Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Taliban Call for Joint Inquiry into Civilian Afghan Deaths Considered
UN and Nato cautiously consider proposal, which follows reports of high levels of civilian deaths caused by insurgents
NATO and the United Nations are cautiously considering a Taliban proposal to set up a joint commission to investigate allegations of civilians being killed and wounded in the conflict in Afghanistan, diplomats in Kabul have told the Guardian.
An Afghan National Army soldier keeps watch as smoke billows from a building where clashes between Taliban-linked militants and security forces occured in Kabul. (Photograph: Shah Marai/AFP/Getty Images) The Taliban overture, which came in a statement posted on its website, will revive a divisive debate about whether to conduct any formal talks with insurgents who are responsible for the majority of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and whose assassination campaign now kills one person a day on average.
The Taliban statement called for the establishment of a body including members from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, UN human rights investigators, Nato and the Taliban.
"The stated committee should [be] given a free hand to survey the affected areas as well as people in order to collect the precise information and the facts and figures and disseminate its findings worldwide," the Taliban said.
One human rights organisation has already thrown its support behind the joint commission plan, which echoes a similar idea floated four years ago.
The UN and Nato are treading carefully, but western diplomats say the proposal is being carefully considered. One said that some senior officers at the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) were keen on the idea but that no steps could be taken until it was considered "at the highest political level".
The attraction to Nato is that contacts with the Taliban might help improve a dire security situation that threatens to deteriorate.
The Taliban statement also complained that data on civilian casualties were being used as "propaganda by the western media".
A UN report last week showed that a 31% rise in civilian casualties was largely caused by insurgents, who have increasingly turned to homemade bombs and assassinations. The report also destroyed one of the Taliban's main propaganda claims: that foreign forces are responsible for most civilian deaths and injuries.
In fact, the report showed "pro-government" forces were responsible for just 12%, while insurgents were responsible for 76%.
A 30% drop in the number of casualties caused by foreign forces was put down to severe restrictions on the use of heavy weapons and air strikes.
Today meanwhile it emerged that Taliban forces had resorted to another dark tactic barely used in recent years. A couple accused of adultery were stoned to death in the northern Kunduz province. Amnesty International said the killing underscored a basic fundamental: "That the Afghan government should not sacrifice human rights, particularly the rights of women and minorities, in the name of reconciliation with the Taliban and other insurgent groups."
Today Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, indicated that the private security industry that guards everything from Nato supplies to foreign embassies would be scrapped within four months and all security handed over to the Afghan police. The announcement appeared likely to widen the rift between Karzai and his western backers.
The delicate balancing act for Nato is that the possible benefits of opening dialogue with insurgents must be weighted against the danger of simply giving them political legitimacy at a time when David Petraeus, the US commander of Nato forces, has ordered his communications department to cast the Taliban in the most negative light possible.
Today Nato military spokesmen put out statements attacking the Taliban's record on civilian casualties, but refused to comment on whether the plan was being ruled out. Isaf said: "The Taliban clearly realise their vulnerability on the issue of civilian casualties, and are trying to devise a way to evade responsibility for them. But the facts are clear - the Taliban have caused the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties."
A spokesman for the UN, which has for years had unofficial contacts with insurgents and sees itself as an independent arbitrator in the conflict, simply said: "We are aware of the statement and we are considering it."
There are some concerns, shared by the UN, about whether the proposal, which was posted under the name of a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, actually comes from the movement's leadership. "Although it was on their website and from their spokesman, this is actually low-level and there has been no other reach out," a diplomat said. And there are fears that the Taliban have not shown contrition for the huge number of people killed and injured by improvised explosive devices and their assassination campaign, which, according to last week's UN report, now runs at an average of one person killed a day.
Afghanistan Rights Monitor, an organisation that investigates human rights abuses, said in a statement that it welcomed the Taliban's announcement, but issued a list of 12 provisos.
They included a demand the Taliban provide safety guarantees to human rights investigators in areas under their control and an immediate stop to suicide attacks in areas where civilians are concentrated.
Eric Gaston, a human rights lawyer and Afghanistan specialist at the Open Society Institute, said: "This offer would be more credible if the [Taliban] demonstrated a commitment to reducing civilian casualties itself by not attacking military targets indiscriminately, nor targeting and assassinating civilian officials and persons."
14 Comments so far
Show AllDUH !
More Anglo-American centered media.
The occupation is the reason there is a Taliban insurgency. End the occupation and civilians will no longer be caught in the crossfire.
Yet even a Taliban fighter's death is a crime as part of the American war of aggression.
"...must be weighted against the danger of simply giving them political legitimacy at a time when David Petraeus, the US commander of Nato forces, has ordered his communications department to cast the Taliban in the most negative light possible."
Petraeus has to gear up his billion dollar propaganda machine and enlist the resources of the mainstream media to degrade the image of the Taliban vis-a-vis the US and NATO, and the Taliban have to publish one modest proposal on their website to demolish Petraeus' campaign and make the US look like intransigent assholes in the eyes of the world (or, at least, moreso). This asymmetric warfare is so unfair.
"... insurgents who are responsible for the majority of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and whose assassination campaign now kills one person a day on average."
I think the Guardian is incorrect, which wouldn't be unusual when it comes to supporting wars. Remember, the US and NATO have killed Afghans since 2001; and it could be argued that they sponsored every Afghan death during the USSR's occupation. Even the Guardian's own research arm disproves the quoted assertion: "A 2002 analysis by The Guardian estimated that as many as 20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial U.S. airstrikes and ground invasion." And note that was just for 2001.
As with Vietnam, the "Civilian Death Toll" is a large part of the Propaganda Campaign needed to justify the war, and can be seen as an artifact of the recently leaked CIA directive to pursue just this sort of media campaign. Also, quite unlike the StromTroopersRus, the Taliban are civilians defending their homeland from invaders. A recent Chomsky essay made this excellent distinction:
"In February, in the first exercise of Obama’s new strategy, U.S. Marines conquered Marja, a minor district in Helmand province, the main center of the insurgency.
"There, reported The New York Times’ Richard A. Oppel Jr., “The Marines have collided with a Taliban identity so dominant that the movement appears more akin to the only political organization in a one-party town, with an influence that touches everyone.”
“‘We’ve got to re-evaluate our definition of the word `enemy,’ said Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine expeditionary brigade in Helmand Province. `Most people here identify themselves as Taliban. We have to readjust our thinking so we’re not trying to chase the Taliban out of Marja, we’re trying to chase the enemy out.’”
"The Marines are facing a problem that has always bedeviled conquerors, one that is very familiar to the U.S. from Vietnam. In 1969, Douglas Pike, the leading U.S. government scholar on Vietnam, lamented that the enemy—the National Liberation Front—was the only “truly mass-based political party in South Vietnam.”
"Any effort to compete with that enemy politically would be like a conflict between a minnow and a whale, Pike recognized. We therefore had to overcome the NLF’s political force by using our comparative advantage, violence—with horrifying results....
"Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that U.S. authorities are concerned that public support for the war in Afghanistan may erode even further.
"In May, WikiLeaks released a March CIA memorandum about how to sustain Western Europe’s support for the war. The memorandum’s subtitle: “Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough.”
“The Afghanistan mission’s low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force,” the memorandum states.
“Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments.” It is therefore necessary to “tailor messaging” to “forestall or at least contain backlash.”
"The CIA memorandum should remind us that states have an internal enemy: their own population, which must be controlled when state policy is opposed by the public.
"Democratic societies rely not on force but on propaganda, engineering consent by “necessary illusion” and “emotionally potent oversimplication,” to quote Obama’s favorite philosopher, Reinhold Niebuhr.
"The battle to control the internal enemy, then, remains highly pertinent—indeed, the future of the war in Afghanistan may hinge on it." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26160.htm
The total number of Afghans killed, wounded and displaced by the war number in the hundreds of thousands--numbers the Taliban could never achieve because they lack the means to cause them. The terrorists are the invaders of Afghanistan, a reality this article is trying to erase.
At least someone wants to find out who is at fault, and possibly hold them accountable. The same cannot be said about the USA, the UK, or International Criminal Court.
http://www.CoreyMondello.com
The article fears to simply state that the USA is battling the Pashtun Nation which in essence is Afghanistan.
And the USA is attempting to create a Civil War situation as they created in Iraq.
But those damned Tajiks and Uzbeks just want to get stoned (with their Pashtu brothers)
If the Talibs are actually causing 76% then why are they willing to expose the truth of the matter and the USA is not yet cooperating with creating an investigating commission?
"But those damned Tajiks and Uzbeks just want to get stoned"
Well said, GF !
If it were not for the American occupation the Tajiks and Uzbeks of the so-called Afghan Army would run back to wherever they came from faster than the South Vietnamese army folded when the U.S. military was forced to jump ship.
The 40 million strong Pashtun nation spans Afghanistan and western Pakistan. They have never recognized the British Durand line that divided their ethnic, linguistic and cultural nation.
Their traditional ethical and warrior codes demand that they avenge unjust killing by the Americans. Their resistance movement has no end.
The American corporate imperial empire is slowly bleeding to death while our domestic economy implodes.
The Taliban was on the CIA's payroll,supplied with weapons, and used as needed, but like others such as Saddam, Noriaga, and Oswald, to name a few, the enemy when no longer needed.
bligh4
Does anyone actually believe that the Taliban is fighting ONLY to expell westerners from Afghanistan? That, after the last western soldier leaves the country, they would say "ok boys, mission accomplished. Everyone go home!".
The taliban wants power. They want a medieval theocracy. They will not stop until one is extablished again.
That said, present situation is untenable.
Personally, I think it is way past the time that the West pull out all troops and everyone else. Then the Afghans can sort out who they want themselves.
Doesn't mean the Taliban are the good guys. Heck, less than 20% of Afghans want those suckers back in power. But that is for them to sort out on their own.
"Assassination campaign that kills one person a day" ... and how does that compare to the number of people dying per year from starvation and preventable disease due to U.S. attacks? This is just like Iraq -- U.S. dominated bodies like the UN cite "civilian casualties" in the thousands by ignoring everything other than violent death. In reality, the United States killed millions of people in Iraq (hell, even Madeline Albright admitted it -- she said it was "worth it"). And they are killing far, far more people in Afghanistan than the Taliban has killed in their entire miserable U.S.-funded existence.
Excuse me! Do you remember two British Soldiers that were captured by Iraqis....The Brits were dressed as Iraqis and were arrested after shooting at civilians.....The brits plowed down the jail and rescued (escaped) their fellow conspirators.
Then there were the Americans dressed as Afghans captured in Pakistan....
You must ask at all times, Who is the source of the information? Mostly it is mainstream media repeating U.S. Officials....The United States sends drones in to kill "Militants" in Pakistan.....Who in the world decides who is a militant and how did a militant become an enemy and a threat to U.S. Security? The U.S. has so many different weapons systems based on the remote control of planes and vehicles that I start to wonder about the alleged suicide bombers who drive into buildings????? Is there ever an investigation? No, just reports of another suicide bomber!
Enough B.S.....Brzezinski and Kissinger should be brought before a world court and explain their policies for "World Domination" that have been responsible for the deaths of well over 5 million people!
The USA seems to have orchestrated the Iraq civil war.
Many claim it was a team of black clad ninja's who blew up the Golden Mosque of Sammarra, creating impetus for sectarian bloodshed.
Pre USA invasion one to two thirds of Bagdad marriages were mixed religions.
Bingo! WELL said! Far more eloquent than me!
I go on record saying this as a soon 53-year old U.S.A. citizen.
Yes, the USA has caused the death of at least one million Iraqis and 4.5 Southeast Asians and USA liberals still unbelieveably believe the USA is a shining beacon for the world.
But on a point of historical accurracy I believe Albright said yes it was worth killing 250,000 Iraqis with the Sanctions.( Now people write that 250,000 toddlers were killed by sanctions plus all others)
"But the facts are clear - the Taliban have caused the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties."
Must be those Taliban unmanned drones blowing up weddings.