T.O. Weekly 10: Marching on Different Paths, But to a Common Destination


[Also in this Issue No. 10 of The Organizer Weekly: “For Black Community Control of the Police and a Whole Lot More” — “Report on Mexico Forum: Workers Facing NAFTA 2.0” — and “NATO’s Double Standards in Afghanistan”]

The editorial board of The Organizer Weekly agrees fully with the statement by one of our board members, Ralph Schoenman, when he explains why he will be attending the “Break the Grip of the Two-Party System” national conference on September 19-20. He writes:

“Fifty-seven years after Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, DC for Jobs and Freedom, not only have living and working conditions failed to improve for the exploited working-class majority and the poor, conditions have worsened dramatically. 

“Why is this? It’s because we are living under a capitalist system in terminal decay — a system that only knows how to stem its growing crisis by fueling speculation and war spending, on the one hand, and by slashing workers’ wages and assailing working/living conditions, on the other. To achieve this, divisions are created among workers and all the oppressed to prevent us from uniting and fighting back against this predatory system.

“We’re in this dire situation because the capitalists have been able to count on their twin parties — the Democrats and Republicans — to do their bidding over these past 50-plus years.” 

We also agree with the “Why I Will Be Attending the Break the Grip Conference” statement by Nnamdi Lumumba, co-convener of the Ujima People’s Progress Party, who writes:

“The discussion around an independent labor party based on the unions and oppressed communities has been in the works for some time. This is because we have not seen any political party coming forward to represent our interests. We want to have a discussion at the ‘Break the Grip’ conference about how best to build a national labor party, and in Maryland, how best to build a Black worker-led political party.

“It’s important for Black workers to define our relationship to the workers’ movement. We are struggling for Black liberation on our own terms. We want to be able to talk honestly about what it will take to move forward and build a working-class movement that doesn’t use Black and Brown peoples to advance itself but then leaves us in the lurch.”

What both these statements highlight is the urgent need for the labor movement and the communities of the oppressed to break with the Democratic Party — one of the twin parties of the bosses and the graveyard of social movements. They also place at the center of the discussion on independent working-class politics the call issued by the Ujima People’s Progress Party, among other Black organizations, for a Black Workers Party linked to the fight for a Labor Party.

No Contradiction Between Two Struggles

Some of our readers may ask: Isn’t there a contradiction between calling for a Labor Party rooted in the trade unions and oppressed communities and supporting a Black working-class party, or parties?

The 1963 “Freedom Now!” resolution adopted by the Socialist Workers Party helps us understand why there is no contradiction between these two struggles. The resolution notes that, “the labor and Black movements march along their own paths, but they march to a common destination, and the freedom of the Blacks from oppression and of the workers from exploitation can be achieved only through the victory of their common struggle against capitalism. … Blacks cannot win their goal of equality without an alliance with the working class.”

The SWP resolution goes on to note that “the tempos of development of the two movements are uneven,” and that “Blacks may first want to unite in their own party in order that they can be able to bring about an alliance of equals, where they [the Blacks] can be reasonably sure that their demands and needs cannot be neglected or betrayed by their allies.”

In continuity with this revolutionary tradition, The Organizer Weekly, the publication of Socialist Organizer, maintains that you cannot fight effectively against racism if you don’t wage the most resolute fight against capitalism; conversely, you cannot fight effectively against capitalism if you don’t place front and center the fight against racism. That is why we support the formation of a Black Workers Party closely linked to the struggle for a Labor Party. — The Editors

* * * * * * * * * *

Report on Mexico Forum: “Workers Facing NAFTA 2.0”

(reprinted from August 2020 issue of Transición)

On 15 July, the online forum “Workers Facing NAFTA 2.0,” organized by the New Workers Central (Nueva Central de Trabajadores, or NCT), a new independent labor federation in Mexico), was held with the goal of orienting workers on the consequences that the implementation of this new treaty will bring for them.

This event was of a binational character. The participants from Mexico were Cirila Quintero, researcher at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, and Hector de la Cueva, coordinator of CILAS [Labor Research and Trade Union Advisory Center]. U.S. participants were Alan Benjamin, union delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council (AFL CIO), and Al Rojas, vice president of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, LCLAA – Sacramento chapter. The forum was broadcast on Facebook live. Members of the NCT National Executive Committee participated through the Zoom platform.

