Where have all the Protesters Gone?

This might be one reason. It's an older post written in 2003.

A piece by Elizabeth Martinez, anti-racist activist and anti-war activist.

Both of these were written in the US context.

Frmrsldr wrote:

I think it's the sold out, corporate owned mainstream media. They haven't figured it out yet that supporting an illegal genocidal war is the opposite of supporting the troops. Most soldiers are too afraid to speak out against the war because of what the military will do to them. A lot of young people join the military because society has conditioned them from an early age to believe that war is glorious and noble. "Dulce et Decorum Est Pro Patria More". If you have the opportunity, two inspirational DVDs to watch are "F.T.A." and "Sir!No Sir!"

I'll take a look for them.  The elite "mass" media has definitely shown less and less coverage of protests and from less supportive angles, from say twenty years ago or so (I even remeber a huge anti-globalization march being countered on CTV by one comfortable looking soul saying she wished they wouldn't get in the way so...) but there does seem to be a decline in actual protests and numbers showing, no?  I'm not one to take part in many myself, but that's the impression I get, even in left media, not even many calls being made.  Not that protests themselves resolve much, but could be a worrying trend.

Webgear wrote:

It is my opinion, that after 8 years of war, the population (including pro and anti-war elements) has been disunited and desensitized by the current conflicts.

Look at this forum, the only time Afghanistan is spoken about is when a soldier dies or a large number of civilians are killed or injured.

That is because the Harpo government is micromanaging the war. We are only able to respond to what we hear coming out of Afghanistan. Case in point, for the past two years we haven't heard of any civilians accidentally killed by Canadian soldiers or Afghan PoW abuse. Does that mean that there has been no such cases? Or has there been no reporting of such cases in the Canadian media?

Another example is the one sided coverage of the war. For example, the recently released quarterly Afghan Progress Report states that we (who is this we exactly? I doubt it is the troops) intend to construct 20 schools by 2011 in Afghanistan. It does not mention the fact that the number of schools  constructed to date is 5. It also does not mention that in 2008, 538 schools were destroyed in southern Afghanistan, 58% of which were in Kandahar province. All indexes are abysmally below projected targets. Almost everywhere we are regressing in Afghanistan. Yet Harper pulls this statement out of the air, "We are making real measurable progress in Afghanistan."

West Coast Greeny

I think you are correct about most moderate progressives have been placated for the moment however it is interesting you think a lot of energy is being devoted towards the economy.

Frmsldr

Regardless that Harper has been micromanaging, it is my view the anti war element has stalled for the time being, there is less messaging on Afghanistan compared to 2 or 3 years ago.

Another reason might be that many Canadians believe (erroneously) that Canada will be militarily disengaged from Afghanistan by mid 2011. So they are living under this false sense of comfort. The mentality being, 'Let's tough it out by 2011 and concentrate on domestic problems and issues that are close at hand. Hopefully by 2011 the troops will be home, the economy will have recovered and things will be better'.

Boy, will some people be disappointed.

I've posted this on babble before, but I think Matt Taibbi makes some good points in this article, although he's rather abrasive about it and I don't agree with all of it.  But I do think there's kind of a protesting "rut" that needs to be gotten out of.

Frmsldr

You bring up some interesting points however you have not explained the major decrease anti-war protest. The common person may not care about Afghanistan however it does not explain the lack of recent anti-war protest or writing of articles referencing the current state of affairs.

We are here.

The United States is pulling out of Iraq now.  Canadian forces are scheduled to pullout from Afghanistan in 2011.  War is over.

mmphosis wrote:

We are here.

 

The United States is pulling out of Iraq now.  Canadian forces are scheduled to pullout from Afghanistan in 2011.  War is over.

What a joke,

The U.S. will leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. Ready to engage in combat at a moment's notice if asked by the Iraq government or troops. Obomba is in the process of sending a 21,000 strong troop surge to Afghanistan, with possibly more after that.

After Harpo's and MacKay's recent visit to Afghanistan, both indicated that Canadian troops were going to stay beyond the 2011 disengagement date (no end date was mentioned). Both appealed directly to Canadians, trying to sell them the bullshit story that Canadian troops are going to be more combat lite and redevelopment, reconstruction and humanitarian aid heavy. This suggests that if the Con government does escalate the war (for a third time) this time, they won't even bother with the democratic pretext of introducing a war resolution before the House, they'll just go ahead and do it, gambling that the Canadian public will either support it or quietly accept it.

