Why Should Taliban and Other Insurgents Refrain from Negotiation With the US & NATO?
source: http://www.sabawoon.com/articles/index.php?page=why_should_taliban_not
-
-
- riverratt50
- added this
A perspective from an Afghan newspaper. A very interesting read.
With the war in Afghanistan becoming a decade old, the rhetoric of peace and negotiation has been widespread including President Obama’s desire to negotiate with “moderate elements” of Taliban. This mushrooming of desire for negotiations has several reasons. First, the war in Afghanistan has become the longest war fought in the US history, prompting the former Allied Commander General McChrystal to call it “a bleeding ulcer”. Such a statement is not unusual for leaders of a losing war; after all, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev also called their losing war in Afghanistan “the bleeding wound”. Second, the economic and human costs have been more than what the US and her allies of some 45 countries could endure. Especially, the rise in casualties tilted public opinion in the US and Europe in favor of ending this conflict. Third, the US has finally realized what it should have known long ago that the war in Afghanistan is not winnable. Furthermore, the US finds itself in a similar position as the former Soviet Union and is stuck in a losing quagmire.
Why Continue the War?
Multiple reasons exist for the Afghan resistance to justify the continuation of the war and remain steadfast in their refusal of any type of negotiation with the US and NATO.
The Illegality of Invasion of Afghanistan
The disaster living up by Afghans on daily basis has its roots in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and NATO in 2001. The underling justification for the US to invade Afghanistan was their response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Moreover, the attacks of 911 have also shaped the American sense of morality for feeling righteousness by referring to the war in Afghanistan “a just war” as President Obama has shamelessly proclaimed in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize for “Peace” in Oslo, Norway.
The truth, however, is otherwise. The invasion of Afghanistan was illegal if we use International Law as the underlying standard of legitimacy. However, there has been a lot of disinformation about the legality of the war when the so called experts refer to UN resolutions as basis of their argument in favor of the legality of the war in Afghanistan.
If we study the UN resolution subsequent to the attacks of September 11, 2001, none of the resolutions advocates war or aggression against Afghanistan. In fact, every resolution reiterates the significance of the UN Charter in any international effort. If we look at the UN Security Council Resolution 1368, which was adapted on September 12, 2001, a day after the attacks in New York and Washington DC, it affirms the following proclamations:
Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,
Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter 1
Among the above-mentioned three affirmations, the third one “Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter” is construed by those individuals either ignorant or hypocrites as the green light to invade Afghanistan. However, they tend to forget the details in each of these affirmations. The crucial addition to each of these affirmations is the notion of compliance with the UN Charter. It may only be a phrase for the untrained eye or intentional disregard by those advocating US’s global agenda; nonetheless, it is a legal and moral impediment that should not be taken lightly.
Equally, if we refer to the Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted on September 28, 2001, Security Council Resolution 1377 adopted on November 12, 2001 and Security Council Resolution 1378 adopted on November 14, 2001, each of these resolutions affirms that every action must be within the confines of the UN Charter. Furthermore, Security Council Resolutions 1373, 1377 and 1378 reaffirm Security Council Resolution 1368, which affirms without any qualifications the “principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations”.2 This brings us to one basic fundamental principle of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 of the UN Charter.
The Article 2 of the UN Charter forbids any nation state from the unilateral use of force:
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 3
The fundamentals of legality and moral superiority enshrined in the Article 2 of the UN Charter are sufficient in their own right to put to rest any claim of legitimacy of the invasion of Afghanistan. However, there are three exceptions to the Article 2 of the UN Charter: action authorized by the UN Security Council; Article 51 of the UN Charter--the State’s right of self-defense; and action by regional bodies with authorization from the UN Security Council.
The first exception to Article 2 of the UN Charter would have been authorization of an attack by the UN Security Council; however, as discussed above, none of the Security Council Resolutions authorizes the use of force. All of the Security Council Resolutions, 1368 and 1373 adopted before the invasion and Security Council Resolutions 1377 and 1378 adopted shortly after the invasion affirm the UN Charter. What this means is that each of the resolutions mandates conformity to the UN Charter in particular Article 2 of the UN Charter.
The second exception to the Article 2 of the UN Charter is Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter gives a nation-state the right to self-defense as long as the attack is ongoing or imminent.4 Article 51 states that member states must report to the Security Council and the Security Council would take necessary measures to restore peace. The attacks were not ongoing and the response was not immediate. The US waited until October 7, 2001 to retaliate against Afghanistan. The US has reported the attacks of September 11, 2001 to the UN Security Council and the Security Council passed two resolutions and adopted measures to combat terrorism within the framework of the UN Charter. As mentioned above, none of the resolutions authorized the use of force. Furthermore, the Security Council measures included “legal suppression of terrorism, and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism.”5 To this end, the Security Council had set up a monitoring committee to oversee the progress of measures proposed by the two resolutions and gave all states 90 days to report to the monitoring committee about the progress done in that regard. As we know of course, the US did not wait for 90 days or even a month and took matters in its own hands. The issue of self-defense in the International Law is very similar to the rationale of self-defense exercised within nation states. That is, when a person faces a threat from an attacker and there is no police to neutralize the danger faced by the victim, then that the victim is entitled to self-defense. However, once the danger subsides, the would-be victim should not take the law into his own hands and become a vigilante.
