AFGHANISTAN - ECHOES OF THE BOYCOTTED 1980 MOSCOW OLYMPICS
By Derrick O’Keefe
The 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow were boycotted in protest of the Soviet Union’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Then–U.S. president Jimmy Carter announced the boycott in February 1980, and Canada and dozens of other countries soon followed suit. In his state of the union address that year, Carter made the case against the Soviet war:
“The vast majority of nations on Earth have condemned this latest Soviet attempt to extend its colonial domination of others and have demanded the immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops. The Muslim world is especially and justifiably outraged by this aggression against an Islamic people. No action of a world power has ever been so quickly and so overwhelmingly condemned. But verbal condemnation is not enough. The Soviet Union must pay a concrete price for their aggression.”
Part of the price the U.S. and its allies imposed was the Olympic boycott, which was explained as a protest in support of Afghanistan’s right to self-determination and independence, which the Soviets had egregiously violated when their tanks rolled across the border in December 1979. A decade of Soviet occupation resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Afghans and the displacement of millions.
Of course, the U.S. was not a neutral observer in that conflict. According to a 1998 interview with French newsmagazine the Nouvel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was then Carter’s national security adviser, boasted that they helped lure the Soviets into invading. For years, they armed and helped finance the anti-Soviet armed resistance, tending to favour the most ruthless and extremist elements of the insurgency—the fundamentalists who still plague Afghan political life.
Many of Canada’s athletes were bitterly disappointed in 1980, but our country’s authorities assured them that the rights of the people of Afghanistan were worth the sacrifice of their athletic ambitions.
Thirty years later, it is the United States, Canada, and the other NATO countries that are occupying Afghanistan. Instead of a boycott, the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are being used to promote militarism in general and Canada’s role in the occupation of Afghanistan in particular. Who will make these invading countries “pay a concrete price for their aggression”?
For instance, a disproportionate number of Canadian Forces members, 200, and their families were to participate in the torch relay, whose route involved 14 military bases. It is widely expected that the opening ceremonies will tout Canada’s role with NATO in Afghanistan.
Long before the disastrous Soviet occupation in the 1980s, the old British Empire tried and failed three times to subdue the Afghans before finally withdrawing its armies. As Afghan dissident member of parliament Malalai Joya has pointed out on her visits to Canada, “The Afghan people want peace, and history teaches that we always reject occupation and foreign domination.”
Alas, today’s war is evidence that the lessons of this history go unlearned or unheeded. Once again countless Afghan lives, as well as the lives of NATO soldiers, have been sacrificed in vain.
The Canadian government claims to support the call for an “Olympic truce”, yet in Afghanistan aerial bombings, night raids, and other forms of collective punishment will continue each day of the Games. The Olympics Charter states that the Games seek to “promote peace”, with the goal of “encouraging the establishment of a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity”. And yet the Canadian government is using the Games to promote its warmaking.
The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, claims to promote democracy abroad, yet he has prorogued Parliament—suspending the basic functioning of Canada’s democratic institutions—in order to avoid scrutiny over Canada’s complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees.
Indeed, just like in Moscow in 1980, the host governments of the 2010 Olympics have curtailed free speech and restricted civil liberties, and the Canadian government is participating in an illegal and destructive invasion of Afghanistan—and it will do its best not to draw attention to this bit of Olympic history.
Let’s hope that the media gives some airtime to this historical parallel, lest the Games become just another prime-time venue to uncritically tout Canada’s military engagements abroad.
Derrick O’Keefe is the cochair of the Canadian Peace Alliance.
“As Afghan dissident member of parliament Malalai Joya has pointed out on her visits to Canada, “The Afghan people want peace, and history teaches that we always reject occupation and foreign domination.””
What she forgets to mention is that the Afghan people have been asked and they have, by a very large majority, consistently said that they support this particlau intervention. I agree with Joya that the Afghan people want peace and reject occupation, but it seems they recognise that the actions of the foreign troops in Afghanistan are aimed at helping them achieve these goals.
