theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That link doesn't say what you think it says.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
-
- Tags
- afghanistan issues
That link doesn't say what you think it says.
It wouldn't bother me. The U.S. (and, more generally, NATO, and the West) has a responsibility with respect to the 38 millions Afghans who are in great danger. The U.S. invaded and occupied this country illegally (without a proper Security Council resolution) in 2001 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan for some details), now they are (partly) responsible for the situation.
I personally prefer giving (conditionally) money to people to trying to kill them. If some kind of deal is made with the Taliban, focused on human rights and democracy, I don't see a priori why the Taliban would not keep their word, and implement their part of the deal. In 2020, they promised to stop attacks against U.S. troops provided American forces withdraw, and it seems they abided by that promise.
So, I don't see why Joe Biden couldn't invite the Taliban leader at Camp David (if necessary) and try to work out some kind of deal with him, with the basic idea being "We, the West, restore our financial support, provided you, the Taliban, respect basic human rights and limited democracy, with perhaps Iran as a imperfect model".
We know that there already is an area of agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban: they both "dislike" the Islamic State. In addition, these two haven't fought each other for some time now: since the Trump Doha agreement of 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Agreement_(2020)).
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,377
No, that's a war crimes discussion.
This is the arms & money piece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War#United_States
$20 billion buys a few weapons.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
That link does not show that the invasion was illegal, just that some people thought it was, and some didn't.
Because there would be no means of enforcing that deal, should they renege on it, and because the Taliban's version of Islam is opposed to democracy and what we would call human rights.
The Taliban did stop attacking US forces- but increased attacks against Afghan government forces instead.
They have repeatedly shown contempt for human rights, and I think it the height of naivety to imagine that injections of money would change that. In fact, I would suggest it would embolden them. Again, there would be no way to enforce that deal and both sides know it.
The invasion was perfectly legal. The Taliban were already subject to UN sanctions for hosting and supporting international terrorists and all but explicitly threatened with invasion if they did not cease doing so.
The fact that the Taliban themselves did not directly participate in attacks against the US is utterly pointless because of the level of support they gave Al-Qaeda. Supporting irregular military forces or terrorists that attack another state is an act of war. Thus the US and other western countries were completely justified in attacking the Taliban in self-defence. Diplomacy was never a option with the Taliban.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
China absolutely does do this, and worse, up to the limit of its control and influence in the world.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,642
By which you mean, it spends money to help certain governments, many of which are decidedly undemocratic. That money benefits those governments, but not necessarily the country at large.
Bwahahahahahaha!
No.
Bwahahahahahaha!
No.
China is not capable of projecting military force the way that the US does. But it absolutely does attack and kill. Are you unaware of China's war with Vietnam? Do not mistake a lack of capacity for any kind of morality.
Ask China's neighbors who the bully is.
Vietnam? It's China.
South Korea? It's China.
Japan? It's China.
Taiwan? It's China.
India? It's China.
Philippines? It's China.
It's really only their commie neighbors who side with China, and not even all of them. They've bought off a lot of African nations, but it's easier to get along with China when it's NOT next door, precisely because they are bullies. But even then, countries around the world are dealing with China's intransigence. Just look at the mess Chinese fishing fleets are making of South American coastal waters, for example.
That's what China would like. Whether they can pull it off remains to be seen. The Taliban have not always been very keen on the Chinese, and in fact have a history of terrorist attacks against Chinese targets. One of the difficulties here is that the Taliban really are religious zealots. Even if the leadership would like to go along to get along, they may not be able to stop members from acting against the infidels.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/world/asia/taliban-afghanistan-government-women.html
Yes the Taliban gave the UN and international community the middle finger by setting up a "government" run by terrorists subject to UN sanctions... now they demand that the UN recognize them as the legitimate representatives of the Afghan people.
As always their actions are a better indicator of how they think rather than what they say: they ultimately do not care if they receive diplomatic recognition or not, as they have done nothing to appear more tolerable to the international community.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The UN didn't recognize their "government" last time around. Why should they this time around?
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
And a "fool me once... won't get fooled again" situation.
I really don't think this should be a difficulty:
"We give you one million dollars every week of the Afghan money (see https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/f...w-york-holds-billions-from-afghanistan-2021-8) provided you do this, this, and that (allow women to go to work, girls to attend secondary school, allow some local democracy, not persecute journalists and human rights activists ...), and promise not to use the money to buy weapons.
If you don't keep your promises, you can say bye bye to your money."
It is obvious that the Taliban lack democratic legitimacy.
If they want to be recognized as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, they should organize elections.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,642
Their definition of legitimacy doesn’t match your definition. Democracy is not desirable to them. It is a bad thing in and of itself. It runs contrary to their religious beliefs. Nor do they want to be seen as legitimate by you.
Stop trying to treat the Taliban as if western liberal standards mean anything at all to them.
I don't think democracy is just a matter of Western liberal standards, it seems to me democracy is something deeper and more universal than that.
Pakistan is officially an Islamic Republic, it has the world's second-largest Muslim population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan), but it is (now) a democracy.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,642
Whether democracy is deeper or not isn’t the point. The point is, they don’t agree. If you are right, they are wrong, but they are still indifferent to that. They explicitly reject democracy. The Taliban cannot be the Taliban and believe in democracy. It will never, ever happen.
But who dies of starvation if you don't give the money? People are starving now. They are starving because US sanctions on the Taliban means the Taliban cannot get access to the Afghan government bank accounts. Nor can anyone else get access to money in Afghanistan as no banks will open whilst at risk of being in breech of sanctions. There is no money to buy food. International charities cannot access funds. Expatriates cannot send money in to the country to support family.
Winter is fast approaching, stores need to be got in. How many women and children have to die because the US feels it has the right to dictate to the people of afghanistan their laws?
Being a recognised 'legitimate' government of a country has never been dependant on democracy. Just think of the number of democratically elected left wing governments the US has overthrown and replaced with military dictatorships. You can be a democratically elected government and not be recognised (Taiwan, Palestine).
This democratic argument is just an excuse because the US is in a sulk. Action needs to happen now to save lives. Voting and education are of little point if there is no food. Funds and food first then more carrot and less stick. Education and democracy are good things but they are not life saving in the next few weeks.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
You really don't get this, do you?
OK, let's say that deal is set up.
The Taliban agree to those terms. The money starts rolling in. They continue to deny human rights. The money stops.
They have made a profit of millions of dollars, for almost no effort at all.
The people of Afghanistan, meanwhile, continue to suffer. The Taliban remain in power, and enjoy their profits, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Now do you now see the problem?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Indeed. This is a fundamental point (pun intended!) that Michel H is still failing to grasp.