Dr. Cirila Quintero, a specialist in labor relations, explained the transformations experienced on the border as a result of the implementation of the initial NAFTA treaty, in particular the proliferation of the maquiladora pass-through, sweatshop industries.

She insisted that the low wages are due to a deliberate policy, agreed to by the government, the charro [company] unions, and the corporations. She said it is a lie that companies leave Mexico because of labor disputes, explaining that, “the closing of factories has had to do with variations in demand for their products at the international level, as a consequence of the crises of 1995, 1999 and 2008. What’s involved is a competition between state governments [in Mexico] to see who can offer the lowest wages, and who gives more subsidies or land to the maquiladoras.

Dr. Quintero concluded by explaining that, despite the legal changes with the new labor law, “what really counts in obtaining higher wages is the organization of workers and the enforcement of rights and contracts, and for that, it is necessary to think as a united working class in all three countries.” She concluded by addressing the NCT leaders and members and asking them to put this issue of union organizing at the center of their agenda.

In his presentation, Alan Benjamin discussed the expected consequences of NAFTA 2.0 for the U.S. and Mexico labor movements. He began by stating that the views he was about to present were his own and not necessarily those of the San Francisco Labor Council. He stated:

“The original NAFTA treaty has been a disaster for workers in all three countries — with massive job losses, deregulation, privatization, and loss of sovereignty in Mexico, in particular. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), in his joint press conference in Washington with Donald Trump, explained that the new ‘free trade’ agreement — known officially as US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, but more aptly called NAFTA 2.0 — represented a ‘significant improvement’ over its predecessor. AMLO highlighted the new treaty’s Labor Rights Chapter 23, and especially its Section 10, which ‘stipulates that there are tribunals where any worker with a complaint can come before the body and demand enforcement of ILO Convention 89.’

“This all sounds very good, but the reality is quite different. There is an institutional framework in Mexico, with an entire bureaucratic apparatus, which prevents the language codified on paper in the treaty and in Mexico’s own labor legislation from becoming a reality. The examples today, more than two years after Labor Law Reform was enacted, are countless; you know them better than I do. This is no accident. By its very nature NAFTA 2.0 is a corporate agreement that seeks to lower wages, benefits, and the level of unionization. It’s an agreement that seeks to remove any ‘barriers to free trade,’ such as state-owned industries and public services.

“In the United States, many unions have taken issue with the ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) clause in the new treaty, which was held over from the original NAFTA agreement. ISDS protects U.S. investors and corporations. Should Mexico decide to re-regulate or renationalize its oil extraction and processing, for instance, the investors’ complaint would be taken to an international tribunal and the renationalization would be reversed through the ISDS clause, which has been given primacy over all other clauses in the treaty and over the signatory nations’ own labor laws. The treaty has been written in such a way that any and all challenges to the U.S.-owned transnational corporations will be defeated. The ISDS clause is a central pillar of the new treaty.

“NAFTA 2.0 will not make it easier to organize independent trade unions, notwithstanding all claims by its supporters that the new labor provisions are a step forward. It’s only the struggle for labor rights and independent unionism across borders by labor and its allies that will secure our rights and enable us to make new gains. So what do we do? We mobilize, build broad-based cross-border alliances — and we prepare the terrain to repeal NAFTA 2.0.”

Hector de la Cueva was the next to address the gathering:

“It is hard to believe that the inauguration of USMCA, or NAFTA 2.0, is being celebrated widely by social sectors and people who say they are on the left and who even opposed NAFTA in the past. …

“With respect to AMLO: One can understand that there is a pragmatic commitment in the immediate future regarding the crisis and the pandemic. One could think that the treaty might give us some breathing space. However, in the name of such a short-term reprieve the future of Mexico is being compromised. It is presented as a panacea for the country’s economic development when in fact it represents a huge obstacle to Mexico’s economic development.

“We already have the experience of more than 25 years of NAFTA, and none of the promises were kept. We were told that we were going to be in the First World, and we are still in the Third World. The economic results are disastrous, even according to official figures; these are the years with the lowest GDP growth. It is said that we have become an export power, but what is not said is that these are U.S. companies that import and export to themselves and only use Mexico as a platform to reduce costs.

