Obama, Malala and the Militants America Put into Power

New Eastern Outlook

Ulson Gunnar

Octover 15, 2014 

It would seem only natural that the presumed arbiters of the world would see their greetings and congratulations as the natural pinnacle of success for any they deem a global hero. And such is the case of now Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai who has been given an audience with US President Barack Obama (also a Nobel Peace Prize recipient) to be congratulated on for having "inspired people around the world with her determined efforts for girls' right to education." 

Malala Yousafzai was thrust into headlines when she was attacked and nearly killed in 2012 by Taliban militants in an attempt to stop her advocacy of greater access to education for children, and young girls in particular. 

But even as US President Barack Obama offered his empty words of congratulations to the young activist, the United States military and its intelligence agencies were busy along the Afghan-Pakistani border killing "suspected militants" alongside scores of innocent civilians, men, women and children just like Malala Yousafzai herself. In headlines the very same day as President Obama's meeting with Malala Yousafzai it would be reported that 2 more would be killed in a "suspected US done attack." 

Killing Civilians in a War Against Militants of America's Own Creation 

Admitted by prominent Washington think tank Brookings Institution, it is estimated that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also die in US drone attacks. This is amid a conflict with militants that had once fought Washington's proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's, a proxy war that saw socioeconomic progress made under Soviet patronage rolled back, including access to education for young girls and women. Such progress was rolled back and replaced by the oppressive, medieval ideology of the fighters the US eventually propelled to victory and power.   

So while the US continues the mass murder of Afghan and Pakistani civilians allegedly fighting the very militants it helped thrust into power in the 1980's, the US is "congratulating" Malala Yousafzai for nearly being killed amid danger the West's own media networks knowingly and intentionally put her in to sell news stories. 

The Corporate Colonization of Afghanistan

New Eastern Outlook 

Ulson Gunnar 

April 9, 2014 

A recent TIME Magazine article featured the “US NGO” Roots for Peace, which it portrayed as a victim of a regrouping Taliban bent on subjugating a newly “democratized” Afghanistan. This organization, funded by the US State Department and USAID, claims to be turning “battlefields into bountiful orchards.” But a lack of transparency makes it unclear as to just how they are doing this. With USAID using “aid” to usher in the corporate colonization of Afghanistan through other “NGOs,” its involvement with Roots for Peace raises warranted suspicions.

Already, the War in Afghanistan has given agricultural monopolies like Monsanto a multi-million dollar foothold in the landlocked Central Asian country. As part of efforts to eradicate poppy cultivation across the country, the United States insisted that Kabul sidestep health studies and sign off on an unpopular plan to spray millions of dollars worth of Monsanto’s “RoundUp” glyphosate herbicide across Afghanistan’s countryside. It should be noted that before NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, poppy cultivation was nearly eradicated under the Taliban.

In addition to fears that the mass spraying of Afghanistan’s countryside could negatively impact the health of the Afghan people, there were also fears that licit crops could also be destroyed, leaving farmers with failed harvests, anger, and a willingness to further align themselves with armed tribesmen, including the Taliban.

For America’s overarching plan, the eradication of licit crops alongside poppy was ideal. That is because while Monsanto RoundUp herbicide was to be sprayed indiscriminately over the heads of Afghans, its genetically modified, RoundUp Ready terminator seeds were to be sown beneath their feet. The Nutrition and Education International (NEI), a front set up by Western agricultural monopolies, set out to replace Afghanistan’s traditional crops with both Monsanto’s genetically engineered RoundUp Ready soybeans, as well as copious amounts of RoundUp ready herbicide.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

GMO Front: Nutrition & Education International's (NEI) "Partners"

Universal Sentinel 
Ulson Gunnar
April 9, 2014

As part of a New Eastern Outlook article on the "corporate colonization" of Afghanistan's food supply, it is essential to expose the so-called Nutrition & Education International's (NEI) "partners." This is because while NEI claims its mission is "to eradicate malnutrition through development of a sustainable soy value chain," it is in reality a front for mega-agricultural corporations, particularly those seeking to impose a genetically-modified monopoly over the world's food supply. 

Under the guise of "eradicating poppies," the United States insisted that huge swaths of Afghanistan's countryside be indiscriminately sprayed with Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide. This was despite health concerns and the fact that such spraying would also destroy licit crops. Then citing "malnutrition," NEI began introducing Monsanto's RoundUp Ready "system" based on genetically modified soybeans, a crop never before cultivated in Afghanistan, and alien in both cultural and culinary terms. NEI boasts of its accomplishments which stretch over nearly a decade.  

The NEI's partners include: 

Aga Khan Foundation, 
United States Agency for International Development America (USAID) 
American Soybean Association (ASA) 
Stine Seed Company, Iowa, U.S.A.  
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Afghanistan  
Women Farmers Association, Afghanistan 
World Soy Foundation (WSF), 
Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI)

Each of these "partners" in turn are fronts for Western corporate interests. The Aga Khan Foundation, for instance lists among its partners, Citi Group, Microsoft, Johsnon & Johnson, Shell, and USAID. World The American Soybean Association includes among its partners agricultural monopolies BASF, Bayer CropSciences, Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta. And the World Soy Foundation is a front for agricultural giants Cargill and Monsanto. 
 
Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), who's USAID-funded operation came under literal attack in Afghanistan in July 2010, lists a vast array of Fortune 100 corporations as its "clients." It too was directly involved in reordering Afghanistan's agricultural industry (PDF). 

