Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Britain sees role for Taliban in Afghanistan

DOUG SAUNDERS

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:23 AM EDT 17/12/07

Brown says 'there is a place for them' if they renounce violence and respect human rights ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Expert Eel from Canada writes: So the Taliban has a role in Afghanistan ... So why are we there again??
  2. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: The Taliban don't want violence, only their way!
  3. Average Dummy from USAviolent, Canada writes: This is quite amusing that the NATO (USA) should ask for others to behave in non-violent way. Is dropping bombs, invading foreign lands, destroying environment and population with URANIUM depleted ammunition and other chemical substances, killing of the innocent and creating MASS exodus of hundreds of thousand people without homes, is it not an ACT of VIOLENCE?
  4. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Average Dummy from USAviolent,

    "creating MASS exodus of hundreds of thousand people"

    Please explain why, if things are so bad, that 4.6 million Refugees have returned to Afghanistan since the Taleban were removed from power?

    CHeers

    Mikey
  5. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Taliban Brown.
  6. Bill Needle from Canada writes: Does Brown have French blood in him? He seems to like the concept of collaboration.
  7. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: I don't really think you can separate the violence and human rights abuses from radical Islam. But I guess it looks good on paper. I miss Tony Blair already.
  8. Nick B. from Canada writes: Average, you mean the mass exodus of Afghan refugees out of Pakistan and back to their homeland where they've been settling because the Taliban is gone and they have the chance to start rebuilding their lives?
  9. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: More namby-pamby hand-wringing complemented with an extra strong dose of liberalist "can't we just all get along," "we're one world community" bulls**t. It's no surprise it emanates from the mouth of a Brit. Matter of fact, nowadays, if it 'didn't' come from someone in British politics, I would be shocked.

    For Mr. Brown to see hope in a group of individuals who have already guaranteed their place in history as one of the most dastardly, ill-concieved, and ill-regarded social entities in the modern day world, only gives rise to the thought that, perhaps, Mr. Brown should be renamed Mr. Shades of Gray.

    What an utterly moronic and insipidly stupid sentiment this is. Were I English, I would consider it my civic duty to go to wherever he is, grab him on both sides of his melon and give his head a shake for him...
  10. My Gestalt! from Montreal, Canada writes: 73 dead Canadians so that we can go back to status quo.
  11. Ron MacGillivray from Flatbush, ab, writes: So Brown says there's a place for Taliban if they renounce violence and respect human rights. Gee, what about our glorious Afghan allies, aka the Northern Alliance? They're getting off scott free.

    I don't know about you but given a choice between Islamic "fundamentalists" and a gang of heroin warlords I would be siding with the Taliban -if you're goal is to lay the groundwork for some sort a civilized society.

    What we should be doing is turning the keys over to the Taliban and inviting the Northern Alliance to join the gov't, I mean those who have renounced violence and respect human rights.
  12. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: From the article: "If they are prepared to renounce violence and abide by the constitution and respect basic human rights, then there is a place for them in the legitimate society and economy of Afghanistan," Mr. Brown said.

    Surely this is too good an offer to refuse. After all, PM Brown has not defined his intentions. Does renounce violence mean opposing the current government and NATO's support or does it mean a pacifist's life forever?

    What basic human rights is he referring to? Those espoused by western society or those allowed by other sensibilities? One assumes he is not suggesting the Taleban embrace Christian beliefs, but you never know.

    Abide by the constitution, he says. Would that mean enshrining the current constitution or would newly-installed Taleban ministers be able to put forward amendments that would adapt future constitutions to their beliefs? Who would monitor and police such amendments?

    As to his comments that agreement would mean inclusion in the legitimate society and economy of Afghanistan, he offers little as the illegal economy of Afghanistan might already exceed the legal. Hardly a tempting alternative.