[/quote] Sort of sounds like the NDP'S position. [/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong. The NPD's position, as I understand it, is bring the troops home now. Have peace talks involving Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iran, China, Russia and (possibly) the U.S., U.K. and Canada, etc. Send humanitarian organizations to Afghanistan only if this is what the Afghan government wants.

Frmrsldr wrote:

What a joke,

The U.S. will leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. Ready to engage in combat at a moment's notice if asked by the Iraq government or troops. Obomba is in the process of sending a 21,000 strong troop surge to Afghanistan, with possibly more after that.

After Harpo's and MacKay's recent visit to Afghanistan, both indicated that Canadian troops were going to stay beyond the 2011 disengagement date (no end date was mentioned). Both appealed directly to Canadians, trying to sell them the bullshit story that Canadian troops are going to be more combat lite and redevelopment, reconstruction and humanitarian aid heavy. This suggests that if the Con government does escalate the war (for a third time) this time, they won't even bother with the democratic pretext of introducing a war resolution before the House, they'll just go ahead and do it, gambling that the Canadian public will either support it or quietly accept it.

I appreciate you posting.

Poor governments.  "They make such bad karma for themselves."  The majority of the Canadian people do not support and do not accept the Canadian government's war in Afghanistan.

Frmsldr

The NDP position is unclear at best, the former Defence Critic Dawn Black stated that Canadian troops would remain in order to guard reconstruction efforts.

Since the Liberal/NDP coalition last winter, the NDP have been very silent on the issue.

Peter

Do you believe there is be a different motion for the next convention?

peterjcassidy wrote:

one apporach is to look at the cycles of  contention a topic explored by Sydney Tarrow:

 

Tarrow's first area of interest was the study of communism in the 1960s. In the 1970s he moved to the study of comparative local politics and in the 1980s to the study of social movements and protest cycles (or 'cycles of contention'). A specialist in European politics and society, Sidney Tarrow has written widely on Italian and French politics, centre-periphery relations, new social movements, and contentious politics. Tarrow is a leading expert on new social movements and, more broadly, the phenomena of contentious behaviour.

His 1998 book Power in Movement analyses the cultural, organizational and personal sources of social movements' power, emphasizing the rise and fall of social movements as part of political struggle and as the outcome of changes in political opportunity structures. His list of five political opportunity structures includes: increasing access, shifting alignments, divided elites, influential allies and repression and facilitation. Tarrow writes that unlike political or economic social institutions, social movements have an elusive power, but one that is no less real. Tarrow puts forward a theory of collective action to explain the cyclical history of social movements (visible in the form of the protest cycles), and offers an interpretation of the power of movement that emphasizes its effects on personal lives, policy reforms and political culture. In that book he also lists four prerequisites of sustainable social movements: 1) political opportunities, 2) diffuse social networks, 3) familiar forms of collective action (aka Tilly's repertoires of contention), and 4) cultural frames that can resonate throughout a population.

In 2001, Tarrow, with Doug McAdam and Charles Tilly, published Dynamics of Contention (Cambridge 2001), in which the authors broadened the social movement framework to cover a broader spectrum of forms of contention. This was followed by Tarrow's New Transnational Activism (Cambridge 2005), in which he applied the framework to the new transnational cycle of contention, and by a textbook with Tilly called Contentious Politics (Paradigm, 2006). He is currently working on international human rights.

from wikipedia

 

First of all, I like your posting style.  It's like mine, with all those links.

Second, I find this summary interesting.  However, "diffuse social networks" is, to cut away the intellectual jargon, a repetition of yet another typical "Anti-Party Left" decentralization strategy.  The very cyclical nature of what the author said demonstrates that this does *NOT* work for the reason explained below.

"Cultural frames" actually goes against "diffuse social networks."  The 19th and early 20th-century worker-class movements, from France to Germany to even Russia, all strived for "cultural frames" that could resonate by means of what one Vernon Lidtke called an "alternative culture."  In the case of the then-Marxist Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), this entailed sports and recreational clubs, singing and musical societies, other cultural societies, and even funeral homes.

