China's economic growth has been described as staggeringly impressive in many quarters especially in the last few years. One of the most recent examples of this impressive is the huge amount of foreign reserves that China has amassed which now stands at around 1.4 Trillion $US. With this amount, China has a lot of potential to impact world financial markets significantly especially through using some of its reserves to make investments and purchases of foreign assets.
Well apparently, not so fast as the following article says.

This article in Asian Times warns of a coming crash in China's stock market but it also paints a pessimistic picture of China's financial health, specifically that many of China's banks which are state-owned, are basically unprofitable and holding onto bad loans which combined total over a trillion. Many Chinese state-owned enterprises borrow large amounts from these state-owned banks which many do not pay back.
The following excerpt explains this scenario:

"To see why a crash may be coming, it is worth examining the behavior of the China Investment Corporation, the US$200 billion sovereign wealth fund set up by the Chinese government in September.
...
Six weeks ago, the power of sovereign wealth funds was celebrated and China Investment's moves into the market were awaited with bated breath.
Well, so much for that. A third of China Investment's portfolio is to be invested in Central Huijin Investment Company, a purchaser of bad loans from the Chinese banks, and another third will recapitalize China Agricultural Bank and China Development Bank, to shape them up for privatization.
....
The lackluster investment strategy of China Investment exposes a central flaw in the Chinese economy, its lack of a rational system of capital allocation. For more than a decade, Chinese state-owned companies have made losses and have been propped up by the banking system.
...
None of these losses have resulted in bankruptcy; instead the cash flow deficits have been covered by the Chinese banks. As a result, these banks have an enormous volume of bad loans $911 billion at May 2006, according to a later-withdrawn estimate by Ernst & Young, which must surely have ballooned to $1.2 trillion to $1.3 trillion now.

That explains why China Investment is somewhat unaggressive in its international investment strategy. China's $1.4 trillion of reserves will in fact almost all be required to prop up the banking system when the inevitable liquidity crisis occurs."

The writer goes on to say that with this huge banking problem, China will experience an economic downturn such as what happened to Japan in the nineties after exorbitant corporate overspending and the subsequent bursting of their economic bubble. Slow economic growth or huge inflation will ensue and then China might experience significant domestic turmoil. This will surely have a very negative effect on the world economy especially as the US economy isn't doing so good lately.

Iraq doesn't exist anymore?

That's the bold opinion that is stated in this interview that Counterpunch has with a writer, Nir Rosen who spent 2 years in Iraq.

"Now Iraq doesn't exist anymore. ........ There is no Iraq. There is no Iraqi government and none of the underlying causes for the violence have been addressed, such as the mutually exclusive aspirations of the rival factions and communities in Iraq."

Lots of interesting stuff, but nothing that's said is really surprising, such as that the US had no real plan for Iraq after they invaded in '03, that the exodus of middle and upper-class Iraqi professionals is devastating for society and that ultimately the current decrease in violence is only a temporary lull which is likely to intensify in future. Rosen also says that he does not believe that the sectarian conflict which has ravaged Iraq in the last few years was deliberately facilitated by the US as they did not know enough about the state of affairs in Iraq before they invaded. I'd think that was reasonable, as the US administration was really narrow-minded, or just plain ignorant and idiotic, in the way they envisaged how the situation would turn out to be after they invaded and deposed Saddam. This doesn't take away from the American responsibility from the mess they caused in Iraq with the fighting, the deaths,the internal and external refugee exodus and all that.

2008 Prediction for Africa from the Economist

The Economist puts out a bold prediction for Africa in its World in 2008 report by stating frankly that African will be worse.
China will wear out its welcome but the main point is that in spite of economic growth, there will not be enough jobs to bring people out of poverty, whether in urban slums or the rural areas.
As the article says, lack of infrastructure and foreign investment will make it very difficult for governments to provide much jobs to locals. Less understandably, the article also mentions that hurdles to foreign employees such as small numbers of available work visas will also affect improvement. Why exactly do there need to be more foreign employment if there are already a lack of jobs. The author might be referring to Africans who have immigrated abroad and want to return to work in their home countries. If so there might be a valid point though I didn't know that they would need work visas.

