United Nations and Afghanistan: Factual Realities

[N.O.R.F]

^Be sure to watch when you can.

 

Yep late CL nights are back!

[S.O.S]

NGONGE,

 

There's only one relevant paragraph dealing with the subject, to which I'll reply briefly. You say that "the UN did not recognise the Taliban from day one" yet fail to mention that it was the US that (after lengthy negotiations between the Clinton administration and the Taliban) refused to recognise the Afghan government. You also say "UN imposed sanctions on the Taliban regime years before America invaded (or the 2001 events)" and yet again you fail to mention the sponsors initiating such drafts calling for the imposition of sanctions against the Taliban (it was not China, I can guarantee you). Both of these arguments prove the opposite of what you're trying to convince us my friend.

 

On the other hand, come occupation and we see instant recognition of a makeshift 'government' and the lifting of the sanctions you alluded to by the UN. Does that not mean that western interests and agenda always dictate the UN policy in/on Afghanistan? Or maybe what you're actually saying is that because "the UN did NOT invade Afghanistan and was attempting to solve the issue with some diplomacy" (diplomacy, by which you mean illegal murderous sanctions and the refusal to recognise their existence), proves the impartiality of the UN, are you not? It's like a criminal, after robbing you on the street of all your possessions and stealing your passport, who then expects you to see his benevolence for NOT stabbing you. Cruelty is care!

 

You've gone off topic and into subjects you can't possibly get your head around –I don't just say that, it's completely clear from the simplistic half-truths you've provided as arguments. Though tempted by itching inclinations to comment all the self-evident fallacies in your arguments, I fear that we otherwise loose sight of the topic at hand.

 

Just to remind you, we're discussing the United Nations in Afghanistan as indicated by the title of this thread. The position argued by myself and others here is as follows:

1) Afghanistan is occupied by Western powers and they're using NATO, the Afghan puppet government and the UN to achieve their objectives.

2) The resistance is at war with these powers/tools as much as these powers/tools are at war with the Afghan resistance.

3) The war against the resistance has many sophisticated dimensions costing billions of Dollars, such as bribery, ideological (including psyups), socio-cultural, material, political and off course physical.

4) If one works for the NATO-UN-'Afghan government', you can either be at war with the Afghan resistance directly, indirectly or not at all involved (we're not concerned here with that last one) depending on your job.

5) The UN is, at least politically, the single most important element of all the tools used in the process of winning 'hearts and minds' or as the Secretary-General himself puts it "success will depend on our ability to bring about a political surge".

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by S.O.S:

NGONGE,

 

Just to remind you, we're discussing the United Nations in Afghanistan as indicated by the title of this thread. The position argued by myself and others here is as follows:

1) Afghanistan is occupied by Western powers and they're using NATO, the Afghan puppet government and the UN to achieve their objectives.

2) The resistance is at war with these powers/tools as much as these powers/tools are at war with the Afghan resistance.

3) The war against the resistance has many sophisticated dimensions costing billions of Dollars, such as bribery, ideological (including psyups), socio-cultural, material, political and off course physical.

4) If one works for the NATO-UN-'Afghan government', you can either be at war with the Afghan resistance directly, indirectly or not at all involved (we're not concerned here with that last one) depending on your job.

5) The UN is, at least politically, the single most important element of all the tools used in the process of winning 'hearts and minds' or as the Secretary-General himself puts it "success will depend on our ability to bring about a political surge".

You chose the bits you think you can argue against and ran away with them. Yet, you still did not really provide any argument or proper refutation. Just gave me a flaccid opinion that is neither here nor there.

 

Still, let us stick with your reminder and see if we can deal with these points.

 

1- Yes Afghanistan is occupied. The mention of NATO and the Afghan government by you here is presumably simple fodder to inflate your words. Lets us stick with the UN. In this instance the goals of the occupier and the UN coincide. Again, let me remind you that the UN has been opposed to the Taliban long before any invasion took place. In your limp argument above, you asserted that this is because the Western powers were opposed to the Taliban. Fine. Why then did only THREE countries recognise the Taliban? Is it because of the power of the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? There is a substantial number of Muslim countries who are members of the UN and who still chose to follow the UN line here (was it US pressure on them too?).

 

2- Way to state the obvious! IRRELEVANT.