    It seems his comments are meant to appease a world growing ever more impatient with Afghanistan. As President Karzai is actively promoting a reconciliation with the Taleban, how long can it be before the rest of NATO bends to this viewpoint and we leave Afghanistan to the Afghans, whether Taleban or not.
  13. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Mikey and Nick B, I expect he is referring to the refugees forcibly expelled by the Pakistani and Iranian militaries who live in refugee camps. Those pushed across the border from Iran were not even allowed to take their belongings.... You are likely referring to those who fled abroad when the Taliban came to power because they supported the Northern Alliance in the civil war.
  14. John Robinson from Toronto, Canada writes: Combative American, While I have no faith in this ill conceived plan I have to take issue with your claims against the Brits, of which I am one.
    It would seem that both the US and Britain have been built up on the premise that one can say what one likes. Throttling people for what they believe is as Un-American as it is Un-British.
    Now I have to ask you, did you throttle Pelosi for her actions? How about the dissenters and thinkers in the US? I thought not, unless you are writing from prison.
    I understand emotion but please think it out before you blast. A teacher of mine in high school had a plaque over his desk that said "Ensure that brain is engaged before releasing mouth" I would add to this wryly "Throttling not advised for hot engine"
  15. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Perhaps the most important paragraph in the article is, "Canadian officials in Afghanistan said that their government agencies and diplomats have shifted their position toward embracing Mr. Karzai's approach, although the military has not followed suit." Now THIS is news. In the background the Harper government now supports negotiations with the Taliban.
  16. globefan EH from Canada writes: Combative American, please read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, I would suggest that the description "most dastardly, ill-concieved, and ill-regarded social entities in the modern day world" could apply to many of the policies and resulting millions of deaths described and she wasn't talking Afghanistan.
  17. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Nick B and Mikey, refugee agencies estimate that in addition to at least 2 million Afghan refugees still living outside the country, there are approximately 1 million internal refugees in Afghanistan. These are people fleeing violence in their villages and districts due to violent conflict, of which NATO is a part.

    For example, due to Operation Medusa in the Panjwaii during late 2006, the G&M reported that the refugee camps outside Kandahar City swelled to between 100,000 and 200,000 people, mostly living in tents. You can see videos of some of the refugees here:

    http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/Senlisfilm

    Here's an account by the CTV of what the returning refugees are coming back to in Kandahar. It's an illuminating story, particularly about the lack of assistance being provided by NATO countries:

    "Inside the camp, the first thing that hits like a brick wall, is the stench of human waste and sickness, so strong that even those, who now call it home, cover their noses to protect against the pungent smell. Children lie in clusters on the ground, seemingly lifeless, covered in flies and sick with diarrhea and fever."

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070420/
    afghanistan    refugees_070420/20070420?hub=SEAfghanistan

    The often repeated claim that returning refugees are a sign of success in Afghanistan must be judged against the reality. Millions of refugees have been FORCED to return, whether they wanted to or not. And many who have come back as refugees are returning to bleak conditions indeed.
  18. dallas mcquarrie from regina, Canada writes: Brown says 'there is a place for them' if they renounce violence and respect human rights.

    The same is true of the United States.
  19. Chris Hamilton from Edmonton, Canada writes: There is really nothing too new and radical with this concept. Ultimately, those who support the Taliban are going to have to be integrated into any sort of political settlement. No military (ours included) has ever said that there's a solely military solution to rebuilding Afghanistan. The Brits aren't suggesting that we hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban, as some people on this forum suggest. Learn to read.

    For all the mistakes made in Nato's campaign, how many ask themselves what would happen if Nato just packed up and left in a hurry (as Mr. Layton insists)? Most people probably don't care, as long as they stuck it to the evil Harper-Bush world domination duo they're happy.
  20. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: John Robinson from Toronto, Canada writes: "Combative American, While I have no faith in this ill conceived plan I have to take issue with your claims against the Brits, of which I am one. It would seem that both the US and Britain have been built up on the premise that one can say what one likes. Throttling people for what they believe is as Un-American as it is Un-British. Now I have to ask you, did you throttle Pelosi for her actions? How about the dissenters and thinkers in the US? I thought not, unless you are writing from prison." Mr. Robinson; since we are both of British heritage, let me just say that from what I've seen of the current and past British government, I am not left with a great deal of hope with regard to their policy decisions - minus, of course, what Mr. Blair put into place vis-a-vis British involvement in Iraq, of which I was and am, a fan. I also think you make too much of my statements. I am not in agreement with Mr. Browns plans to bring this group into the political circle of Afghani politics. Their presence there would only exacerbate many of the problems they currently face, and would add an even more radical element to the mix, thus ensuring even more of a discordnant tone than is currently heard. As to my thoughts on Nancy Pelosi? Let me say this. There are few people in American politics that I dislike more. Her trip abroad to Syria is but one of many traitorous actions she has brought to bear throughout her political career. So if the question is, "did you throttle Pelosi for her actions?" The answer would have to be an unqualified YES. Furthermore, unlike the current state (or should I say, "Nanny-State") of affairs in the UK, we here in the US are still allowed to think and do for ourselves, thank you. I'm not being held in a secret prison, my phone isn't being "tapped," and the rights granted me by the Constitution are, for the most part, still intact. Like Freedom of Speech.
  21. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: Chris Hamilton from Edmonton, Canada writes: "For all the mistakes made in Nato's campaign, how many ask themselves what would happen if Nato just packed up and left in a hurry (as Mr. Layton insists)? Most people probably don't care, as long as they stuck it to the evil Harper-Bush world domination duo they're happy."