Almost every time one reads about Africa, it's bad news and the sad part is that there's a lot of truth in them. There are some little pieces of optimism such as the renewed purpose of the African Union in dealing with continental issues, ineffective though it may be for now and NEPAD, as well as the rebuilding in Sierra Leone and Liberia, but they only represent a small part of the state of affairs in Africa, much of it not good.

Why is there so much international focus on humanitarian violations of enemies of West, especially by Western liberals but not on allies of the West who commit humanitarian violations of their own? This article asks and states a very interesting point relating to human rights violations and oppressions and the focus in the West. For instance, Sudan and Zimbabwe receive a lot of bad press, and deservedly so, and their leaders made to look like devils or psychos (Mugabe), but others like Western allies Uganda and Ethiopia do not receive much attention.
It's very interesting and it really makes you think about atrocities and injustices happening in Africa, in that even in supposedly clearcut cases of oppression, there might be others that are just as bad but are not mentioned much at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't massive atrocities occurring in Sudan, Darfur but that the author makes a really good point.

Following the mass street marches led by monks against the military junta in Burma, repressive measures have been fully undertaken by the junta to crush these marches including mass arrests, raids on monasteries and military presence in the streets. Around the world, concerned activists held rallies on October 6 to call on their governments to take action and to show support for the people of Burma.
While concerns arise over whether Western governments have the will and means to mount any form of intervention, the bigger question is over the stance of China and India to the situation in Burma, as they are both trading partners of the regime. This would be a great opportunity for China to use its moral powers in persuading the junta to allow more freedoms and to gain goodwill from the world. But given the official Chinese stance of non-involvement in "internal affairs" of other countries and respect for sovereignty, it's hard to see Beijing agreeing to Western intervention or to press hard on the Burmese junta to stop its repression.

This past week Buddhist monks in Myanmar (Burma) marched in the streets for days to protest the military junta that rules the country. With the junta being one of the most oppressive regimes in the world and having ruled for over 19 years, many Myanmar citizens went out onto the streets as well to support the monks and criticize the government. Predictably the junta responded with armed suppression, firing on and arresting many protesters and critics. Some were even killed but the actual death toll remains unclear.
The junta even cut the nation's Internet, after images and blogs on the protests were posted within Burma, allowing the world to see and know what was going on. Some of the photos quite clearly showed the protestors as well as the troops, as these from racoles on flickr. It's very remarkable how technology can make us seem close to events yet be so far away and helpless. Also knowing the about backdrop to these protests, of the military regime and how back in 1988 thousands of Myanmese were killed in similar street protests, makes me understand how poignant and desperate the situation is.
The protestors, as well as Myanmar diaspora around the world are putting hope on the UN and the world in general, and even the US to help them overcome junta rule. To me, it seems unlikely though that the military junta will bow to world pressure and relinquish their rule, especially given they have tacit support from some neighboring countries who do a lot of trade with Myanmar for its natural resources. The junta has enjoyed a long and relatively stable rule and have endured a lot of world criticism that they do not care much about their lack of legitimacy on the world stage.

"you got rid of one Saddam and you left us with 50."

This is a good article from the Guardian on the situation in Iraq. A historian visited Iraq and not surprisingly came up with the conclusion that the Americans really messed up the invasion, ignored realities of the nation and made things much worse than it was under Saddam. This is best summed up by what one Iraqi said in the article which is both the title of the article and of this post. By ignoring skeptics, critics and informed experts on Iraq, the American Bush-led administration, as well as UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, rushed into Iraq with a simplistic and short-sighted mission to topple Saddam and take over the country. This initially succeeded but when it came to the nitty-gritty of running the country and helping Iraqis rebuild a post-Saddam society, they failed miserably. Of course, there are accusations, quite a lot of them actually, that the Americans were never really interested in helping the Iraqi people and were just interested in oil. But that's another story of course.

About the civil struggles that have broken out between Sunni, Shiite and Kurd elements, historian Charles Tripp had this to say- "...we were trying to say that there was a complex society in Iraq which shouldn't be reduced to the caricature of Saddam Hussein sitting upon the oppressed masses. The oppressed masses have their own agenda - and sometimes they're very nasty indeed."

