Afghan activist and politician Malalai Joya has been in the U.S. to discuss her book A Woman Among Warlords. As noted by Eric Garris at Antiwar.com, Joya’s was treated very differently byCNN than by CNN International. Specifically, Joya’s mention of the military occupation of her country seemed to offend CNN host Heidi Collins (10/28/09):
Again, “occupation” would certainly be your word. A lot of people would take great issue with you calling the U.S. presence in Afghanistan in your country an” occupation.”
It’s not clear to whom Collins is referring when she speaks of people who would take “great issue” with Joya’s characterization. As Juan Cole put it, “that the U.S. and NATO are militarily occupying Afghanistan is recognized by the U.N. Security Council and is a simple fact of international law.”
Or ask the International Committee of the Red Cross:
Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies–whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.
Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation.” As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.
quote: “As Juan Cole put it, “that the U.S. and NATO are militarily occupying Afghanistan is recognized by the U.N. Security Council and is a simple fact of international law.””
Maybe Juan Cole doesn’t speak English. In English, we don’t say ‘militarily occupying.’ In English, we say the following:
“That the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan represent a military occupation is recognized by the UN Security Council and is a simple fact of international law.”
Of course, it’s so much easier to swallow when you put it in the passive ‘militarily occupying’ sense. Americans have a hard time viewing themselves as an empire, and will mangle the English language in order to maintain this blind spot.
Actually, both phrasings are equally passive–“is recognized” is in the passive voice in both constructions.
As for “the U.S. and NATO are militarily occupying Afghanistan” vs. “U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan represent a military occupation,” I don’t know that I’d say the latter is more direct; in the former version, “U.S.” and “NATO” are nouns and not adjectives, and “are” is a punchier verb than “represent.” While “militarily” is a somewhat unusual word, Juan Cole’s version uses eight words while the alternative uses 10–and shorter is usually better.
My guess is that Cole would have no trouble acknowledging that the United States is an empire.
Anti-imperialist grammarians– the Empire trembles in its jack boots at your parsing.
Follow the informative links Mr. Hart so kindly embedded in his text to find the real answers to your questions– and then DO something constructive to end these wars.
Thank you.
Nit-picking over obtuse grammar points when blood is being shed daily is active horror for those most closely connected. There can be no “passive” voice able to encompass the ignomy of those who “elected” this Evil Empire.
We have no business waging war anywhere, not Afghanistan nor Iraq nor Iran (as seems to be the next theater). Even the events of September 11, 2001 were not evidence of another country attacking us, but rather a handful of rogues, whose sources could have been found and prosecuted. Our wealth and influence would be better spent showing the world a better way to live and helping those wishing help.
comrades, comrades-come on now. Grammar errors/discussions are an old way of getting the actual point of discussion to be hidden under a cloud of drivel. Don’t do the right’s work for them. The occupation is just that, occupation. Whatever US public thinks is irrelevant, and I don’t mean this to sound rude, as it should be the Afghan peoples views that count, but surely nobody actually believes the US/UK care a fig for their views?