theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm sure benevolent humanitarian China will step in with generous aid any day now.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
-
- Tags
- afghanistan issues
Venom
Philosopher
I'm with Christopher Hitchens when he said that many of these so-called "anti-war" activists and commentators are nothing of the sort and too often excuse fascism. George Galloway once somehow ended up effectively on the same side as Justin Raimondo.
My native country is full of militias fighting their own war against the government. It's a tough sell for those folks to say no outsiders should be involved in any way at all.
China were already the first to offer aid. $US31 million.
Pakistan and China are both urging other countries to give aid.
Will the NY Federal Reserve release any of the $9 billion they hold of Afghanistan's central bank?
Given the extent of corruption by the previous Afghan government probably $billions of money intended for the Afghan people are sitting in the bank accounts of those who have fled Afghanistan. I suspect many of those who fled in fear of the Taliban, ministers, governors, generals are in fact criminals who robbed the people of Afghanistan and were rightly afraid their corruption would be uncovered by the Taliban. I hope that the law enforcement authorities of those receiving governments are prepared to investigate these people for corruption and that any stolen money can be returned to support the people of Afghanistan.
As you say the Taliban government have no money. They have no money to pay for schools or school teachers, they have no money to pay for health care, millions of Afghans are at risk of dying of starvation and cold whilst $billions belonging to the Afghan people are locked in Western bank accounts.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,374
I'll have $10 on No.
You're absolutely right.
The Taliban also have no money to continue their experiment to implement their own specific version of Fundamentalist Islam which threatens to remove women's rights, oppress anyone who doesn't agree with their specific interpretation of Islam, spread their version of Islam and to support terrorist organisations.
IMO the concern in the West is that they may prioritise their key objectives if those funds are released and not necessarily use it to fund schools, school teachers, healthcare and food.
Who do you think the people of Afghanistan will blame when their babies die? The Taliban who are there beside them, whose own babies are starving, or the West sheltering the corrupt government that stole the money and the western governments who won't give it back. All that we are doing is stoking up resentment. Because we would rather girls starved to death than go without schooling. Schooling that they can't get because there is no money to pay for it. This is not improving our security.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Does it really matter who the people of Afghanistan blame? Should that really be the deciding factor, here?
Also: "The Taliban who are there beside them, whose own babies are starving"? I betcha anything all the good Talibani are getting priority access to whatever limited resources are available, and their babies aren't dying at nearly the same rates as the second-class citizens suffering under their rule.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
There you go. Problem solved. A match made in heaven, really.
Pakistan, on the other hand, can go eat a bowl of dicks. They had no difficulty at all sponsoring the Taliban when it was their tool to smash things up. Now they're crying crocodile tears.
Will the Taliban give any assurances that they'll use that money for peaceful humanitarian purposes?
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
theprestige said:
To whom does the money belong? If it's the "government of Afghanistan," then like it or not the Taliban is now running the government.
Overall this is a real conundrum for me. I'm opposed to the Taliban's deeply prejudicial views on women and their religious fanaticism. At the same time, a lot of people, who may or may not like their new government, are in danger of starvation or death from disease because the government can't get access to money.
Here in the west we don't trust that government. How can we best prevent the people who are in danger of starvation from starving? I'd be in favour of asking the Taliban to let NGOs in, but the Taliban may be deeply suspicious of them.
Maybe start an airlift? I don't know if that would work: are there enough working airports to allow this? Or enough nearby bases to work from?
Yes it does if you want to prevent terrorism. If the West are seen as killing millions of muslims through cold and starvation just to prevent a country following Islam this is easily spun into anger, resentment and violence. What your views of the Taliban are will be irrelevant, it is how they are seen in the Islamic world. For many the Taliban are not the wicked people you see, they are the common people of Afghanistan who came together to drive out the corrupt government and the invading foreign forces. Most of the Taliban aren't some elite, but ordinary Afghans. The Taliban are fighting to drive out foreign terrorist groups like ISIS. The Taliban have never espoused international terrorism. They committed to not allowing Afghanistan to be a base for international terrorism and they are demonstrating this on the ground. Reports are consistent they have markedly reduced corruption and the levels of violence, of robbery and kidnapping have fallen.
The voices you hear in the West are likely to be those of the robbers and thieves who fled Afghanistan rather than facing justice for their crimes.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Not true.
They have plenty of money: annual income of $1.6 billion, according to this report:
https://theconversation.com/the-tal...ey-they-use-to-wage-war-in-afghanistan-147411
Is there any indication that they are using this income to help the people of Afghanistan, or is it staying within the organisation, like much of the aid money did with the former Afghan government?
When they were a resistance organisation they were financed as a resistance organisation, now they are a government they should be financed as a government. I am sure that you would be the first to cry foul were they to continue to take money from the poppy farmers. Yet they still have soldiers to pay (no one wants then to just stop paying the soldiers who police the streets etc,), they still have a war against ISIS to fund (I am sure you would be the first to cry foul were they to allow ISIS and other terrorist groups safe haven).