 

 

3- Again, you are stating the obvious here! IRRELEVANT

 

 

4- You gave three scenarios but decided that you are not concerned with the ONLY one that proves your argument to be nothing but stuff and nonsense. REMEMBER, I have been telling you all along that the issue is not as black and white as you make it sound. It is either you are colluding wit the enemy by working for the UN or, maybe, you are not.

 

5- And I tell you that the UN (though pressured, cajoled and sometimes forced by Western powers) is all about finding solutions and reacting to situations as they occur. I return to it being opposed to the Taliban regime from day one and never seeking a military solution to the issue (but rather using sanctions on a regime that did not control the whole of Afghanistan) whilst at the same time still recognising the government of the ousted Rabbani. I tell you again that it called for all Afghani factions to attend the Bonn meeting (including the old monarch of Afghanistan) and also its demand that an Afghani army be used to control the country. This has always been the UN's way of doing things. Which, neatly, brings back us to our pointless argument of the UN being an ARM for furthering western goals. Can you at all see the difference? AT ALL?

[S.O.S]

The mention of NATO and the Afghan government by you here is presumably simple fodder to inflate your words.

The United Nations security council resolution "Calls upon the International Security Assistance Force to continue to work in close consultation with the Afghan Transitional Authority and its successors and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General as well as with the Operation Enduring Freedom Coalition in the implementation of the force mandate, and to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the measures" Let the facts decide old man!

 

In this instance the goals of the occupier and the UN coincide

So it's a coincidence! Do you mind to exercise some logic inference here? If the goals of the occupier and that of the UN coincide, would you not say that their goals are exactly the same and therefore conclude that working for the UN is the same as working for the occupier?

 

Again, let me remind you that the UN has been opposed to the Taliban long before any invasion took place. In your limp argument above, you asserted that this is because the Western powers were opposed to the Taliban.

That's just plain silly and simplistic my friend. The Taliban had to prove itself between 1996 and 1998 by increasing the total territory it controlled to satisfy the international criterions for recognition, in particular, US demands. However, the goalposts were always moving even then –to energy security, deals on contract negotiations for pipelines, women education, etc.

 

An interview with the Taliban deputy information minister Abdurrahman Hotaki published in 1998 after several victories for territory over their foes, he stated that "Even before the capture of Mazar-i-Sharif and Taloqan, we were fully qualified for recognition. The opposition gave people an excuse to deny us recognition and prevent us having the pipeline run through our country, but that excuse has now gone. In the past people used to use the fighting close to its (the pipeline's) route as an excuse, but this has also gone. At the moment we want to finalise a deal with Unocal, but we are still in contact with Bridas" (Unocal is a US company btw).

 

Around the time of the annual UN credential committee meeting in 1998, the East-African bombings took place and the US was bombing Afghanistan. From then on, international law was discarded, Bin Laden became the dominant excuse and US interests were all that mattered in Afghanistan when it comes to the UN policy at the time. By the next annual UN credential committee meeting, the US was in the already in the process of imposing its unilateral sanctions regime against Afghanistan on 5 July 1999 by an executive order of Bill Clinton, to UN resolution counsil backed sanctions. The following year, SC resolution 1267 was being converted to SC resolution 1333 in a similar scenario orchestrated by the US imperialist machine. That "the Western powers were opposed to the Taliban" before the 2001 invasion is not something that's open to debate my friend; it's a historical FACT!

 

Olivier Roy, former United Nations Office for Coordinating Relief in Afghanistan (UNOCA), wrote afterwards the folloeing:

 

The US has told the Taliban that once they offer up bin Laden, or even if bin Laden leaves the country of his own accord, sanctions will be lifted. This would pave the way to UN recognition of the Kabul regime as successors to the Rabbani government-in-exile.

 

Political commentators had indicated that recognition has been a genuine possibility following the Taliban's military successes last year, which secured them 90 per cent of the country and established them as de facto leaders.

 

Problems of human and minority rights, the repression of women and the Taliban's open support of Central Asian Islamic militants are not mentioned by the UN as preconditions for the lifting of sanctions. It simply wants the Taliban to wash its hands of bin Laden.

 

Washington has been demanding his extradition ever since a US court indicted him for allegedly masterminding the bombing of two American embassies in East Africa in 1998. The Taliban have so far refused to countenance Washington's demands.

 

Should they eventually agree to them, there are several factors which indicate that the international community would consider transferring their allegiance to the Taliban leadership.