In what sense is the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan ‘illegal’? Has the elected government of Afghanistan asked them to leave?
Comment by John Meredith — 11 February, 2010 @ 10:37 am
Is the Canadian Peace Alliance arguing for a boycott of Vancouver? Somehow I can’t see that happening….
As for John Meredith: “I agree with Joya that the Afghan people want peace and reject occupation, but it seems they recognise that the actions of the foreign troops in Afghanistan are aimed at helping them achieve these goals.” Hmmmm…. Foreign troops helping them reject occupation? Good to see you maintaining your usual high standards of logic, John.
Comment by Francis King — 11 February, 2010 @ 11:26 am
No I don’t think they are arguing for a boycott, just using the contrast with the 1980 boycott to draw attention to the role of canadian troops in Afghanistan, and they have had some mainstream media interest.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 February, 2010 @ 11:31 am
“Hmmmm…. Foreign troops helping them reject occupation? Good to see you maintaining your usual high standards of logic, John.”
I am surpised that you find that such a difficult idea; think of Cuban troops in Angola, as just one analogy. But my interpretation may not be right, of course, so I would be interested in yours: why do YOU think the Afghans support the invasion and foreign troop presence by such a large majority?
Comment by John Meredith — 11 February, 2010 @ 11:33 am
John
we have had that debate before. You don’t convince us, we don’t convince you.
Surely you don’t have the energy to do it all again?
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 February, 2010 @ 11:35 am
“Surely you don’t have the energy to do it all again?”
‘Fraid so. There has been ANOTHER poll since we last raked over the coals and it shows growing support for coalition forces in Afghanistan (probably because the surge has led to a retreat of Taliban forces), something I think worth publicising.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 February, 2010 @ 11:37 am
OK John, we’ve already discussed the 2009 poll on another thread, what’s the link for your latest one?
The Cuban analogy doesn’t really bolster your logic. For NATO troops to be helping the Afghans resist foreign occupation, there would have to be a foreign occupier other than the NATO troops themselves. Can you please enlighten us all as to who that foreign occupier might be? To the best of my knowledge, the Taliban are an authentically Afghan force.
Generally, I would expect that most Afghans above all want the chance to rebuild their lives in peace, without interference from any factions or forces, domestic or foreign. Is there a question in your latest poll: “Do you want the occupation and civil war to continue indefinitely until NATO forces have killed or disarmed every last Talib?” Or: “Do you think that interminable civil war in your country is a price worth paying for an enhanced feeling of security in Western capital cities?” If those questions feature in your poll, and a large majority answer “yes”, then I will readily concede your point that the occupation is legitimate.
Comment by Francis King — 11 February, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
#5. Andy - yes, I know it’s old ground… But those of us who don’t give a monkey’s about factional struggles within the SWP have got to have something to talk about, haven’t we?
Comment by Francis King — 11 February, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
The credibility of any Afghan poll is about as high as that of the Afghan election - next to nil - and for obvious reasons.
Of rather greater credibility is the fact that the Canadian population by a real and significant majority continues to oppose the Afghan disaster - John’s fantasies about pushing back the Taliban aside. This whole fiasco has damaged Harper politically - especially since he’s been forced to cover-up the role of Canada in the torture of Afghans by shutting down Parliament. The cynicism of the Tories is too great even for our electorate who are used to some pretty cynical maneuvers over the past twenty years. There is a good chance that Harper has ensured the Tories will not achieve their majority government - at least not under his leadership. This is particularly the case because Quebec - our French speaking province - remains key to any party winning a majority. And their own experience of national oppression has given that province a deeply held anti-imperialism. The Tories’ toe-hold there has gone down the toilet.
Comment by redbedhead — 11 February, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
“The credibility of any Afghan poll”
The credibility of the ones I have seen seem high, and sincve all polls show broadly similar results, I think you have to say why they should be discounted. We have no other way of judging Afghan popular opinion but polls.
Comment by John Meredith — 11 February, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
It doesn’t ask the questions you want it to Francis, but you can see the poll here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf
I bring your attention to the following especially, but there is lots of interest:
Q16. From today’s perspective, do you think it was very good, mostly good, mostly bad or very bad that U.S. military forces came into our country to bring down the Taliban government in 2001?
