United Nations and Afghanistan: Factual Realities

[S.O.S]

Brothers and sisters,

 

Discussions can take place between two parties when there're differences of opinions and perceptions from the perspective of realities and principles ruling these, but only if there's equality in knowledge. When there's an asymmetry of information however, where one party is shockingly ignorant of the factual realities let along guiding principles which will enable us to judge, there're no other alternatives but two: 1) abandon such fruitless discussions in entirety; or 2) educate them for ignorance is a forgivable sin if lessoned. This is an educational post to exercise the latter alternative. Today we'll discuss the less important subject of the afghan occupation and the United Nations. I shall continue (Allah willing) at my best convenience on the more serious and important subject of Al-Waraa Wal-Baraa. This should hopefully end much of the unnecessary confusion.

 

Lesson 1: Factual Realities

 

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was created during the Bonn Conference under an enforcement mandate based on Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, along with the puppet government Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA). According to the numerous UN Resolutions referring to the ISAF (Security Council Resolutions 1386, 1412, 1444, 1510, 1563, 1623, 1707, 1776, etc.), the authorisation of the deployment of a UN-mandated multinational force is, overlooking the fancy diplomatic wording of the details, in order to annihilate the existence of any resistance or situations permitting resistance in Afghanistan and to create the conditions where tho rules of the occupying oppressors are supreme.

 

ISAF is a force that consists of many nations which deployed their troops upon the request of the UN under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. A large proportion of these troops are focused on the National Support Elements, United Nations Assistance Mission and Provincial Reconstruction Teams to support the military occupation and so-called 'Afghan government' with winning hearts and minds by enhancing the reconstruction and development efforts (although that may sound harmless to the uninformed mind, it's worse than bombs and bullets). In addition to the establishment of the multinational occupation force by the United Nations Security Council, Afghanistan was first attacked by the US Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and afterwards came the NATO mission (a first of its kind) to bomb and create even more havoc. All for one and one for all, in the true fashion of three musketeers (in reality what they said was "attack on one is a attack on all" as in the NATO rulebook).

 

I'll not speculate on why the strategic command and control ever ended up with the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) or why the North Atlantic Council is in charge of all political guidance as the main decision-making body of occupied Afghanistan, but there's no doubt about the OEF-ISAF-NATO-UN axis of command and relationship. The occupation forces (henceforth to mean both military non-military) covering the entire territory of Afghanistan changed command from the US-Coalition to NATO-ISAF in October 2006. NATO already had assumed strategic command, control and coordination (including Provincial Reconstruction Teams) of the ISAF back in August 2003. The partnership between ATA, the United Nations Assistance Mission and NATO-ISAF has never been nor ever meant to be a secret hidden from the world, in fact these involved parties state that such aforementioned partnership and coordination needs to be intensified even more. That's why UN resolution 1833 adopted in September 2008 explicitly welcomed the continued coordination between ISAF and the OEF coalition, and the cooperation established between ISAF and the European Union presence in Afghanistan and Calls upon ISAF to continue to work in close consultation with the Afghan Government and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General as well as with the OEF coalition in the implementation of the force mandate.

 

If all the occupation forces are under the command of NATO, under whose command is the NATO mission? Yep, you've guessed it! NATO reports to the United Nations on the implementation of its mandate in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. They provide quarterly progress reports on varying aspects which include the uprooting of the resistance, development and reconstruction, governance and institution building, Afghan army/police and neighbouring countries. If you wish to believe, their whole presence in Afghanistan is made possible/legitimate by the UN mandate granted to them, and by implication they have been sent and are being kept there by the UN for the duration of whichever duration it sees fit.

 

The basis of all resolutions upon which the UN mandate has been granted as stated in UN resolutions 1510, 1267, 1368, 1373, 1707, 1746, 1776 and 1822, reaffirmed also in resolutions 1386 and 1373 is to reiterate its support for international efforts to root out terrorism in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Furthermore, in resolution 1833 of the UN Security Council we find the following passages:

 

Stressing the central and impartial role that the United Nations continues to play in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan by leading the efforts of the international community, noting, in this context, the synergies in the objectives of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and of ISAF, and stressing the need for strengthened cooperation, coordination and mutual support, taking due account of their respective designated responsibilities, and

 

Reiterating its support for the continuing endeavours by the Afghan Government, with the assistance of the international community, including ISAF and the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) coalition, to improve the security situation and to continue to address the threat posed by the Taliban, Al-Qaida and other extremist groups, and stressing in this context the need for sustained international efforts, including those of ISAF and the OEF coalition

 

Only in the far faraway land of waffling weasels and demented donkeys do they proclaim in excitement:

"The UN is not an arm to further Western goals"

(NGONGE, 19/02/2009)

 

S.O.S

[LayZie G.]

This is an educational post to exercise the latter alternative.>>> 2) educate them for ignorance is a forgivable sin if lessoned.