It's getting harder to post more here, not just because of school but also because of a change of heart. I'm still interested and concerned in world affairs but more and more it seems this will decrease in the future. Anyways, for now I'll just post this on Israel's declaration of Gaza as hostile. Israel bases this decision on the firing of rockets by militants in Gaza. Since last year Gaza has been under an embargo as Israel maintains a tight grip over it. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says it best with this, "There are 1.4 million people in Gaza, including the old, the young and the sick, who are already suffering from the impact of prolonged closure. They should not be punished for the unacceptable actions of militants and extremists."

Interesting points made by Gwynne Dyer on Asian dynamics among several powers and China. Apparently the growing "might" of China is causing enough alarm and concern to Japan, India, the US and Australia to cause them to want to form some sort of unofficial alliance and work together. Of course the situation is not as simple as it sounds like here. However that doesn't mean that the gist of it isn't correct. I've read of the US desire for a stronger India acting as a counterpart to neighboring China in several sources. As Dyer and others have written, that is what the US nuclear deal with India in 2005 was about as the cooperation offered by the US was very significant.
China isn't trying or going to be very belligerent (except over Taiwan) as they have been increasing cooperation and agreements with many of its neighbors especially SouthEast Asia. It's no secret that China is trying to upgrade and strengthen its military but so what? Why is this not allowed, why is there so much furor over China's military spending when much smaller England and France spend just as much or even more. If there is any evidence that China will use its military to attack or invade any other country, then that'd be a very serious concern.

These Guardian articles focus on the harshness of the situation in Afghanistan and the serious toll on British troops. What's really telling is the underlying point that the Taliban have regrouped and rearmed enough that they have become a serious threat to the British. While this is true for the Canadians as well, the British military is supposed to be more competent and feared. For instance, this quote from the second article- "In terms of soldiering, the conflict has offered some of the most intense fighting for 50 years, with two million rounds of ammunition so far fired by British forces." gives an idea of the fierceness of the fighting there for the British.

This Toronto Star article suggests that if fighting the Taliban isn't working in bringing peace to Afghanistan, maybe it might be better to talk with them. The article details several reasons why American, NATO and Canadian forces are ineffective such as the limited use of force which cannot provide full victories over insurgents, the confusion over differing commands operating in the same areas and the contradicting strategies and actions.

While Canadians are wondering whether their troops should pull out from Afghanistan because of the constant vicious attacks and casualties they face, a senior British commander in Afghanistan has said that it could take many years, possibly even 30, of British armed occupation in Afghanistan to create real stability and peace in that country.
That sounds very bleak and hopeless but judging from past experience as mentioned in the article and also from the conditions of Afghanistan in terms of the physical size and terrain, the population size and the divisive social relations, it's not an unrealistic judgement. Of course, it's going to take more than military occupation from Western countries to improve conditions, but it is a prerequisite because if not them, how is some sort of stability and order going to be maintained or upheld? The central government is weak, and so is their army and given the fractiousness of the politics, with the various warlords based in different home provinces, it would not take much for the Hamid Karzai and his government to be overthrown if Western troops pull out.
I'm not naive to the possible self-serving motives and overbearing conduct of the West but I think in some ways, those people who constantly protest Canada's involvement in Afghanistan are naive as well. To pull out of a country that you are involved in for humanitarian intervention reasons because of military casualties means a weakness and superficiality to your humanitarian intentions. If Canada should exit Afghanistan now or soon, then it shouldn't promise any more troops to any peacekeeping and intervention missions again anywhere else including Darfur.

Over the past month and longer, there has been a growing concern and unease over unsafe food, food-based and similar products from China especially with the deaths of the dogs and cats in America from unsafe petfood ingredients from China, as well as toothpaste that led to deaths in Panama. I think that while these concerns are valid, they also expose the problems of mainstream Western media, in always trying to follow each other and never being innovative.
Back then, China was supposed to be the next big superpower, a belief that many still believe, now China is a chaotic mess with unsafe and dangerous exports that are fit for no human (and pet) consumption. Add in China's Darfur issues and its growing environmental problems and it's clear the picture is far from rosy. I think that while many focus on China's massive growth in economy and modernity, many widely ignore that China's problems are also growing at a massive rate.
Hence the media exaggerated China's economic growth and power, and they are also exaggerating China's export problems.
It's not that there aren't any problems. While it is likely, in my opinion that is, that non-electronic exports from China probably have had problems in the past, it is only now because of the deaths of dogs and cats in America that has led to such a wide outcry and concerns. I was so annoyed while that pet crisis was going on because the coverage by the american media was so intense and overdramatic. It seems highly unlikely that all these years Americans have imported tons of items from China yet all of a sudden this year they have discovered so many problems such as with "Thomas and friends". Ridiculous.