    Chris Hamilton; while I agree with most of what you've said, I am at a loss to explain what mistakes NATO has made in Afghanistan? What exactly are you talking about?
  22. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: dallas mcquarrie from regina, Canada writes: "Brown says 'there is a place for them' if they renounce violence and respect human rights."

    "The same is true of the United States."

    Once again, you've raised the bar in intellectual discussionary techniques, Dallas. Thank you so much for your continued hatred of my country, as it adds greatly to any conversation on any topic.
  23. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: globefan EH from Canada writes: "Combative American, please read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, I would suggest that the description "most dastardly, ill-concieved, and ill-regarded social entities in the modern day world" could apply to many of the policies and resulting millions of deaths described and she wasn't talking Afghanistan."

    And read it I shall, globefan; just as soon as I figure out 'who' you are referencing in the last three lines of your commentary...
  24. Chris Hamilton from Edmonton, Canada writes: Combative American- I think that the biggest mistake that Nato made was not establishing their current presence in Southern Afghanistan (Kandahar and Helmand especially) until 2005-2006. Our mission and mandate in Kandahar should've happened right after the Taliban were initially pushed out of power. We should have taken advantage of that vacuum and started our reconstruction efforts then while the Taliban were on the run. I also believe that more countries need to step up to the plate and send more troops with effective mandates (not sitting in FOB's all day) and take some of the pressure of the Americans, Brits, Dutch and Canadians. I don't think any of those four nations can do more than they already are, but other nations (like Germany and Italy) may be able to do more. I don't know all the facts on what they're current military obligations are at the moments and won't pretend to be an expert, but I think they can definitely do more. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Basically, I think that if we're (we as in Nato) serious about Afghanistan, we have to show it and not just say it. That's probably the biggest flaw yet. Most of the grievances shown by the Afghans towards Nato have been about us not able to do everything and be every where at once. It sucks but that's counter-insurgency for you. We need more boots on the ground.
  25. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: You know, now that I've had several moments to ponder this article, I'm starting to come around in my thinking. As a matter of fact, this whole Gordon Brown thing sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I mean, we have so many points of common interest it really shouldn't be all that hard to work out a mutually-satisfactory compromise.

    Perhaps the Taliban could just host 1,000 or so Al Qaeda fighters rather than 10,000, and maybe they can agree to kill 'only' 100 children a year, as opposed to 1,000?

    They can kill as many homosexuals and apostates and uppity women as they like, of course. We here in the
    enlightened West aren't all that keen on those sorts either.

    So, the makings of a deal:

    -- Kill all the homosexuals, apostates, and sassy women you like.

    -- Only knock down one major skyscraper not more than once every five years.

    -- And the Brits get to go home and pretend they've accomplished something.

    -- We (America) could fall right in behind them.

    Win - win! Everybody comes out smelling like a rose!
  26. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: Good explanation, Chris Hamilton. I couldn't agree more.
  27. Steve Durocher from Windsor, Ontario, Canada writes: Ya the Taliban will renounce violence and respect human rights much like I will become the next Mullah of Iran.

    The oblivious enablers do try.
    The Dhimmization of Britain is complete.
  28. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Meanwhile, at the London Zoo, keepers announced that, if the tigers promise to renounce violence they will, henceforth, be housed with the sheep.