Your borrowed source of information from wiki & UN combined does not stand a chance on fulfilling the above task. Perhaps, you should take lessons from the Video Professor from the infomercials. I bet he can teach you a thing or two on how to properly plan a lesson and demonstrate it in 1 2 3 steps. Either way, I suggest you give us your input, perhaps juice it a bit and add visual aid to get your target audience interested, i.e

 

 

Lastly, I want to have a healthy discussion on lesson 1 before we move on to lesson 2.

[Fabregas]

Ya SOS, that the UN( particularly under the UNAMA) is part of the occupying force is not something that needs to be debated. The UN boast about their friendship with NATO and their level of coordination with that organisation. NATO is an NGO or charity. Here is just on recent quote from the UNAMA chairman:

 

"President Obama has announced an increase in the US troop level. It will improve

the ability to train the Afghan security forces, strengthen the prospects of sufficiently

secure elections, enhance the ability to fight the insurgency and promote a political

process, which could ultimately bring an end to the conflict. But I would also appeal

to others around this table to look at the possibility to increase the troop levels, at

least temporarily, to make elections as secure as possible".

 

 

That said, brother SOS, Islamically speaking, once can not make an individual ruling on a person working with the UN in Afghanistan without knowing the specific details such as:

 

1. Is the job of this person directly contributing to spilling of blood?

2. Is their a greater benefit in them doing that jon than others?

3. If not, is the person ignorant of Islam

ANd so on and so forth. "

[LayZie G.]

NATO is an NGO or charity

Says who?

 

NATO is far from being charitable nor is it a non-governmental organization(NGO) as you described it to be.

 

NATO is an inter-governmental organization, similar to the United Nations along with one of the oldest IGO, the UPU. It serves the interest of the member states and its governments.

 

PS: The bit about UN boasting their relationship with NATO is foolish assumption because 3 out of the P5(permanent 5 in the UN security council) are also members of NATO. It is a given cooperation and if the UN does not accommodate the request of any of the P3(led by the superpower), as history has shown, they turn the other cheek(NATO) to execute their mission.(win-win situation)

[S.O.S]

Originally posted by LayZie G.:

Perhaps, you should take lessons from the Video Professor from the infomercials. I bet he can teach you a thing or two on how to properly plan a lesson and demonstrate it in 1 2 3 steps. Either way, I suggest you give us your input, perhaps juice it a bit and add visual aid to get your target audience interested,

I'm sorry you don't like my educational style. What else?

 

To Abu_Diaby

This thread is neither about any individuals in particular nor the UN in general, things are far too nuanced than that; not to mention topically unrelated. That's why I posted this separately and gave the specific title 'United Nations and Afghanistan'. Its aim is to highlight the role of the UN as partisan organisation in the occupation of Afghanistan and the fact that UN-'Afghan government'-occupation partnership is a factual reality to be considered in the division of opposing parties, the other party being the resistance. The sooner everyone accepts this fact, the sooner we can move on to the rules and exceptions in principle.

[Fabregas]

^^Lazie; That was a typo, I mean to say NATO is not an NGO.

 

 

sos, I GET YOU.

[NGONGE]

Oh look a pointless lesson! Cut a long story short and tell me if there is one blue-beret-wearing fighter in Afghanistan, saaxib.

 

The UN is a body that issues resolutions according to situations and the times they take place. I REPEAT. It is not an arm to further western goal.

 

Now if you disagree with that, come with something a little more substantial than the drivel you posted above. If you cannot and would rather sit at my feet and beg me to educate you (in all senses of the word) all you have to do is ASK. What will it be, son?

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Abu_Diaby- Al Zeylaci:

^^Lazie; That was a typo, I mean to say NATO is not an NGO.

 

 

sos, I GET YOU.

Good, could you explain it to Ngonge, sometimes I wonder if he is really arab!

[NGONGE]

^^ I am not an Arab, Khayr. I am Somali. What has that got to do with the subject though? Ah! You are not using one of those long-winded arguments that says something about me speaking Arabic therefore I should be a mullah by default, are you?

 

Well, I am not. And even if my beard was so long as to trip on it, my dress so short as to show my bony knees or I were to recite the entire Koran off by heart, I would still not be your version of a mullah. I leave the online posturing for you and the 'Allah-KHAYR-Ha-Ku-Siiyoo' brigade, saaxib. It does not wash with me because for all I know, you may be sat behind that screen with lipstick on.