Shopping, even if it's "green" isn't as good for the environment than shopping less. This also goes for "carbon trading" as well where people buy carbon shares to offset their polluting. I mean, it just doesn't make sense that spending more money and consuming more products will save the earth's resources. Rather, reduced consumption and shopping, more recycling and thrift, and the need for more responsible and efficient protection and management of our environment are better ways.

http://alternet.org/environment/54208/?page=1

This article suggests what people can try with their shopping habits to reduce their environmental impacts.

http://alternet.org/environment/54215/?page=1

So the fighting in Gaza has culminated in Hamas victory and total control of the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian state which was always geographically split finds itself politically split as well with Ftah retaining control of the West Bank. This Guardian article provides some interesting insight into the Hamas fighting and victory, claiming that Hamas was targetting key elements of Fatah "one group of Fatah agents who were following the Zionist agenda", not Fatah as a whole and that some Fatah members provided assistance. Furthermore according to some people including civilians, Hamas won so decisively because they were motivated and disciplined while many Fatah fighters were simply criminal thugs who took advantage of their status and uniform for money and power. This also meant Hamas fighters were ruthless and much better soldiers.
The article has Hamas announcing that they still recognise Palestinian President (and Fatah leader) Abbas as President though he has formed a new Cabinet, dropping all Hamas members.
The most obvious outcome for now, would be that Abbas and Fatah would hardly want to reconcile with Hamas. However taking into account past proliferation of Palestinian peace deals and the sobering fact that refusal to deal with Hamas would cause a definite breakup of Gaza and West Bank, it is a bit likely that the 2 sides might negotiate.
Whether one believes Hamas' account and feels this fighting was for the better of the Gaza Palestine or that this is a ruinous occasion, it is apparent that the rule of the gun.

Did those peace talks in Saudi Arabia really happen or were they just a figment of my imagination? Yes, those peace talks really did happen, earlier this February when the Saudis brokered a peace between Hamas and Fatah after some violence. Well, this violence is much worse and talk abound that it has increased from conflicts to all-out civil war. Hamas, after capturing several Fatah bases including their security headquarters in Gaza City seems to have gained complete control of Gaza. Terribly tragic and one wonders what Hamas and Fatah could be thinking. I think though that maybe they have been living in so much violence and oppression that when violence against their oppressor is ineffectual and impractical, then violence against each other is the only way to release their anger and hatred. The Palestinians have been under sanctions since last year after Hamas repeatedly refused to acknowledge Israel and to denounce their aim of destroying that country. So of course this frightening state of affairs in Gaza must be blamed indirectly on the US and the European Union, not to mention Israel whose sanctions have caused so much deprivation and desperation for the Palestinians.
This article, published just a week ago, mentions the problem very clearly:

"Western donors led by the United States cut off direct financial aid to the Palestinian Authority in March 2006 after Hamas defeated President Mahmoud Abbas's secular Fatah faction in parliamentary elections.
Coupled with Israel's withholding of tax revenues that it collects on the Palestinians' behalf -- the Authority's main domestic source of funding -- the sanctions have pushed the Hamas-led government to the brink of financial collapse. "

Palestine, as if it hasn't had enough sorrow and hopelessness, is undergoing 2 different conflicts. One is of Hamas, the ruling party, battling Israel by firing rockets into Israel and paving the way for Israeli retributory air strikes. The other is of civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah, the former ruling party which Yasser Arafat led.
Of course, Hamas being Hamas, has not backed down and vowed continued defiance, fighting a bttle it cannot win but which it thinks is better than nothing. It's not surprising as it represents both Hamas' hardline stance and the fatalistic attitude prevalent to many Palestinians.
I think back to when Hamas came to power in the elections unexpectedly and they tried to reach out to Fatah. I realise that Hamas probably did that because they were shocked and unprepared to lead, not just because of lack of experience but possibly because they did not want to be in charge as this meant they would have a burden of representing the whole Palestine nation, not just their own suppporters and being more responsible and moderate.
They were always a hardline, fundamentalist organisation with lots of support which were trying to gain more political power by competing in elections, but not to win.