DAI's impressive "client" list includes big-ag giants Cargill, Monsanto, and their "foot in the door" USAID. DAI was in Afghanistan as part of big-ag's "corporate colonization" of the Central Asian country. 

These are the corporations attempting to use "the eradication of poppies" and "malnutrition" to force upon the Afghan people an agricultural monopoly controlled by foreign corporations who will retain the "intellectual property" rights on each and every plant growing in Afghanistan, as well as the production, control, distribution, and sale of the chemicals required to sustain them. Food being one of the most basic necessities of human survival, controlled entirely by foreign corporations, is not only dangerous, it is exploitative and usurps both the dignity and freedom of those found under this form of "corporate colonization." 

Afghan Elections & the Myth of Progress

New Eastern Outlook 

Ulson Gunnar 

April 9, 2014 

Elections held this week in Afghanistan, while highly publicized as a showpiece in NATO’s lengthy intervention, will most likely not only achieve very little, but may be the first in a series of steps the nation undergoes as it slips back into regression and darkness. NATO’s inability to establish security even in Afghanistan’s urban centers bodes ill for whatever government takes over in Kabul, particularly as Western troops prepare to permanently withdraw.

Promises of a “democratic tomorrow”are more likely to be replaced at best with an uncomfortable, and perhaps only temporary accommodation between rural tribesmen (including the Taliban) and the new government in Kabul. In time, as rural tribesmen redirect resources from their fight with NATO’s departing troops, and against whichever government presides in Kabul, that accommodation may inevitably lead to a “Taliban” government once again ruling Afghanistan.

When Superficiality Becomes “Progress” 

The elections were praised by the UN and United States. The Washington Post in particular claimed it was a “milestone” particularly for Afghan women who were able to both vote and appear on the ballot. However, the Washington Post’s piece, “Afghan women make election strides,” is suspiciously short for such a supposedly historical breakthrough. Its brevity is due to the fact that any historical examination of women’s social progress in Afghanistan, or any social progress for that matter, would reveal Afghanistan not as a nation finally emerging for the first time into the light of modernization, but instead a nation mired in decades of darkness as the direct result of Western interference during the 1980s.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

US Exit Strategy in Afghanistan Shadows 1989 Soviet Withdrawal

New Eastern Outlook
Martin Harris
March 18, 2014

On the twenty fifth anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban have likened the success of the holy war fought against the Soviets to the “jihad” now forcing the United States and its allies out of Afghanistan. While it remains unclear how post US involvement in Afghanistan will compare to what followed the Soviet occupation in 1989, there are important parallels that can be drawn from the experience of both former Cold War rivals as they sought to cut their losses and withdraw from the so-called “graveyard of empires”. 

 

On December 27, 1979, after repeated calls for assistance by Kabul, the USSR entered Afghanistan in order to stabilize the country’s fledgling communist government. Supported by an estimated 80,000 troops, the operation was completed in just two days and marked the Soviet Union’s largest foreign military intervention since the Second World War.

 

But within just the first year, the Soviets recognized that the situation was not going well. Babrak Karmal, the Afghan president who Moscow installed following the invasion, had proved ineffective. Desertions within the Afghan National Army were rampant and the Soviets found themselves engaging a growing constellation of rebel groups amid rising causalities.

 

The arrival of Soviet Primer Mikhail Gorbachev in the Kremlin coincided with a growing stalemate on the ground, and one of his first orders of business was to steer the war in a new direction. Thousands of more troops were sent in and tactics were shifted to include heavier use of Special Forces and helicopter gunships. Moscow also replaced president Karmal with the more able Dr. Mohammad Najibullah, a former head of the Afghan secret police. Najibullah began implementing a policy of national reconciliation and had improved the effectiveness of the Afghan army. But despite the augmented troop presence, which peaked at around 120,000, and the new military tactics and political approach, by 1986, it was clear that Moscow was already looking for a way out. In many respects, these changes were central to the broader exit strategy.

 

A decade later, on the pretext of responding the September 11, 2001 attacks in NYC, the US invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban regime due to its failure to hand over Osama bin Laden. In accomplishing its mission, the US used heavy airpower coordinated by Special Forces on the ground; these units also worked with local militias, which were fiercely opposed to the Taliban and had been fighting the Islamist movement since it came to power in 1996.

 

As with the initial stages of the Soviet intervention , the US’s invasion was swift and faced weak or limited resistance. Upon securing the capital and other major population centers, Washington launched a campaign of “nation building” with Hamid Karzai as the new leader and face of Afghanistan’s democracy. US troops meanwhile scoured the countryside for known or suspected members of Al Qaeda. But to ensure security throughout the country, the US increasing relied on former mujahedeen commanders who, following Afghanistan’s civil war in the early 90s, had effectively carved out personal fiefdoms in various parts of the country. Though anti-Taliban, these “warlords” were often despised by the local population. Indeed, their corrupt and chaotic rule was a main reason the Taliban came into existence in the first place.

 

This seemingly contradictory policy of “spreading democracy” while empowering warlords, combined with the near immediate US shift its focus to regime change in Iraq after dislodging the Taliban, would later come back to haunt the US. Just months into the operation, Washington had already diverted substantial military and intelligence resources to the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the Taliban – far from defeated – had simply melted away only to fight another day.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...