 

On the topic itself, the point is and has been that the issue here is not as clear-cut as you simpletons make it sound. For a start, the UN did not recognise the Taliban from day one and have always regarded Rabbani as the president of that country (a job he got after many UN sponsored talks between the Afghani warring parties). Other than the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (who later all forsook the Taliban), nobody else recognised Taliban. The UN imposed sanctions on the Taliban regime years before America invaded (or the 2001 events). Human rights organisations reported countless cases and incidents where the Taliban were abusing their own power. There were opposing groups (such as the Northern Alliance and others) BEFORE the American invasion. Yet, the UN did NOT invade Afghanistan and was attempting to solve the issue with some diplomacy. The ISAF that SOS mentions above was formed AFTER the invasion. But even more importantly, the UN envoy to Afghanistan at the time (Lakhdar Brahimi – remember him?) did recommend that these forces should mainly be made up of Afghani soldiers and that Western armies should stay out of Afghanistan. The Bonn meeting of Afghani factions included many that were part of the Taliban and many that were opposed to the Taliban. It was the UN that got them together and attempted to salvage something from the mess that is occupied Afghanistan (in exactly the same way it has been doing for the past eighteen years. But you are probably too young to remember the snakes and ladders games that Rabbani, Hikmityar, Masood and others were playing back then).

 

You say that the UN is just a western arm to further their (the West) own goals. I say it is NOT. The UN was opposed to the unilateral invasion of Iraq but once the deed was done it had no choice but to join in and see what it could do to improve the situation in that country. Now Iraq has the government of Al Maliki and just came out of a supposedly successful election. This was not the doing of the US but the UN. You can say what you like about the invasion, the reasons for it and the collaborators (and I'll probably agree with it all). However, TODAY, the US troops are gradually moving out of Iraq. The British troops are mostly out and the other multinational troops almost all gone. Iraq is in the hands of Iraqis themselves. That was down to DIPLOMACY and UN pressure.

 

Yes, the Security Council is dominated by Western countries that can veto resolutions but China is not a western country, or is it?

 

Now, does the UN do any good in this world and is it always at the behest (or for the advantage of) Western powers? What did the Western powers gain from the UN intervention in countless African and Asian countries? Why did the UN ban the involvement of neighbouring countries in Somalia one minute and stand helpless when Ethiopia invaded Somalia? Contradictory, would you not say? Oh! Was it a conspiracy to hoodwink the morayan into believing they are safe from Ethiopian invasion? Did the UN (at the instructions of America) order Ethiopia to invade? Or was it the fact that the UN, as ever, only decided to deal with facts and adjust its posture accordingly (just as it did when it helped in the installation of Sh. Hotel and the eventual withdrawal of the Ethiopians)?

 

The UN, as proven by thousands of examples over the years, is not perfect. However, those examples too prove that it is also NOT an arm (mark the word there please) to further Western goals. It is a league of nations that is often helpless in the face of Western pressure. Can you distinguish the difference o religious simpletons?

[Abtigiis]

Kharyr, don't listen to him. Ngonge is very much a arab-somali, more like Buri Hamza who is frm Merca.

 

Second, ngonge, I think you are belittling the Western influence on the UN. I think the UN, while not explicitly a western tool, works under the moral framework of western values. I can tell you the example of Zimbabwe. All UN staff here agree there is no humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. We failed to sell there is food security crisis in the country, as our own assessment revealed a global acute Malnutrition rate of 5%. This is even lower than what is nationally deemed acceptable- 7%. In Ethiopia and Kenya, we talk of a nutrition problem, when that figure is near 20%. We failed to see a single IDP camp or people who are lookking for shelter.

 

Yet the instructions are clear. We should write that there are more than 900, 000 IDPs in the country and that nearly 9 million Zimbabweans need food aid. Why do you think we have to repeat those stories.

 

Simple institutional survival mentality. DFID and USAID will not fund our projects if we are not going to follow their assessment of the situation. It is the same everywhere. Who are the donors and what independece do mandated UN agencies has to go their way?

 

So, in the end, it comes down to the issue of being a tool. Whether you are doing it because you believe in or circumstances forced you to do is not important.

 

I will say the UN is an active arm of the western conquest of the worls, much as the workld Bank, IMF and international financial institutions are.

[NGONGE]

^^ Not belittling anything, A&T. Have you read my words and the background to this whole argument? Do you still agree with your words above?

[Johnny B]

you may be sat behind that screen with lipstick on.

[LayZie G.]

I think the UN, while not explicitly a western tool, works under the moral framework of western values.

Duh!

If you really worked for the organization as you claim and not still playing character in one of your short fictions, only then would you know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the "moral framework of a western values: because the original architects were......:-

 

You guessed it, none other than United States, United Kingdom anddddddddddddddd best of all, Canada, the most important piece of the puzzle. Therefore, it is reflective of their values and as it should.

 

Speaking of aid shortage, blame the United States(as well as other countries who owe far less) as they are behind on their membership dues and it is highly unlikely that they will pay it up in full anytime soon.

 

While we are in the subject of aid/ AT&T/UN, do you know what the annual UN budget is?

[N.O.R.F]

 

Make a note from about 3 min 55 secs

[NGONGE]

^^ Can't listen to it at work, saaxib. Can't at home either (Man U v Inter tonight).