    (Subsequently, it was reported that a purchase order had been issued for what was termed 'replacement ovines').
  29. Chris Duncan from Toronto, Canada writes: Gordon Brown is the Neville Chamberlain of the current era. "Let us all appease terrorists and murderers".
  30. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: If there is one thing we've all learned from dealing with those in power in the Islamic nations, it is that they will say anything, do anything, or be anything in order to achieve their objectives. This religion and its many disciples all have, at their core, one simple interest in mind, and that is "CONTROL." Period. For anyone to be so naive as to actually believe that even if the Talibani were to renounce their former ways and to be re-introduced to some of the power they had previously enjoyed as part of a bipartison tribal structure, to believe that they would stick to these new 'guidelines' or 'tenets' over a prolonged period of time, leads one to have a sudden and profound similar belief in the Tooth Fairy. Nothing could be further from the truth, and only the simple minded left leaners out there could possibly be called upon to believe such a crock of poo-poo. These people have been brought up in such a manner as to offer little to no hope for a renouncement of previous procedures. Nor would they want to go back into a form of government that would, at its core, espouse a decidedly more democratic and less theocratic doctrine than the one they installed during their brief tenure. One might be able to change a number of things about Afghan society and governance, but the one thing that has been (literally) beaten into these Taliban individuals, is strict adherence to a religious ideology that cares not for any sort of freedoms of expression, or ideals, or creative vision. On that you can count on. Much the same as you can count on there being little in the way of a sudden shower this afternoon in the Sahara.
  31. Majordomo from Baie Comeau from Canada writes: I don't believe any country can become successful as long as there is no separation of church and state. As the Taliban are essentially the military arm of Islamic extremism, including them in government does not hold promise.
  32. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: How would americans know geography if not for illegal invasions of soverign nations?

    How would americans know the alphabet too! A is for Afghanistan B is for C is for Chile . . .see how many letters you can use!!
  33. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: bush 43 has 1/2 world oil supply locked up - cheap. permanent security forces in place to protect mapped oil fields. canadians are securing the pipeline route and paying for it themselves to the tune of $100,000,000. per MONTH. bush/cheney and their cronies are making billions in profits. a genius. pure genius.
  34. Jean Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: "Britain sees role for Taliban in Afghanistan"....what might that role be? The building of walls to topple onto gays? Perhaps they can be teachers in girls schools. Is it possible for the left to get any stupider?
  35. Jean Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada pukes "How would americans know geography if not for illegal invasions of soverign nations?

    How would americans know the alphabet too! A is for Afghanistan B is for C is for Chile . ."

    Actually, the Pinochet overthrow of Allende was by far the best thing that ever happened to Chile. And in the fullness of time, the action in Afghanistan will also be seen to be the best thing that ever happened to Afghanistan as well. By the way, first of all the "invasions" you speak of never happened (Chile for example, you ignorant twirp), and those that have taken place were not illegal. You are blindingly stupid.
  36. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:
    Yep, the whole excursion was a waste of time, lives and resources.

    Time for cooler heads to prevail, let's get Jack Layton to start it rolling.

    The usual blood thirsty crank cases of the right are out. Give it a break ya warmongers. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is a War Crime just like that of Iraq. Hopefully when the dust settles there will be a length of hemp for your leaders.
  37. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: So de Brits ah plan to get out, eh?
  38. J Howard from Canada writes: Afghanistani's as a nation do not to accept the majority of values civilized people respect. ..This reality has been recognized by most of our so-called European NATO Allies who refuse to commit the resources essential to maintain a meaningful military presence there. Canada's misplaced sense of responsibility to assist a country steeped in religious extremism and minimal respect for human rights or dignity is simply wrong. We should leave now. It was wrong to send troops when they were committed by the Liberals and it remains wrong now. Only the rhetoric has changed. This is not a political issue as represented by all 3 major national parties plus the Bloc. For our politicans Afghanistan is simply a "Sound Bite" in preparation for the next election. The people of Afghanistan do not share our values and the country/its people are not worthy of a single killed or maimed Canadian. If they ever sort themselves out to the point where foreigners from any nation can safely go to assist with responsible economic and social development programs "Give Us A Call"... In the meantime let them do what they wish and "will" do to themselves. Canadians have greater opportunities around the world in countries where programs to assist society could be useful and would be appreciated.
  39. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: J Howard: Thing is, we went into Afghanistan to stop al Qaeda from using it as a base, period.

    All the touchy-feelie, nation-building, 'restoration', stuff came after.
  40. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Oh great, are the Brits going to Euro it up in Afghanistan now, too!?!?

    This is turning into such a disaster. Afghanistan has defeated countless militaries before, and now it seems like it might just break the back of the most powerful military alliance in the world. Bye bye NATO, it was fun while it lasted.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Top Stories by Section