“The maquiladoras grew, but they do not feed the productive chains because 90% of their inputs are imported. … NAFTA caused a disaster in the countryside that led to a giant wave of emigration. Better wages were promised, and in these years of the treaty 75% of the purchasing power was lost. Where is the economic success? There are only a few aspects that we could call “positive,” such as the Labor Chapter, but this is nothing more than a beautiful mole on a monstrous body, and besides, there is nothing in that chapter that involves increasing wages.”

Al Rojas highlighted the effects of NAFTA on agricultural workers on both sides of the border, in particular the agricultural day laborers who have been denied the right to sign collective-bargaining agreements, and this, in a sector that is highly exploited. Rojas denounced the fact that the governments of the three signatory countries are seeking to expand the guest-worker programs, which he called “true modern-day slavery legalized by the employers.”

“Good wages will not be achieved through this treaty,’ he said, “they will only be achieved when there is a real right to organize in independent unions, and there is real enforcement, not paper endorsement, of labor rights.” He explained that the Democratic Party has lobbied for the approval of NAFTA 2.0, defending the interests of the corporations from which it receives massive funding for its election campaigns. Rojas called for support for farm workers in the San Quintin Valley of Baja California, in particular by joining the campaign to boycott the Driscoll’s corporation.

Both Alan Benjamin and Al Rojas invited the NCT to participate in the next Binational Conference Against NAFTA 2.0 and the Wall of Shame, to be held October 10 in the Mexican border city of Tecate, B.C., and by zoom for those unable to travel. Some of those attending the NCT forum pledged to attend the conference and continue this work.

* * * * * * * * * *

OPEN FORUM: An Important Contribution to the Discussion by Black Agenda Report: For Black Community Control of the Police and a Whole Lot More

By Glen Ford, BAR Executive Director

[Note: The Organizer Weekly, in its Open Forum section, is reprinting below an important contribution to a necessary discussion on how to stop police terror and end systemic violence. Following are major excerpts; the full statement is posted on the Black Agenda Report website.]

— “Community control puts us on the path to both defunding and abolishing the police – so why are many Black Lives Matter chapters withholding support?

— “The Black masses want justice, security and democracy (also known as ‘self-determination]) to be part of the equation.”

Despite the unprecedented wave of “Justice for George Floyd” protests that put more than 20 million people in the streets in every region of the nation in June, and the appearance of “Black Lives Matter” murals on the streets of Washington DC, New York City, Seattle, Oakland, Tulsa and other cities, police killings of Blacks have continued their grisly pace. …

 “Like the pandemic, these police shootings are raging unchecked,” said Alliance [Against Racist and Political Repression] executive director Frank Chapman. “The powers that be, those in and out of the Trump Administration have no intention of conceding to the just demands of the people…. The only decisive action taken has been against peaceful protestors.” 

“These police shootings are raging unchecked.”

Congress and the White House have offered nothing “except a uniform chorus condemning violence in the abstract instead of the racist violence being mercilessly imposed on Black people on a daily basis,” said Chapman, in a prepared statement. He denounced “Trump’s refusal to condemn racist vigilante violence while he eagerly exploits every opportunity to deploy DHS, U.S. Marshalls and federal troops against peaceful protestors. This is not only a disturbing indicator of how far down the road he has gone toward squashing with violence and terror the people’s right to protest, it is also a testament to his willingness to be a demagogue crying for law and order to win the election or undermine it.”

The people must keep up the pressure … with the following demands:

* We demand that the cops who shot or murdered Breonna Taylor, Daniel Prude, Jacob Blake, Miguel Vega, and Trayford Pellerin be immediately arrested, charged and convicted. 

* We demand the immediate withdrawal of federal agents and National Guard troops sent to our cities to brutalize protestors and terrorize our communities.

* We demand real police accountability through all-elected Civilian Police Accountability Councils (CPAC) establishing community control of the police, shifting police funding to essential public services like education, housing, and healthcare and regulating police to address the real demands for safety of the people.

“Keep up the pressure.”

The Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression was first formed in the 1973 and was resurrected last year at a 1,000-strong national conference in Chicago, where grassroots organizations from more than 20 cities pledged to redouble their efforts to win community control of police. Among them was the Twin Cities Justice for Jamar Clark Coalition from Minneapolis-St. Paul, where a cop crushed the life out of George Floyd. Frank Chapman spoke to the Twin Cities coalition at the height of the protests, in June:

“You gotta give people definite, clearly defined objectives in terms of what are they fighting for. So when we demand community control of police, we are demanding…defund and demilitarize, as well…. We will control what the police do in our community; we will decide who polices our communities and how our communities are policed. That means we can also have a decisive voice in what the budget is.”

Chicago’s movement for community control of the cops is by far the most advanced in the nation, with at least 19 of 50 city council members pledged to pass CPAC, the Chicago Police Accountability Council with powers to appoint the police superintendent, create the department’s rules and regulations, appoint members of the police board that hear disciplinary case, and approve or reject contracts with police unions.

According to the pending Chicago legislation, the cops will be subordinate to community members elected to four-year terms, who must have at least two years of experience in “civil rights, activist and organizing groups” that protect the rights of people who have faced police brutality. Community members will also be eligible to be elected to the council if they have worked to protect “minorities, LGBTQ people, immigrants, Muslim communities, people with mental illness and people who are homeless.”

However, people that have been employed in or have family members in law enforcement, worked in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, and/or have any connections with an entity of city government would not be eligible to run for a seat on CPAC – which would pay the same salary as Chicago aldermen. 

“When we demand community control of police, we are demanding…defund and demilitarize, as well.”

The keynote speaker at last year’s re-founding of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression was Angela Davis, whose writings on abolition of prisons and police have inspired many Black Lives Matter activists. Professor Davis wholeheartedly supports community control of the police. Yet most of Black Lives Matter’s 14 U.S. chapters have failed to embrace community control, instead calling for “defunding” and “abolition” of the cops.

Frank Chapman stresses that CPAC provides communities with the power to achieve all of their goals, including abolishing police as we have known them. As he explained to Black Agenda Report, this summer:

“All of the reforms being called for, including abolishing and defunding the police – reforms that directly affect the current existence of the police as outside occupiers of our communities — are embedded in CPAC,” said Chapman.

“CPAC is the way to ensuring these demands are met. CPAC puts the power of reform in the hands of communities through directly elected representatives. That’s community control. With community control, we decide the if, when, and how of policing – up to and including abolition. With community control, we can defund, demilitarize, and regulate the police out of existence. Communities can reimagine a world without police – but not without the power to do so themselves.”

Chapman is careful not to exacerbate any tensions between Black Lives Matter activists and proponents of community control of police, and his National Alliance is rigorously non-sectarian. It is our job at BAR, as activist journalists and political analysts, to point out the pitfalls of demands like “abolition” and “defunding” of the police that do not directly empower the people. As I wrote in BAR on June 18:

“If anything has been learned from the past half century of Black reliance on Democratic Party politicians, it is that no lasting victories can be achieved without the transfer of control of public resources directly to the people. That was the meaning of ‘All Power to the People’ when the phrase was coined, and must remain the goal of the movement, today.”

Local city councils are liable to agree to all kinds of things under the immediate pressure of massed, angry protesters and burning buildings, as we witnessed with the Minneapolis city council’s no longer operative vow to get rid of its police force. The difference between reformist demands and revolutionary (or “transformative”) demands is that revolutionary/transformative demands diminish the power of the oppressor and his machinery of rule, while increasing the power of the people in concrete ways. No amount of promises or “woke”-sounding rhetoric from city councils that have always empowered the police to kill Black people at will, can satisfy the need for people’s power over the police.

“No lasting victories can be achieved without the transfer of control of public resources directly to the people.”

The police earn their salaries by killing Black and brown people and terrorizing our neighborhoods, whether the cops are fully funded, or not. “Defunding” does not change the nature of policing, much less “abolish” it. Community control puts us on the path to both goals, if the people will it. 

As I wrote back in June, the principled demand for community control should be expanded:

“Indeed, communities should control, not just the police, but much of the rest of their neighborhoods’ vital services and resources. The right to self-determination is not confined to the criminal justice system. Therefore, community control of police advocates would be in principled agreement with the Los Angeles Movement 4 Black Lives position: “The most impacted in our communities need to control the laws, institutions, and policies that are meant to serve us – from our schools to our local budgets, economies, and police department.”