Although this culture was diffuse in the sense of being widespread, it was coordinated in a ***centralized*** manner by the SPD bureaucracy.

Lars Lih remarked that, ultimately, even the Soviet state's agitation-propaganda apparatus was a belated application of this model (belated in the sense that Russian Social Democracy wished to create the "alternative culture" before any socialist revolution), this time with Party control over all education, workplaces, etc.

All of this, in turn, is tied to the mass media:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-address-t109089/index.html

"Cultural frames" actually goes against "diffuse social networks."  The 19th and early 20th-century worker-class movements, from France to Germany to even Russia, all strived for "cultural frames" that could resonate by means of what one Vernon Lidtke called an "alternative culture."  In the case of the then-Marxist Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), this entailed sports and recreational clubs, singing and musical societies, other cultural societies, and even funeral homes.

Although this culture was diffuse in the sense of being widespread, it was coordinated in a ***centralized*** manner by the SPD bureaucracy.

Lars Lih remarked that, ultimately, even the Soviet state's agitation-propaganda apparatus was a belated application of this model (belated in the sense that Russian Social Democracy wished to create the "alternative culture" before any socialist revolution), this time with Party control over all education, workplaces, etc."

If the state wants to centralise control over culture and other highly personal pursuits, then I think the other more "socially diffused model" might be preferable.  When it comes to things like national defence or public healthcare however, and the taxation needed to pay for it, a higher degree of centralization is probably preferable.   Theres no reason why we have to have one at the exclusion of the other, in a more mature post-nineteenth century society.  I'll let you know when we get there.  Now, anymore thoughts on the question raised?

Dawn Black is not the NDP defense critic and is not even an MP now, She left the federal seat to run in the BC election. Jack Harris has been the NDP defense critic since about April.

Part of the NDP platform in the last election dealing with fairness for women

Of the 1.3 billion people living in extreme poverty worldwide, 70% are women and girls. Women are the majority of the world’s poor, and are disproportionately affected by war. A small, but still unacceptable, number of countries still don’t allow women basic human rights – including the right to vote. We still do not have a real UN agency devoted to the rights of women that would be comparable to UNICEF in staff and budget.

The NDP plan to support women’s equality globally includes:

a. Increasing and improving aid

The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has placed a high priority on projects supporting women’s rights in developing countries. This work should continue, but more must be done. Women are agents of change in their communities – they are workers and mothers who want better for their children. Countries like Canada should support their efforts.

The NDP plan includes increased aid. Canada has failed to follow through on its commitment to devote 0.7 % of its Gross National Income to Official Development Assistance. The NDP introduced a Private Member’s Bill to focus development assistance on poverty eradication and the promotion of human rights, taking into account the voices of the poor, particularly women.

b. Defending women’s rights globally

Around the world, women’s economic, civil and political rights are violated every day. The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) provides a comprehensive framework for women’s rights globally, but there is still a long way to go.

The NDP believes Canada must actively promote and defend the rights of women both at home and abroad. This means advocating the abolition of discriminatory laws, ensuring women have equality in the workplace, funding and supporting civil society groups that defend women’s rights, ensuring women are involved in peace processes and democracy building, and above all, attacking the desperate poverty that is confronting hundreds of millions of women and their families around the world.

c. Pulling Canadian troops out of Afghanistan

The Liberal and Harper governments have abused the good will of Canadians, and used women’s rights to justify bombing and counter-insurgency warfare in Afghanistan. In fact, it is not Afghan women whose interests are being promoted by the counter-insurgency war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Afghan women are just as likely to be targeted by local police, their husbands or warlords as they are by the Taliban: the troops are hunting the Taliban – not protecting women from the various security threats they face. Women remain subject to arbitrary imprisonment, rape, torture and forced marriage.

