Update on the Afghan Food Crisis November 15th, 2001 Gretchen Lang, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, www.rmpjc.org

Many people are asking how recent events in key Afghan cities like Kabul and Mazar-I-Sharif affect the food crisis in Afghanistan and the peace movement in general. We contacted a number of national and international humanitarian aid and policy organizations over the past two days to learn more. Every representative we spoke with, including people at World Food Program, Food First, Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders and InterAction, told us that occupation of Kabul by United Front (Northern Alliance) forces does not resolve the urgency or difficulty of getting food and other supplies through to people at risk before access is cut off by winter.

If the U.S. bombing stops (it continues as we write this, although not in Kabul), one big factor in the difficulty of getting food through will be addressed; but that is not the only factor. Northern Alliance forces, Taliban forces, the U.S. military and other militia all contribute to the continuing danger and instability in Afghanistan and throughout the region. There is a massive drought, and the fall crops have not been planted. Borders are closed. Winter is setting in. Relief agencies lack crucial infrastructures to get food through to the people who need it. There is enough food in the aid pipeline – the problem is moving it into and through Afghanistan.

First the good news: barges are ferrying large stores of food into Afghanistan across the Amu Darya river at Termez. Trucks are moving across the border from Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Snowplows are at work in key mountain passes to keep roads open.

Now the bad news: the aid agencies are still waiting for the UN to give them the go-ahead to send in personnel. A few staff went into Kabul today but Mazar-I-Sharif remains too dangerous for organizations to send in workers. Although the U.S.-backed United Front (Northern Alliance) is somewhat more moderate politically than the Taliban, they are also a violent regime with a bad human rights record.

Pertinent recent quotes:

"Territorial gains achieved by military force cannot be the basis for the legitimization of any government." Francesc Vendrell, UN Deputy Special Representative, speaking at a November 15^th press briefing.

"UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said international meddling in the Afghan conflict had obstructed previous peace initiatives, and urged neighboring states to cooperate rather than compete over Afghanistan. ‘Unless this happens - on a level of reality, rather than just rhetoric - there can be little hope for lasting stability in Afghanistan,’ Annan said." Todd Diamond, EurasiaNet November 14^th

Finally, when people ask the inevitable question "Isn’t the U.S. bombing campaign a success because it routed the Taliban?" you can answer: "Our government’s military campaigns supported the Taliban when we felt it expedient, and now they back the United Front, another regime with a terrible human rights record. If the U.S. is truly committed to an end to terrorism, bombing campaigns are not the solution. The only genuine and lasting solution is U.S. government support of multi-lateral international agreements on international human rights and freedoms, food security, economic justice and environmental health. Imposing our agenda by force will only continue the cycle of violence that led to September 11^th."