In Chicago, the teachers union supports both community control of the police and community control of the schools. With community control as our demand, we win allies among those who also seek transformative change. 

Black and brown people want power to improve their lives and throw off oppression – not gestures from the rulers, but permanent, institutional power. Our people also want — and have a right to — security in their homes and communities. But, for half a century Black Americans have been criminalized as a people by the Mass Black Incarceration Regime, starved of jobs, robbed of wealth and drowned in criminal-minded cultural products. Many of our people see the narcotics trade as the only accessible economy. Crime is an acute problem in Black America, a scourge created and nurtured by the same oppressors that inflict the punishments for those ensnared in their demonic trap.

Open-ended calls to “defund” and “abolish” the police often do not play well with the Black masses, who want justice, security and democracy (also known as “self-determination”) to be part of the equation. Community control of the police – or fully-resourced community self-policing, if that is what the people choose – can provide Black and brown communities with the power, rights and resources to rebuild the social structures that have been deliberately ravaged by the rulers. And it has already proven to play well in Chicago, the second largest concentration of Black people in the nation. …

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com 

* * * * * * * * * *

OPEN FORUM: Human Rights and NATO’s Double Standards in Afghanistan

(reprinted from Eteratz, a journal published by working-class activists in Afghanistan)

The longest war of the U.S. and NATO occupiers has been defeated in Afghanistan. This unequal war has not only inflicted irreparable human casualties on the people of Afghanistan, but it also has destroyed and damaged Afghanistan’s infrastructure and social-economic foundations. Although the U.S. invaders and their allies occupied Afghanistan under the pretext of reconstruction, democracy and protection of human rights, it soon became clear to the Afghan people that they were here to achieve their nefarious economic, military, and political goals.

Protecting human rights is one of the fascinating slogans that imperialist regimes use as a weapon against their rivals and adversaries. In order to achieve their military, economic, and political goals, by misusing the slogan of human rights they interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, aiding opposition parties and groups in targeted countries, imposing economic sanctions on them, or invading and occupying them militarily.

Globally, it is imperialist countries and the capitalist system itself that are based on usury and exploitation and that continue with their trampling on the freedoms and rights of other human beings. In the capitalist system, all spiritual values, human dignity, and freedom are replaced by usury and capital gain, and thus civilization and humanity are replaced by barbarism and injustice.

The United States targeted Afghans in retaliation for around 3,000 victims of the 2001 9/11 attack. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan a month later. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed and hundreds of thousands more have been injured and maimed during the 20-year occupation and war waged by the United States and NATO member countries. Similarly, millions more have been forced to flee their homes or migrate to other parts of the world.

The United States, which shows off and pretends it is the world’s only human rights champion, despite killing and maiming nearly one million Afghans in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks, held tens of thousands of prisoners at Bagram and Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners in U.S. custody were inflicted painful torture. The U.S. and NATO governments have granted immunity and joined hands with former warlords and war criminals in pursuit of their illegitimate interests in Afghanistan.

Following the formation of the Interim Government at the Bonn Conference in December 2001, it was decided that a Human Rights Commission should be established for Afghanistan. Then, in June 2002, the “Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission” was established. Apparently, the commission was tasked with monitoring and protecting human rights in Afghanistan and bringing violators to justice. However, the commission soon became a cover for human rights abuses by government and foreign forces, and it failed to identify or prosecute war criminals and human rights violators.

The commission prepared a transitional justice report, but failed to publish it or take concrete steps to implement it. Afghanistan’s “National Assembly,” which is made up mostly of former warlords, war criminals, and human rights abusers, in 2007 signed a law and pardoned all criminals and human rights violators and invalidated all filed claims against them.

In November 2017, the “International Criminal Court” (ICC) in The Hague decided to investigate war crimes and human rights abuses in Afghanistan. The court called for an investigation into the crimes committed by the Afghan government, NATO — and in particular the United States and the CIA, the Taliban, and other groups involved in the war in Afghanistan since 2003.