 

Prior to the embassy bombings, the US had sent signals that, while not actively supporting the regime, it was not actually hostile to it.

 

Taliban understood the game eventually very well. It consented to extradite Bin Laden on the basis of reasonable conditions that the US would provide evidence proving his guild or involvement and a third country where there's reasonable chance for justice to prevail. The US simply rejected every offer made by the Taliban –made possible of course, by its control of the UN and abilities to dictate wording and exact content of UNSC resolutions. To refresh your mind, following extract is from a news report around that period:

 

"The Taliban realise they will not obtain international recognition, particularly given Washington's attitude to bin Laden, so they are turning inward and guarding their home patch," one analyst here said.

…

However, he has now told the US it has until November 20 to provide evidence in support of the allegations and dismissed a five million dollar bounty offered for the Afghanista-based Saudi dissident to be brought to a US supreme court.

…

"US support is considered tantamount if the Taliban is to become legitimised as the government of Afghanistan and hold a seat in the UN General Assembly," one western observer said.

 

"But the Taliban will never get the recognition they want. There would have to be an extrordinary change in their outlook and if that were to happen then the Taliban, simply, would no longer exist."

 

He was referring to hallmarks of Taliban attitudes which have been imposed on the local population under strict Islamic Shariat law.

 

Men must wear untrimmed beards and shun western fashion, women are covered from head to toe and discriminated against in health, education and work.

 

Thieves have their right hands surgically removed and some serious offenders are publiclly executed by gunfire.

 

Depictions of human figures, including statues of Jesus Christ and Buddah, are illegal. Television, music, cinema, alcohol and gambling are all banned. Strict curfews are imposed.

 

"Yes they have brought security," one analyst said.

 

"Women are not raped in the streets and violence has dropped, but at what cost?

 

"And ironically the Taliban owe partial success to Washington which supported them to a point in the early days when the potential to exploit oil and gas reserves were an issue."

…

"The Taliban have played a number of cards in the game for a UN seat. Bin Laden was one, drugs were another, while the imposition of Shariat law was never an issue as far as they are concerned," another western observer said.

 

"It now looks like they have decided to support bin Laden and thrown in their hand for world recognition."

 

Fine. Why then did only THREE countries recognise the Taliban? Is it because of the power of the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? There is a substantial number of Muslim countries who are members of the UN and who still chose to follow the UN line here (was it US pressure on them too?).

That there are a "number of Muslim countries who are members of the UN" would have had significance only if either the Taliban or the Northern Alliance was Muslim and the other not. They decided to wait, not because they "chose to follow the UN line" as you alleged above, but that of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference who suspended the Afghan seat –only fell short of granting full membership due to their fierce enemies internal to the organisation.

 

I have been telling you all along that the issue is not as black and white as you make it sound. It is either you are colluding wit the enemy by working for the UN or, maybe, you are not.

It's black and white when we're limiting our positions to those "colluding wit the enemy by working for the UN" directly or indirectly. Or are contesting here the exclusion of cleaners, contracted cooks and the likes? I'm intrigued by your response here.

[NGONGE]

^^ Completely forgot about this thread until someone reminded me of it.

 

Lets start from your final point. You are arguing that other Muslim countries did not recognise the Taliban because The Organisation of the Islamic Conference suspended their seat! Hum bug I say. Three of those countries acted on their own accord and recognised the Taliban only to withdraw that recognition because of UN pressure. Other Muslim countries (as the action of these three countries proves) were not obliged to adhere to the word of the Islamic Conference. So where does that leave us? Your speculation or the actual reality! I know which one I am choosing here.

 

So far, and despite all that you wrote, the issue is still not black and white. You have not yet provided me with the smoking gun, saaxib. You are mixing your arguments between the UN and the US. I do not want to go on a long laborious argument over this and that when the goal itself is clear. You say it is an arm to further western goals and I say PROVE IT.

 

As for asking about cleaners and contracted cooks; in your argument, they are really no different to someone helping in construction, government planning or someone working in the human rights section of the UN. It is all UN, saaxib. As long as he is not involved with battle planning or is actually carrying a gun it still remains unclear as to whether we should condemn him/her or not.

 

Go back over your logic and convince me, saaxib. I can see you strongly believe in this opinion of yours but I am not buying it yet.