http://www.sabawoon.com/articles/index.php?page=why_should_taliban_not
With the war in Afghanistan becoming a decade old, the rhetoric of peace and negotiation has been widespread including President Obama’s desire to negotiate with “moderate elements” of Taliban. This mushrooming of desire for negotiations has several reasons. First, the war in Afghanistan has become the longest war fought in the US history, prompting the former Allied Commander General McChrystal to call it “a bleeding ulcer”. Such a statement is not unusual for leaders of a losing war; after all, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev also called their losing war in Afghanistan “the bleeding wound”. Second, the economic and human costs have been more than what the US and her allies of some 45 countries could endure. Especially, the rise in casualties tilted public opinion in the US and Europe in favor of ending this conflict. Third, the US has finally realized what it should have known long ago that the war in Afghanistan is not winnable. Furthermore, the US finds itself in a similar position as the former Soviet Union and is stuck in a losing quagmire.
Why Continue the War?
Multiple reasons exist for the Afghan resistance to justify the continuation of the war and remain steadfast in their refusal of any type of negotiation with the US and NATO.
The Illegality of Invasion of Afghanistan
The disaster living up by Afghans on daily basis has its roots in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and NATO in 2001. The underling justification for the US to invade Afghanistan was their response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Moreover, the attacks of 911 have also shaped the American sense of morality for feeling righteousness by referring to the war in Afghanistan “a just war” as President Obama has shamelessly proclaimed in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize for “Peace” in Oslo, Norway.
The truth, however, is otherwise. The invasion of Afghanistan was illegal if we use International Law as the underlying standard of legitimacy. However, there has been a lot of disinformation about the legality of the war when the so called experts refer to UN resolutions as basis of their argument in favor of the legality of the war in Afghanistan.
If we study the UN resolution subsequent to the attacks of September 11, 2001, none of the resolutions advocates war or aggression against Afghanistan. In fact, every resolution reiterates the significance of the UN Charter in any international effort. If we look at the UN Security Council Resolution 1368, which was adapted on September 12, 2001, a day after the attacks in New York and Washington DC, it affirms the following proclamations:
Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,
Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter 1
Among the above-mentioned three affirmations, the third one “Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter” is construed by those individuals either ignorant or hypocrites as the green light to invade Afghanistan. However, they tend to forget the details in each of these affirmations. The crucial addition to each of these affirmations is the notion of compliance with the UN Charter. It may only be a phrase for the untrained eye or intentional disregard by those advocating US’s global agenda; nonetheless, it is a legal and moral impediment that should not be taken lightly.
Equally, if we refer to the Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted on September 28, 2001, Security Council Resolution 1377 adopted on November 12, 2001 and Security Council Resolution 1378 adopted on November 14, 2001, each of these resolutions affirms that every action must be within the confines of the UN Charter. Furthermore, Security Council Resolutions 1373, 1377 and 1378 reaffirm Security Council Resolution 1368, which affirms without any qualifications the “principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations”.2 This brings us to one basic fundamental principle of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 of the UN Charter.
The Article 2 of the UN Charter forbids any nation state from the unilateral use of force:
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 3
The fundamentals of legality and moral superiority enshrined in the Article 2 of the UN Charter are sufficient in their own right to put to rest any claim of legitimacy of the invasion of Afghanistan. However, there are three exceptions to the Article 2 of the UN Charter: action authorized by the UN Security Council; Article 51 of the UN Charter--the State’s right of self-defense; and action by regional bodies with authorization from the UN Security Council.
The first exception to Article 2 of the UN Charter would have been authorization of an attack by the UN Security Council; however, as discussed above, none of the Security Council Resolutions authorizes the use of force. All of the Security Council Resolutions, 1368 and 1373 adopted before the invasion and Security Council Resolutions 1377 and 1378 adopted shortly after the invasion affirm the UN Charter. What this means is that each of the resolutions mandates conformity to the UN Charter in particular Article 2 of the UN Charter.
The second exception to the Article 2 of the UN Charter is Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter gives a nation-state the right to self-defense as long as the attack is ongoing or imminent.4 Article 51 states that member states must report to the Security Council and the Security Council would take necessary measures to restore peace. The attacks were not ongoing and the response was not immediate. The US waited until October 7, 2001 to retaliate against Afghanistan. The US has reported the attacks of September 11, 2001 to the UN Security Council and the Security Council passed two resolutions and adopted measures to combat terrorism within the framework of the UN Charter. As mentioned above, none of the resolutions authorized the use of force. Furthermore, the Security Council measures included “legal suppression of terrorism, and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism.”5 To this end, the Security Council had set up a monitoring committee to oversee the progress of measures proposed by the two resolutions and gave all states 90 days to report to the monitoring committee about the progress done in that regard. As we know of course, the US did not wait for 90 days or even a month and took matters in its own hands. The issue of self-defense in the International Law is very similar to the rationale of self-defense exercised within nation states. That is, when a person faces a threat from an attacker and there is no police to neutralize the danger faced by the victim, then that the victim is entitled to self-defense. However, once the danger subsides, the would-be victim should not take the law into his own hands and become a vigilante.
http://www.sabawoon.com/articles/index.php?page=why_should_taliban_not