Very good: 41%
Mostly good: 42%
Q17. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of the following groups in Afghanistan today?
U.S. military forces
Strongly support: 21%
Somewhat suport: 47%
Q18. Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country?
US/American forces: 5%
Q25. At present there are attacks against U.S. and other military forces in some parts of Afghanistan. Under current circumstances, do you think attacks against U.S. military forces or NATO/ISAF in Afghanistan can be justified or cannot be justified?
Not justified: 76%
Q26. The Americans are adding 30,000 additional U.S. troops to their force in Afghanistan, and other NATO countries are adding 7,000 more. Is this increase in U.S. and NATO/ISAF forces something you support strongly, support somewhat, oppose somewhat, or oppose strongly?
Strongly support: 22%
Someaht support: 39%
Q28. Obama has said he will begin withdrawing U.S. forces 18 months from now. Would it be your preference to have American and NATO/ISAF forces begin to leave Afghanistan 18 months from now, should they leave sooner than 18 months from now, or should they stay longer than that?
2010
%
American and NATO/ISAF forces should begin to leave Afghanistan 18 months from now
25
They should leave sooner than 18 months from now
22
They should stay longer than 18 months from now
21
Depends on the security situation
29
No opinion
3
Q31. For each of these same groups, what would you say is its level of support among the people in this area – very strong support, fairly strong support, fairly weak support or no significant support at all?
United States or NATO or ISAF forces
Very Strong support: 7%
Fairly strong support: 33%
Fairly weak support: 33%
Comment by John Meredith — 11 February, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
Why they should be discounted. I dunno, maybe it has something to do with the dangers of having your town marked as being anti-NATO when everyone knows what happens to “taliban towns” - ie. they face invasion, cleansing, etc. And who else but western agencies would be conducting polls? People aren’t stupid.
And we do have a pretty good “other way” of judging Afghan popular opinion - by the growth and success of the insurgency, which controls 70-80% of the country, including pretty much everything outside of the major cities and towns. Even the Pentagon - via Rand - believes that the “resistance” has 30-50,000 armed supporters and perhaps ten times that number of active but not military supporters spread throughout the country.
But besides this, the people that the west has put into power are all well known as human rights abusers, torturers, druglords, etc. etc. They are also as socially reactionary as the Taliban with the only real difference being that they have no support in the Pashtun south and they support the occupiers who are propping them up and funding them. None of this is particularly controversial and is acknowledged by NATO leaders.
Comment by redbedhead — 11 February, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
“Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the
presence of the following groups in Afghanistan today?”
Translation: We would like to be able to militarily target areas that don’t like us - do you want us to invade and/or blow up your village?
John, you’re having a laugh if you think that poll means anything. NATO wouldn’t be on the brink of losing - in their own opinion - if 90% of the population opposed the insurgency and over 80% thought the Karzai government were at least alright. Not to mention the fact that Karzai wouldn’t have had to stuff the ballot boxes so heavily - even the UN wanted to discount 1/3 of the ballots as faked.
Comment by redbedhead — 11 February, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
“the insurgency, which controls 70-80% of the country”
Redbedhead, I think you need new medication (or reading glasses).
Comment by John Meredith — 11 February, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
I think the rtuth is more complex.
As I understand it, it is true that the Kabul only directly controls some 20% to 30% of the country, but the Taliban control less even than that.
the difference is made up in the large parts of the country that are now semi-autonomous under the warlords, who pay lip-service to the kabul government.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 February, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
Well, while I was reclining on my medication and reading through my old reading glasses, I did peruse this article in Foreign Policy - that radical leftist rag:
This article from last September says: “A respected international think tank has released a new map showing, for the first time, the Taliban have a “permanent presence” in 80 percent of Afghanistan. ”
And there was Senlis study discussed on Lenin’s Tomb in October that reached the following conclusions:
Comment by redbedhead — 11 February, 2010 @ 4:41 pm