, why are the native people of India not being provided for? The government has acknowledged their rights to land, and not given them any. Can we expect no backlash against such injustice?

Perhaps Canada should get involved, and advise India to begin giving it's natives the land they deserve. Perhaps we should tell them they too should issue an apology, and start making amends for wrongs committed in the past.

But then again, perhaps Canada shouldn't throw stones, lest we invite everyone to stare into our own tainted glass house.

A Promise is a Promise

Promises are an important symbol of trust. They must be made, and they must be kept. We learn this on the playground in kindergarden, and the knowledge stays with us all our lives. What then, compels someone to break a promise? Usually it is a selfish reason, though sometimes it is to protect someone you love. Does is make a difference if the promise-breaker is nine years old or forty-nine? Does is make a difference if the promise is made to a parent or best friend, or to an entire nation? Most importantly, is a promise a promise, whether it deals with candy, lunch dates, money or human lives?

I respect Barak Obama. Were I an American citizen, I would likely have voted for him in the 2009 election, and celebrated when he won. However, in the past year I have questioned whether or not he is who he advertised himself to be. The most recent example of a test in my faith came when I read an article from The Independant.

This article outlined the Armenian genocide; it spoke of the horrendous acts, the thousands of deaths, and the subsequent denial of the Turkish government that genocide was ever committed. It then moved on to discuss the re-opening of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia, which was planned to happen without the President of Armenia, Serg Sarkissian, demanding that Turkey acknowledge the genocide.

Serg Sarkissian promised his people that he would demand that Turkey admit they committed genocide. He broke this promise in order to open the door to new trade concessions and possible oil trades. Ask any 5 year-old out there, and they will tell you the standard rules of promises: Make it, don't break it. And that's only a promise of a turn on the slide, or half a brownie at lunch. This promise concerned the honouring of the deaths of thousands of innocents, the displacement of thousands more, and all the atrocities commited against an ethnic group. It was shamelessly broken.

Now we come back to Obama. He, I learned, promised the Armenian electors that he would openly acknowledge the genocide should he win the election. Surprisingly - or not - once elected he refused to even use the word "genocide". How else, Mr President, would you describe the brutal murders and ethnic cleansing that took place? I myself can see no other way. Those who deny there is sufficient evidence only have to ask for it, and it shall be provided by the multitudes of descendants of victims of the genocide, and foreign soldiers who witnessed the atrocities. Barak Obama, widely respected leader of the most powerful nation in the world, shirked his duty to the truth, and failed to honour his promise. I feel let down, and I'm not even Armenian.

So it must be concluded that promises are promises, and once made should not be broken. Whether they are large-scale or small, whether the dishonouring of them will upset millions, or just one. My elders have always advised me not to make promises I cannot keep; maybe some of our world leaders should follow this wise advice.