It is precisely because the NDP is concerned for the future of Afghan women that the Party is calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops, a refocus on aid and development, and a negotiated resolution to the war in Afghanistan. The NDP advocates peace negotiations that ensure women are at the table in significant numbers and that their rights are foremost in the efforts that Canada deploys to defend human rights and development in the region.

d. Including women in peace negotiations

Women and children are the primary victims of war. The United Nations and other international bodies are still male-dominated, and the women of the world still have little voice in the global decisions that affect their everyday lives.

http://www.ndp.ca/fairnessforwomen

Erik Redburn wrote:

Oh, good news then.  I haven't been following interparty politics on the federal scene very closely since I dropped off rabble.  Has the federal NDP reiterated a committment to pulling out of Afghanistan asap, since this happy day, including the so-called humanitarian missions which the Cons regularly use as a cover? 

 

ETA:  I see my question was partly answered before I finished replying.  I undertstand the concerns, but if most the locals don't want us there anymore and all trust has been lost then that 'refocus' may be hard to achieve as well.  Several posts over my limit as usual, time to call er a night.

and this may help re focus

STEVEN CHASE OTTAWA

Globe and Mail Update

April 30, 2009 at 9:36 PM EDT

OTTAWA — Fewer than 20 per cent of Afghan law-enforcement officials are aware it's illegal to torture someone accused of a crime in that country, a report by a Canadian government-supported human-rights watchdog says.

The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, whose mandate comes from the Afghan constitution, also says “torture and cruel, inhumane and belittling behaviour” is widespread among that country's law-enforcement agencies. It says Afghan police are alleged to be responsible for more than 65 per cent of the incidents in its study.

Critics say the Afghanistan commission's findings raise questions about whether Canada and NATO allies are properly mentoring army, police and law-enforcement officials in the war-torn country. Canada was by far the biggest donor to this rights commission last year, funding more than one-third of its budget.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar, whose party opposes the war in Afghanistan, said the 2008 study further undermines Canada's rationale for its military mission there, which he argues suffered a serious blow after the Kabul government passed a law in March that legalizes marital rape. Following pressure from Canada and other countries, Afghan President Hamid Karzai vowed to change it.

“How can we work with a government that doesn't seem to care about the human rights of its citizens?” Mr. Dewar asked Yves Brodeur, the assistant deputy minister of Canada's Afghanistan task force, during a Commons committee hearing Thursday.

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090430.wafghan30/BNS...

"How can we work with a government that doesn't seem to care about the human rights of its citizens?" Mr. Dewar asked Yves Brodeur, the assistant deputy minister of Canada's Afghanistan task force, during a Commons committee hearing Thursday."

 If this was the case, why is Canada supporting countless other countries with aid and trade support? Why only focus on Afghanistan?

 Canada does not even care about some of its own internal people.

Jack Harris' comments re Afghanistan in Hansard

One quote:

"Jack Harris" wrote:

This is why there is a need now for the international community, be it the surge of the United States or other efforts, to increase the number of troops before we go further down the wrong path before we can find a solution.

A_J wrote:

Jack Harris' comments re Afghanistan in Hansard

One quote:

"Jack Harris" wrote:

This is why there is a need now for the international community, be it the surge of the United States or other efforts, to increase the number of troops before we go further down the wrong path before we can find a solution.

That quotation is so startlingly awful (and awkward) that I had to look up the [url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/ChamberPublicationIndexSearc... text[/url]. Here it is in context:

Quote:

We do know that, despite progress, the situation in Afghanistan is in fact getting worse. [b]We recognize now that it is militarily unlikely, if not impossible, to defeat the insurgents.[/b] Unfortunately, [b]this type of military activity in fact breeds more recruits to the other side.[/b] It happened in Vietnam and it is happening in Afghanistan today. This is why there is a need now for the international community, be it the surge of the United States or other efforts, to increase the number of troops before we go further down the wrong path before we can find a solution. [emphasis added by M.S.]

Clearly, the context indicates that Harris thinks more military activity would be counterproductive. This directly contradicts the notion that he supports the U.S. "surge" in Afghanistan.

The only conclusion I can fairly come to is that either this paragraph of his remarks has been garbled in the transcription, or that he lost his train of thought or syntax and ended up speaking nonsense.  

peterjcassidy wrote:

The NDP postion on Afghanaistan may, at its worst, be dodgy. At its best, it is brillant and bold and beautiful.

What is brilliant about it? At best, it is disorganized and confusing depending on who is speaking at the moment.