Project for Philosophical Evaluations of the Economy |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Talking to the Taliban?
Dialog with the Alter Ego on a new strategy for Afghanistan, first drafted on Jan. 30, published on Feb. 3, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question by Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): What does Noah denkt™ make of President Karzai’s new policy
initiative to win over certain Taliban fighters for the democratic process in Afghanistan?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): We find it hard to believe that the Taliban will suddenly embrace democratic
values. But we still are of the opinion that it is necessary to start talking to them. After all, it is impossible to
imagine that there could be a somewhat peaceful future for Afghanistan if the Taliban aren’t included in the
political process.
AE: But will the Taliban be willing to negotiate with anyone as long as there are foreign forces stationed in their
country? Will they not see it as a sign of weakness if their adversaries want to talk to them? And what’s more, is it
even in the interest of the West to allow people back into government who have committed atrocious human rights
violations during their earlier stint in power?
Nd: These are very valid questions and objections. And we do not have an answer at least to first point you
mentioned. But then again you also have to ask yourself what the alternative to such a new strategy is? Keep
foreign troops there for ever? Risk even more deaths only to find out later that neither side will be able to win this
confrontation?
AE: Let’s suppose you are right, and an inclusion of the Taliban is inevitable what then do you say to the women
in Afghanistan who have suffered so gruesomely under the previous Taliban regime? Will you simply tell them that
you are sorry and that they now have to get ready for a return to the old inhuman subordination that they were
subjected to before?
Nd: Well, what you would have to tell them is that there is simply no way to bring a country into modernity as long
as there isn’t a vocal majority in that country who actually wants to be projected into the aforementioned
modernity.
AE: And you believe that there is no such vocal majority in Afghanistan?
Nd: It doesn’t look like that, considering the support that Taliban fighters still seem to get from parts of the Afghan
society.
AE: But that support is largely due to a lack of economic assistance from elsewhere, isn’t it?
Nd: Well, if you truly abhor the atrocities that the Taliban have committed earlier then you won’t want to support
them now, just because they are granting some kind of lifeline to you.
AE: That’s all easier said then done, especially if you proclaim these things from an outside vantage point.
Nd: True. But does that take anything away from the relevance of this argument?
AE: Perhaps not.
Nd: Look the problem with Afghanistan and other places is that they have to go through their own self-determined
historical process before they will be able to see the light and embrace the concept of reason and democracy.
There is just no way that you can export these things into a society that isn’t prepared for that.
AE: This self-determined historical process though, that you are alluding to here, is a very bloody affair and will
occasionally cause huge ramifications for neighboring and other countries too. Just witness the Taliban’s
willingness to give Al-Qaeda terrorists a safe-haven in their country.
Nd: We agree that such a self-determined process is a bloody one. And we also believe that outside countries
have a right to intervene in this process, if their own security is challenged by that.
AE: And this international security isn’t challenged even now? Think about the proximity of a potential Taliban rule
in Afghanistan to the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. And do not forget the devastating effects of Afghanistan’s
opium trade.
Nd: That’s why you have to talk to the Taliban, instead of just giving them a free ride to grasping national power.
AE: And you believe that they are trustworthy negotiation partner?
Nd: That is precisely what needs to be explored.
Dialog with the Alter Ego on a new strategy for Afghanistan, first drafted on Jan. 30, published on Feb. 3, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question by Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): What does Noah denkt™ make of President Karzai’s new policy
initiative to win over certain Taliban fighters for the democratic process in Afghanistan?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): We find it hard to believe that the Taliban will suddenly embrace democratic
values. But we still are of the opinion that it is necessary to start talking to them. After all, it is impossible to
imagine that there could be a somewhat peaceful future for Afghanistan if the Taliban aren’t included in the
political process.
AE: But will the Taliban be willing to negotiate with anyone as long as there are foreign forces stationed in their
country? Will they not see it as a sign of weakness if their adversaries want to talk to them? And what’s more, is it
even in the interest of the West to allow people back into government who have committed atrocious human rights
violations during their earlier stint in power?
Nd: These are very valid questions and objections. And we do not have an answer at least to first point you
mentioned. But then again you also have to ask yourself what the alternative to such a new strategy is? Keep
foreign troops there for ever? Risk even more deaths only to find out later that neither side will be able to win this
confrontation?
AE: Let’s suppose you are right, and an inclusion of the Taliban is inevitable what then do you say to the women
in Afghanistan who have suffered so gruesomely under the previous Taliban regime? Will you simply tell them that
you are sorry and that they now have to get ready for a return to the old inhuman subordination that they were
subjected to before?
Nd: Well, what you would have to tell them is that there is simply no way to bring a country into modernity as long
as there isn’t a vocal majority in that country who actually wants to be projected into the aforementioned
modernity.
AE: And you believe that there is no such vocal majority in Afghanistan?
Nd: It doesn’t look like that, considering the support that Taliban fighters still seem to get from parts of the Afghan
society.
AE: But that support is largely due to a lack of economic assistance from elsewhere, isn’t it?
Nd: Well, if you truly abhor the atrocities that the Taliban have committed earlier then you won’t want to support
them now, just because they are granting some kind of lifeline to you.
AE: That’s all easier said then done, especially if you proclaim these things from an outside vantage point.
Nd: True. But does that take anything away from the relevance of this argument?
AE: Perhaps not.
Nd: Look the problem with Afghanistan and other places is that they have to go through their own self-determined
historical process before they will be able to see the light and embrace the concept of reason and democracy.
There is just no way that you can export these things into a society that isn’t prepared for that.
AE: This self-determined historical process though, that you are alluding to here, is a very bloody affair and will
occasionally cause huge ramifications for neighboring and other countries too. Just witness the Taliban’s
willingness to give Al-Qaeda terrorists a safe-haven in their country.
Nd: We agree that such a self-determined process is a bloody one. And we also believe that outside countries
have a right to intervene in this process, if their own security is challenged by that.
AE: And this international security isn’t challenged even now? Think about the proximity of a potential Taliban rule
in Afghanistan to the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. And do not forget the devastating effects of Afghanistan’s
opium trade.
Nd: That’s why you have to talk to the Taliban, instead of just giving them a free ride to grasping national power.
AE: And you believe that they are trustworthy negotiation partner?
Nd: That is precisely what needs to be explored.
| © Landei Selbstverlag, owned by Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards, Gerolstein, Germany. All rights reserved. Reminder: Noah denkt™ is a project of Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards and his Landei Selbstverlag (WL & his LSV). Consequently, all rights to the texts that have been published under the Noah denkt™brand name are reserved by WL & his LSV. The commentary and the reasoning that was provided on this page is for informational and/or educational purposes only and it is not intended to provide tax, legal or investment advice. It should therefore not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security or any issuer by WL & his LSV or its Noah denkt™ Project. In fact, WL & his LSV encourage the user to understand that he alone is responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy is appropriate or suitable for him. And to leave no doubt as to what this means we urge our user to also note our extended Legal Notice. |
__________________________________________________________________________________________