I suspect that the sources for the article are likely to have exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Reuters gives a lower estimate.
https://www.reuters.com/article/afghanistan-un-taliban-idUSL1E8KBAJH20120911
But even so much of this funding will not be available, if there is no money in the country then earnings on properties will not exist. My guess is that with the sanctions much of the mining has closed down, and the mines will not be allowed to pay tax to the Taliban, nor able to since the banks have been closed due to sanctions. One problem is the lack of cash, much taken out of the country or locked within sanctioned banks. The government needs to pay civil servants etc. this is estimated to need $5billion per year much higher than the estimated income from non-governmental sources, and this does not take into account the humanitarian relief needed.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...ush-unlock-afghan-billions-abroad-2021-10-29/
https://thediplomat.com/2021/09/whats-next-for-afghanistans-tumultuous-public-finances/
For more detail see here.
https://dri.thediplomat.com/report/2021-06/
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Not the point. You claimed they had no money. You were wrong.
That article is from 2012, which is probably why the income estimates were lower.
Not all their properties are in Afghanistan, which you would have known had you read my link properly.
Your guess? Nowhere near good enough. I see no reason why the mines should close down, nor any reason why they would not be allowed to pay tax. Moreover, the banks are not closed:
https://www.business-standard.com/a...n-banks-resume-operations-121090500559_1.html
Again, you did not say the Taliban was short of cash: you said they had no cash. Even your own links say that isn't true:
Moreover, the channels mentioned in my link are mostly still open: drugs smuggling, donations from the Gulf etc.
They seem to have plenty of money to spend on arms. I note you have not made any comment on this.
Also, all the Taliban has to do is make good on their initial promises about female education, inclusive government etc- you know, the ones they immediately broke, thus plunging their country into a crisis largely of their own making.
I do have to add that I find your continued apologetics for this group to be truly shameful.
I find that your willingness to allow potentially millions of Afghans, men women and children to die because you want to make a point about education when there is no money for food disgusting, worse than shameful, absolutely inhuman.
Name a government that does not spend money on arms. The Taliban are fighting ISIS, do you really want them to allow ISIS a safe haven in Afghanistan, do you want them to allow ISIS to continue to blow up Mosques? Do you really want to refuse the Afghan government access to money so they have to continue to rely on poppy farming? You seem to have no idea of the reality of the crisis facing Afghanistan.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
The $1.6 billion figure is for the Taliban as an organization. They now have a country of 33 million people to run. $1.6 billion spread over 33 million people is $48/person. You need more than that to run a country.
I say lift the sanctions and give them the money they need to stave off a humanitarian disaster—much of which can be blamed on the incredibly corrupt government that was propped up by the West for two decades. Six months from now take stock and see if new action is needed.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,635
The problem with paying someone because there's an imminent catastrophe is that you are providing an incentive to make sure there is always an imminent catastrophe.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
It's a point, to be sure; a "welfare queen" theory of international aid where countries manufacture crises in order to get aid instead of trying to put their house in order. At this point I lack the time to do further research to verify or refute the idea, so unless others wish to tackle it I'll have to let it stand.
Back in September you wrote:
Do you know if, as of today, Afghanistan has enough food to survive the winter? Do you have an opinion on the new Taliban government's ability to distribute the food they currently have and any aid that might come in?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
False dichotomy, strawman, and a pretty feeble attempt at whataboutism.
I have not said that, nor do I wish that. My point is that I do not accept your premise. What I want is for the Taliban to spend its money on helping the people of Afghanistan. You have not shown that they don't have this money. If that can be shown, then I will support international aid efforts- with the caveat that there would need to be some kind of monitoring process to ensure that money gets where it should be going. I have posted before about how this often does not happen.
Costa Rica.
Yes, ISIS are a problem in Afghanistan. The Taliban could, of course, request help from the international community with this problem, but they won't. As I said before, much of this crisis is of the Taliban's own making. They don't want foreigners interfering in their country. They have taken this stance up to threatening aid workers. If they don't want outsiders, then they'll have to deal with their problems on their own. They can't have it both ways. If they change their stance, then maybe aid can get in, and they can get help fighting ISIS. If they don't, then they will be responsible for the suffering of their own people.
It would also be better if the wealthy Muslim countries who talk so much about helping their fellow believers actually did something to do that. Why can't the Gulf states send money, food and aid?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Now add the $4 million per day the former Afghan government was getting, which will now go to the Taliban. I imagine that total would go a long way to staving off a humanitarian disaster.
The problem, as I've repeatedly stated, is ensuring that any money donated from abroad will actually reach the people who need it. Most of the officials who siphoned off the money in the former government are still in office now, and I really don't imagine the Taliban are any less corrupt and venal.
I do wonder, though, how you are assigning blame for a future catastrophe on a government that has ceased to exist. How is the former Afghan government to blame for what might happen this winter? I also don't much care for the insinuation that the west is at fault for 'propping up' that government, whilst at the same time insisting that the west prop up the Taliban.