Well instead, things haven't changed much with Hamas as their stance towards Israel hasn't changed much as they still refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a nation and this has caused the US and the EU to criticise them harshly and withhold aid. This action reflects badly on Hamas but also that of the US and EU themselves, who can't seem to care that their sanction policies affect people who are already severely affected and causes more suffering.

Thursday's Toronto Star had several interesting articles on unrest and violence around the world.

This article is on Haiti which is plodding along under a democratically-elected government for about a year now, whilst going through serious violent crime, poverty, HIV/AIDS and environmental troubles. Haiti, with its proud history as the first (and only) black country to win independence through force against the French, is actually the Western Hemisphere's poorest country and faces a bleak future. The article's author believes that Haiti needs continued foreign aid in order to experience any improvement at all, otherwise it might become a "failed state"- a country where the government and rule of law has "failed" completely and cannot serve society or maintain order at all. The current political stability is however one good aspect of the country and needs to continue in order for the country to improve any more.
The UN, including Canada, has been trying to help the country since the civil conflict and coup that forced former Prime Minister Jean-Bertrand Aristide out. This help has been seen as dubious by some who heavily criticise the UN for helping maintain an oppressive regime. For instance UN forces have trained Haitian police who, both UN and Haitian police, have engaged in raids and gunfights that have killed many and detained political prisoners. Zmag maintains a section dedicated to Haiti which accuses the US of facilitating regime change in the overthrow of Aristide and supporting an oppressive Haiti government in carrying out massacres, tortures and jailings of opposition figures.
I certainly think the US was complicit (or even gleeful) in allowing Aristide to be overthrown and for the rebels to take charge though I am not sure about other details, especially in what the US would gain from that turn of events.

This past week, serious fighting broke out in Lebanon as a Palestinian fundamentalist group Fatah al-Islam carried out a bank robbery which caused the Lebanese army to respond with strikes on the Palestinian refugee camp where the group is based in. Many people in the camp have been killed and thousands affected. The Lebanese army and government has been criticised for the attack on the camp as many civilian refugees were killed or injured. However the government defended these actions by saying that they were necessary to defeat the fundamentalists as well as to uphold the integrity and strength of the state.
It's interesting to see that the state does not have any rule over the Palestinian refugee camps as they are run by the refugees themselves. The continued existence of these refugee camps is a tragedy as it signifies that the Palestinians have not been able to integrate into society and so improve their wellbeing and be accepted. These Palestinians were originally from lands in Israel and were forced out when Israel was being created. Given that this was in the late 40s, this means that many of these Palestinians were born and grew up in the camps. Such a sad fate for a people who have suffered much including being stripped of their land.

Fighting in Somalia causes several more deaths for Ugandan peacekeepers, members of an African Union (AU) peacekeeping force, of whom most are yet to be deployed. And judging from the worsening conditions it doesn't seem likely the rest of these peacekeepers would ever be deployed soon, as there is no actual peace to be kept as a person quoted says.
I personally don't think the AU can handle the situation, especially since they're trying to deal with another crisis at the same time, in Darfur. The article also has a South African security studies researcher stating how Somalia can descend into "Islamist extremism" which would be exactly what the West (the US) would fear.

While Somalia has calmed down a bit with a tentative cessation of hostilities, people in Iraq are not so fortunate and still going through the same crisis as always. It would be justified though to say that that is not true because their crisis is worse than before and always so. The situation there is so tragic. If the Americans leave the bloodshed in Iraq might intensify. If the Americans stay, as they are doing now, the bloodshed intensifies as does the suffering of the country because America cannot govern Iraq well at all and still have no real idea of how to improve the situation. This piece explains some of the problems with America and how dire the situation really is.

Clearly the Iraqis, with the exceptions of the Kurds up North, are trapped in an Earthly Hell as their country falls apart and becomes awash with blood. Which is why many Iraqis are fleeing their country, to Syria, Jordan, Saud Arabia and even Iran, as this article made clear in December 2006. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates there are about 2 million now as well as 1.9 million internally displaced.

