"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> > Well, all those things are needed but don't you think you better
> > make sure there is enough fresh water, food and shelter before
> > you start having them watch satellite TV? [snip]
> > So please, let us start with the true basics.
>
> I agree with the providing "true basics" -- the question would be
> how best to achieve that. The Afghans have farmed their land
> for millennia -- in the face of the current drought, I'm unsure
> *what* could be done to rapidly resolve the current crisis.
For starts you could reopen and strengthen all of the
interrupted food aid programs. This can be done quite rapidly
and must be ton to avert disaster (famine).
> A mini-loan program for village wells, water purification
> facilities and basic food crops would be a place to start.
> But if people do not know these are available it does no
> good.
A loan program in the midst of starvation this winter is clearly
not first priority if you wish to save lives. For rebuilding
such programs are certainly worthwhile. It is also very much
needed, as Amara mentioned, to clean up the outrageous amount
of landminds and other unexploded ordinance in Afghanistan. The
US has consistently refused to sign landmine treaties and
produces much of the landmines in the world. Laos and Cambodia
are also to this day suffering from landmines and various
unexploded ordinance from the Vietnam war. The US still refuses
to share much of its data about how specific devices from that
era work with those attempting to find and defuse the landmines.
> If people *cannot* read (e.g. much of the younger female
> population), then "free press" doesn't do much good. You would
> have to setup a massive top-down education program (this is what
> The Hunger Project does) or other verbal/sight communication
> systems (e.g. satellite TV).
>
You can also teach them to read, once they survival is
reasonably in hand.
> Massive foreign "support" systems produce little in the way of
> people developing sustainable economies and produce lots of
> opportunities to promote corruption (as several efforts to
> support Russia in the mid-'90's have shown).
>
Well, we did use the Afghanis and all those fighters from other
countries and their country as a whole in our cold war and we
have just finished tearing up a bit more of the infrastructure
and forbidding a lot of food aid from moving in the critical
period before many areas are closed by winter. I think we owe
some reparation and aid big time.
> > How on earth do you get that from the above? Not propping up
> > mad dictators doesn't require you have to bomb anyone.
>
> I was asking a rhetorical question to see what solution Neil
> would propose. The pseudo-dictatorships in the mid-Asia former
> Soviet Republics did *not* arise from U.S. political or military
> actions. They arose purely as a result of the remnents of power
> structures in the old Soviet communist party. How would *you*
> propose to eliminate them?
>
I am not sure I would attempt to directly eliminate them at
all. I simply would not prop them up just because they would
agree to some things my interests would benefit by. And I would
still speak against them and do what I could to let the people
know there are other and better alternatives.
> > > military rescue operations can be conducted while the U.S. tries to
> > > cleanup the mess in Afghanistan? I'll note that it is *highly*
> > > unlikely the Uzbekistan-Afghanistan Friendship Bridge would now be
> >
> > What "military resuce operations" do you have in mind?
>
> The type that took place when exiled Afghan leaders returned
> to Afghanistan and were captured by the Taliban, or the kind
> when the prisoners in N. Afghanistan attacked the people to
> whom they had surrendered.
>
The situation at the prison is much more complex than the above
characterization. There is some thought that the attack was
deliberately provoked as an excuse to wipe out all these foreign
fighters. This is in keeping with the reputation of the
Northern Alliance commander in charge. We helped kill almost
all of them. It needs a bit more study.
> > Actually there were quite cleanly operating trucking operations
> > into Afghanistan from Pakistan that brought in the majority of
> > the food before this war iirc.
>
> According to the reports I've read, these trucking operations
> may have been reaching Kabul but they were not reaching some
> of the hardest hit cities further North such as Masur-al-Sharif.
> The best support lines into those countries are from the central
> Asian republics.
>
Yes. But we have still stopped many aid lines and programs and
it is desperately needed they resume and increase.
> > We shut them down on or about Sept. 16. You can't insinuate that
> > we made the ability to get aid into the country better when in
> > fact we have refused to let much of the aid in for most of this war.
>
> "We" didn't shut them down for long. There may have been several
> weeks during which the truck drivers thought it was too chaotic
> to take the supplies in, but once it became clear that it was
> safe, I believe those supplies resumed.
>
Actually we did shutdown several routes and the main bridge and
kept them shutdown well into December. It is not just because
things were chaotic althought that certainly did not help. And
no, they did not resume when things were simply safe. They
resumed when we let them resume. Some of the situation is
unclear since we have also greatly limited reporters in
Afghanistan. I am not clear if we have even yet opened up all
the aid lines. I do know that some aid groups have been shut
down because we accused or suspected that some of the aid might
reach Al Qaeda.
> > It was Gen. Tommy Franks who kept the above bridge closed for so long.
>
> Facts Samantha, not "beliefs". The Uzbek's closed the bridge over 5
> years ago when the Taliban first came to power. Please cite something
> other than our assisting in the overthrow of the Taliban regime that would
> have induced Uzbekistan to open the bridge.
It is a fact that Tommy Franks kept one of the bridges closed as
I can substantiated by a UK Guardian story of a few week back if
you want me to dig it up. Many things could induce Uzbekistan
to open the bridge. I don't see how that is relevant to the aid
we ourselves have stood in the way of.
>
> > As far as I know we still have some aid operations shut down
> > for fear they might also be of aid to Al Qaeda or make our search
> > for bin Laden harder.
>
> I suspect any reluctance to resume food supplies to certain areas
> may be more due to their being hijacked by local warlords (which
> *has* occurred) and the inability to guarantee the safety of the
> people distributing food to the people who most need it.
>
Regardless of the reasons, people will starve if those supplies
are not let through. How is it that with all our military might
we cannot guard food caravans or aid in the distribution of
food, medicine and so on?
> I hope it is clear that someone who has made significant contributions
> to an organization such as The Hunger Project who are really trying
> to address problems such as the sustainable reduction of world hunger
> is as concerned as you with regard to the situation of the people
> in Afghanistan. We may only differ in our perceptions of the best
> way to achieve this.
Fair enough.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:29 MDT