UN deplores widespread violence against Afghan women
VIOLENCE against women is widespread and deeply rooted in Afghanistan, where they are becoming less active in public life eight years after the Taliban regime collapsed, according to a United Nations (UN) official.
The world body has spearheaded a 16-day campaign to eliminate violence against women, which is due to end on December 10, the anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights.
"Violence targeting women and girls is widespread and deeply rooted in Afghan society. It is not adequately challenged and condemned by society and institutions," Agence France Presse (AFP) quoted Norah Niland, chief UN human rights officer in Afghanistan as saying.
"The space for women in public life is shrinking. The trend is negative," she told a Kabul news conference.
Banned from public life under the iron fist of the Taliban regime from 1996 until the 2001 United States (U.S.)-led invasion, women still struggle for their rights in the impoverished, deeply conservative and war-torn country.
"No real peace and national development are possible without the elimination of violence against women," added Zia Moballegh, acting country director for the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
"Elimination of violence against women will not be possible without a national will and also the determination of men," he added.
As President Barack Obama prepares to announce a new blueprint for the war in Afghanistan, the leading Senate Democrat on military matters says any plan to significantly expand U.S. troop levels must show how those reinforcements will help increase the number of Afghan security forces.
The remarks from Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are a preview of the possible roadblocks Obama faces from his own party as he begins to sell a broader, more expensive battle plan for Afghanistan to an American public weary of the conflict.
Greater numbers of Afghan army and police are central to succeeding in the eight-year-old war, according to Levin, and more U.S. trainers and an infusion of battlefield gear will help meet that goal.
But it's unclear, Levin said, what role tens of thousands of additional U.S. combat troops will play in that buildup, and Obama has to make a compelling case during a national address he's scheduled to give Tuesday night from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
"The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge," Levin said. "We cannot, by ourselves, win (the) war."
At West Point, Obama is expected to announce an increase of up to 35,000 more U.S. forces to defeat the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilise a weak Afghan government. The escalation, which would take place over the next year, would put more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan at an annual cost of about $75 billion. Obama is also expected to outline an exit strategy for the war.
Lawmakers also want a greater commitment from NATO allies so the U.S. isn't footing the bill on its own.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that several allied nations will offer a total of 5,000 more troops. Speaking Saturday at a news conference in Trinidad, Brown also said Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government must meet specific benchmarks that allow foreign troops to gradually hand over control of the fighting to local forces.
With Obama's Afghanistan speech coming as the Senate takes up the debate over the health care overhaul, Lugar recommended that Congress postpone the health care effort until next year so lawmakers can concentrate on how to finance the war.
"The war is terribly important," Lugar said. "I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year ... and talk now about the essentials: the war and money," he added.
