New Media

It’s been a wild, weird week and it’s not even half over. A regulator that’s supposed to prevent the sale of blood diamonds in Zimbabwe does exactly the opposite. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is up for a Taliban Award. And The Propagandist reveals its master plan for destroying the enemy.

• Zimbabwe’s Blood Diamonds For Sale
• War Criminal Julian Assange
• The Propagandist Manifesto

I’ve often attempted to remind readers of the importance of holding the line in Afghanistan for progressive reasons and firm principles: support for the universality of human rights, defense of women and children targeted by the thugs in the Taliban, support for democracy, the institutions of modernity and a better life for people who deserve something more than tyranny.

I’ve noted that this mission is something both in the finer tradition of Canadian interventions on behalf of freedom abroad. It is also a shining example of a United Nations-supported mission that has brought together the brave soldiers, aid workers and resources of dozens of nations in the fight against fascism and darkness.

On this note, the signs coming from Canadian politicians like Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff as well as a growing number of Conservative politicians and commentators about a renewed role for Canada in Afghanistan are very encouraging. Their brave words calling for a public debate on this important issue ought to be heeded by the Prime Minister, and quickly.

But the confirmation of perhaps $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan changes the equation for some people. With reptilian logic, they will point to a conspiracy of international neo-cons and their shadowy corporate masters being the real reason for international intervention — as though 9/11 never happened and Afghanistan had never served as a safe haven for some of the worst examples of thuggery and terror that this planet has to offer.

As any rational thinking person would, I dismiss these conspiracists out of hand. But their cynical response does certainly beg the question: what precisely is wrong about foreign mining companies making a decent profit and employing thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Afghans in good, high-paying jobs that don’t involve the heroin trade or freelance work for the insurgency? And if keeping the insurgency down permanently and avoiding a return of terror bases to Afghanistan also provides some insurance that our trade routes and economies will not be sabotaged into recession, resulting in more financial hardship for both Wall Street and Main Street, what’s wrong with that, either?

I explore these questions further in my latest Mark Op Ed, Self-Interest in Afghanistan:

Ever since the Taliban got turfed out of office by American daisy cutters from above and horseback-riding Northern Alliance fighters on the ground, Al Qaeda hasn’t been able to use Afghanistan as a base to attack our cities.

Critics will point out that the bad guys are still using places like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and the odd apartment in Denver, Colorado.

But that isn’t an argument against finishing the job in Afghanistan. On the contrary, it’s an argument for building on our successes and taking down the rest of the terrorist enclaves in failed states, as well as those in middle-of-nowhere, USA.

Other critics will say that the cost of keeping the boys in the black turbans on the run just isn’t worth it. Way more people die from car accidents than terrorist bombs. Besides, if we stay out of their countries, won’t they just leave us alone?

Again, let’s look at it from the perspective of our pocketbook. We’ve just come through a bitch of an economic meltdown. Many of us are still hurting pretty bad. So how do you think it’s going to affect the world economy if the Taliban wins in Afghanistan and an endless stream of “martyrs” the world over are emboldened to carry out even more brazen terror attacks than they do now?

Too little and far, far too late for the victims of this tragedy:

Twenty-five years after the Bhopal gas tragedy killed over 20,000 people, a local court in Bhopal convicted former Union Carbide of India Limited (UCIL) chairman Keshub Mahindra and seven others in the case, awarding each of them two years in prison.

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy was an industrial catastrophe that occurred at a pesticide plant owned and operated by the American chemical company Union Carbide in Bhopal.

On the night between December 2-3, 1984, the plant released methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas and other toxins, resulting in the exposure of over 500,000 people.

“They show up wearing the kaffiyeh and shouting, and they just want to say Israel is bad, war crimes, apartheid, that is all. But that doesn’t make you pro-Palestine,” the brave Palestinian journalist and Jerusalem Post correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh told me. “That doesn’t make you pro-peace. Instead of organizing Israel Apartheid Week, they should be helping with human rights under Hamas, women’s rights under Hamas. A free press.”

From Terry Glavin in the Mark: No Israeli-Palestinian Reconciliation

Thanks to Backseat Blogger for this cartoon depicting the ruthless Israeli paintball assault on the Mavi Marvara Gaza flotilla:

The saga of Amnesty International’s decision to stand by an extremist who characterizes the armed struggle type of jihad as “tourism” has gone from bad to worse. Gita Saghal, who was suspended from her position as head of Amnesty’s Gender Unit for criticizing this relationship in public, succinctly sums up the nefarious themes at work in a recent interview:

Amnesty has come out with a statement saying that Mozzam Begg defends something called defensive jihad. He believes in this concept and we do not believe, (that is Amnesty’s senior leadership) that it is antithetical to human rights. Now that is a most extraordinary statement which they have not made before they were forced to the media and to defend their position in the media…

Now it appears they feel his views are not antithetical to human rights and it seems that they do not understand anything about what defensive jihad means…

Is is extremely worrying if they think that ideologies that are promoting systematic violence and discrimination against women, against religious minorities…

This concept of jihad, according to Begg in an article he wrote, is an individual obligation on all Muslims. Now many Muslims would say that jihad is a spiritual obligation, it’s about an intellectual and spiritual struggle. Not everyone believes it’s about war. He specifically rejects that idea. He thinks that it is about war, and that it is an individual obligation and that people should go and fight.

What do you do when the leaders of an organization most associated with the protection of human rights decide to partner with someone whose agenda would lead to the systematic destruction of human rights? Revoking your membership with Amnesty International and canceling your monthly donations could be a start.

Gita Saghal on Amnesty and Mozzam Begg

H/T to Harry’s Place.