An innovative non-governmental organisation is JHR- Journalists for Human Rights, founded in 2002, which strives to highlight human rights issues and abuses in Africa. It does this by sending Canadian journalists to Africa to train African journalists in journalism to help them to report and write on their own countries, thus generally speaking, strengthening the media's capability to do its job. JHR's site features news articles and a blog by its reporters and trainers in Africa. The organisation has set up operations in countries like Ghana, South Africa, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda and is starting up in Sierra Leone.
For African countries themselves, JHR's mission is a really important and worthy one. The obvious concerns for those countries are health, education, security and economy but having an efficient and active media is also important. It's not only about writing the news but it's also about empowering society and creating accountability by leaders, politicians, the police and other bodies in society. Of course, African journalists face much more hardships than North American journalists such as in having computers or even reliable electricity power.
On the domestic front- Canada and the US, JHR raises awareness through events, press releases and media pieces, as well as having university chapters in many schools. Besides raising knowledge of African issues among people, JHR's efforts also helps build students and future journalists understand the importance of human rights and Africa. Hopefully this will lead to more journalists focusing on Africa and more news coverage in the future.

This is a hectic time for me because of exams, personal issues and other stuff. I've been reading over all kinds of info about Development, China, International Law, world poverty and so on.
In the real world though, there's been a lot of tragic and violent acts happening. From the continuing fighting in Darfur and Afghanistan to the opposition crackdown in Zimbabwe to the bombing in Algeria, it's obvious our world is not a peaceful one at all. The saddest and worst place though, is still Iraq, where dozens of people die daily in car and suicide bombings including today. This is in addition to gunfights, murders, religious and sectarian violence and resistance against the US army. Is there any chance circumstances will improve? Iraq's breakdown worries its Arab neighbors terribly.

Zimbabwe is gaining some really notorious attention in the world and incurring major international criticisms for the recent beating of opposition leaders including Morgan Tsvangirai who suffered a cracked skull. Conditions in that Southern African country have been declining severely in the last few years with massive inflation and political repression. The BBC has some articles on the recent troubles in Zimbabwe including this one detailing the lives of 3 people, each one suffering from the poor economic situation and this one describing long-time ally South Africa now openly criticising Zimbabwe.

This is a subject that usually gets little attention but it could be one of the main factors to potential crisis in Asia. The looming situation of large numbers of men living in a society with a deficit of women is a serious issue in China, India and other countries. The problem is especially marked in rural-based peasant communities of which there're many in China, where girls are valued much less than boys for several reasons including the lack of manual labor usually provided by boys and the need for somebody to remain and take care of old parents which girls cannot fulfill when they leave after marriage. I can't imagine what can solve this problem given that huge inequalities already exist and it's only a matter of time when these boys grow up and the effects of female deficit are felt. There're a range of actions governments can take to try to curb and reduce the gender inequality to prevent it from getting worse but the fact is the ineqaulity is already bad.

Peace talks are set to begin soon in Saudi Arabia.
Both Palestinian PM Ismail Haniyeh and President Mahmoud Abbas, of Hamas and Fatah respectively havearrived in Mecca for the planned peace talks.
It's about time too. Violence has continued for weeks now with killings, gunbattles and kidnappings occuring regularly. The Palestinians are already living in terrible conditions, thanks to Israel, and they don't need this factional civil war. It's simply not going to achieve anything and one wonders at how depraved and psychotic the soldiers/ militia of both organisations are to be indulging in this.

After years of warlordism and anarchy, a motivated fighting force arises and routs its enemies, spreading across the country and maintaining order. This force happens to be Islamist, meaning its people are Muslims fighting to create a society based on Islamic rules.
Within months, neighboring Ethopia intervenes in aid of the lameduck "government" by sending troops and maanges to defeat the Islamist forces. Then US air units launch attacks on these Islamists, claiming the death of Al-Qaeda members. This article describes the US interest and involvement in this conflict.
As much as some might think the American/Ethiopian-backed forces and their defeat of the Islamists will bring a new order and peace for the country, I believe the experience will be similar to Afghanistan where despite a central government put in place and backed by the US. instability and conflict still abounds with a resurgent and durable Taliban active in parts of the country. A significant difference is that in Somalia, the Islamists probably represent the interests of many of the population and are not as primitive and oppressive as the Taliban.