Although the Afghan people, civil society, and human rights advocates support the International Criminal Court’s initiative, foreign countries, particularly the U.S. government and the CIA, have repeatedly challenged the ICC’s efforts and created obstacles. Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo, as senior US government officials, reacted angrily to the decision by International Criminal Court to investigate war crimes committed by CIA agents and U.S. troops in Afghanistan. They threatened the International Criminal Court with visa bans on its key staff and family members, and they threatened to freeze their assets. (The U.S. administration imposed sanctions against senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including against chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. BBC, Sept 2, 2020.)

When the peace agreement between the United States and the Taliban was signed in Doha in February 2020, a key condition of the Taliban was the release of 5,000 of their prisoners from Afghan government prisons. The U.S. government accepted the Taliban’s offer, but President Ashraf Ghani opposed it, calling it his “red line.” He insisted that he would not release any Taliban prisoners before restoration of a country-wide ceasefire.

The position of the Afghan puppet president angered the Trump administration, and Ashraf Ghani was soon forced to retreat from his red line to the green line and release 4,600 Taliban prisoners before the ceasefire! The release of the remaining 400 Taliban prisoners — who are considered dangerous by the Afghan government, as most of them were sentenced to death by a court for mass murder, kidnappings, drug trafficking, and rape — was made contingent by Ashraf Ghani upon the decision of a symbolic Loya Jirga.

On the day of the Loya Jirga, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul distributed papers among the 3,400 participants of the Jirga, encouraging them to vote for the release of the 400 prisoners, including the nine persons who are known as murderers of French and Austrian troops in Afghanistan. Following the decision of the Jirga in the favor of the release of all remaining 400 dangerous prisoners, French President Emmanuel Macron urged the Afghan government not to release the murderers of the French soldiers.

Doesn’t the French government really understand that the release of the killers of French soldiers is not within the authority of the Afghan government and that the agreement to release the 5,000 Taliban prisoners was decided by the Taliban and the U.S. government — and not by the Afghan government? So the fact that Macron wants the Afghan government not to release the killers of their military and civilian citizens is a foolish request. Macron should make this request to the United States and not to the puppet government of Afghanistan.

On April 2017, when the Afghan government was engaged in a peace deal with Gulbuddin’s Islamic Party, the French government opposed the release of prisoners of the Islamic Party for killing 16 French soldiers by Islamic Party fighters in the Surobi and Tagab districts. But this disagreement was soon ignored as a result of a political deal and U.S. pressure. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar — a notorious warlord, war criminal, and human rights abuser — joined the government without trial, and he and his party received unparalleled financial and concessions from the Afghan government and the U.S., and all prisoners were released.

Also, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he was trying to keep in prison the killer of three Australian soldiers. Similarly, some other European countries expressed opposition to the release of Taliban soldiers who were involved in the killing of their embassy staff in Kabul.

Apparently, the peace process now depends on the fate of only six prisoners, whom France and Australia oppose. But the other 4,091 prisoners, whose hands are stained with the blood of tens of thousands of poor Afghans, are of no importance to human rights organizations, or to France, Australia, the United States, and NATO member states.

This double standard of U.S. and NATO member states has raised questions in Afghanistan as to whether the blood of French and Australian and NATO troops is more red than the blood of the Afghan people?

Did French, Australian and U.S. troops come to Afghanistan for banquet and tourism, or was it for a brutal mission and war?

During Barack Obama’s presidency, 4,147 bombs were used against the people of Afghanistan just in 2009. In 2019, during Trump’s presidency, 7,423 bombs killed or injured hundreds of thousands of Afghans, including women and children. The United States exploded the world’s biggest non-nuclear bomb in Nangarhar province for the first time in 2017 to show its brutality to other rivals. But neither France nor Australia nor any other country has ever condemned this barbaric act by the United States and never called it a war crime and a violation of human rights.

The above positions of the U.S. government and NATO member states on human rights make it clear that the claims made by the Western countries about human rights are completely false; they are mere slogans to deceive the people of the world and legitimize their inhumane practices and abuses.

Such a clear dual policy of the United States, France and Australia towards human rights shows their lack of commitment to the protection of human rights. But the people of Afghanistan will never forgive these blatant war crimes and human rights violations by the United States, France, Australia and NATO member states.

%d bloggers like this: