Can the UN Save Afghanistan?

One of the missing elements in the ongoing drama over Obama's policy review in Afghanistan is the role of the United Nations. The UN, lest we forget, has played a central role in Afghanistan since September 11, 2001. After all, on September 12, 2001, the UN Security Council authorized American retaliation against Al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts via a resolution that invoked the UN Charter's "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" and permitted "all necessary steps" to strike back at the "perpetrators, organizers and sponsors" of the murderous attacks against the US.

Still later the Council created the International Security Assistance Force composed of NATO troops, which was also dispatched to the land. In 2002, the UN designated a UN Special Envoy to help set up Afghanistan's first post-Taliban provisional government and a two-year transitional administration - all ratified by a loya jirga (Council of Elders). The Special Envoy also helped write a new Afghan constitution, and in October 2004, again under UN guidance, the nation elected its new president, Hamid Karzai.

The UN, led by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) - as well as its other agencies - have kept a presence in the country ever since. Most recently, the UN oversaw the 2009 presidential election and, when it found fraud, declared there to be no winner in the first round and ordered a run-off.

Given this extraordinary and continuing role in Afghanistan, it would seem appropriate at this time that the UN might consider guiding President Obama toward a resolution of the dilemma he now faces, whether he must send in more troops and whether there is a respectable exit to the eight year long conflict.

How can this be done? Presumably the UN could use its good offices to propose convening a conference similar to the loya jirga it convened in 2002 - except this time it would be organized on a broader regional basis, bringing in all of the states which border Afghanistan, all of the NATO countries now in the country, as well as India and Russia, to hammer out a comprehensive peace plan.

Such an initiative would be carefully geared to serve the interests of all parties - even the Taliban - to meld together all the disparate geographical, ideological, cultural, and political interests in play. Only the UN is uniquely equipped to undertake such a venture. It is time to give it a try.

 

 

Comments

[lastpost]

“Such an initiative would be carefully geared to serve the interests of all parties”

What exactly are the interests of all parties? Why not require all parties to compose their own mission statement, regarding what it is they believe they are attempting to achieve. And through what means. How are those efforts being financed. Who supports implementation of those endeavors. What justification do those actions enjoy, and so on. In order that the whole matter may be brought out into the open and examined in detail. Since each protagonist’s understanding of the situation is correct and truthful there should be no cause for an unwillingness to reveal such information. Only deception demands deployment of deviousness, lest underlings discover that all is not as they might be being led to believe. There is only one rightful claimant, and that claimant knows who they are, and can demonstrate the validity of that claim beyond any doubt or disproof. Unless, they fear to even try.

[noneIn2008]

Give it to Russia and promise to not fund or train the insurgents.

[WilliamL]

It might just be time to lay waste to the fields of Heroin.

We know how the money is being used.

Despite the poppies being a principle form of income for many, whatever, torch them.

Figure out a crop they can grow and give them seeds and mules.

Personally I hate the drug and have scene first hand what it has done to people, many a fine musicians has killed themselves with it.

The justification for allowing the crop to remain has been comical, although not very funny. "we must allow them to grow poppies since it is their principle form of income"???­??????????­??????????­??

No poppies, no money for guns and munitions-that wd. put a serious strain on those folks.

I also see where the rates of soldiers being strung out-that they have develped a form of heroine that can be snorted and that rehabs clinics are gaining vets as new patients. The same went on in Vietnam.

Start burning their fields and see what happens.

They do not like it, too bad.

[nightwind928]

Can the U N save Afghanistan?...From what? Can the modern world save stone aged minded people from the course of events that make up the 21st century should be the question. Can we even save ourselves? How do you bring people who still embrace 14th century ideals and live a thousand years behind the times into the super paced world that we not only live in but in many ways, despise ourselves, for the paradoxes that come with living the way we do. Do you give a goat herder, living in a tent technology or modern appliances? A new Chevy perhaps? A set of encyclopedias that they can't read? One thing is certain. You most certainly can't do it with guns, tanks and killer drones.

[SeesBeyond]

"...14th century ideals..."

Sorry, you're off by about 700 years. That should read "7th century ideals." The society the Taliban is trying to recreate is from the period immediately following Mohammad's death in 640 AD. (Not that there is much difference in the the mindsets of the two ages, although during that time Muslim armies did conquer large swaths of what had previously been Christian, Zoroastrian and Hindu lands.)

[SeesBeyond]

...640 AD being the period immediately after Mohammad's death in 632 AD.

[Romeover]

Can the U.N. save Afghanistan? From what? From the United States?

[larry278]

You got it, Rom....!

[Robster]

The UN is nothing without the US- not even a hollow shell. It's the stage upon which the French strut.

[multipole]

So why doesn't the US become a responsible member?

[den1953]

The only good thing about what the UN can do good is make sure people have food & water ,they are good at supply temp housing for refugees not so much war better at peace keeping!

[scottpot]

Can the U.S. save itself? Seriously look at America objectively. Over 10 percent unemployed,largest military in the world,biggest polluter and user of natural resources,sex and crime on TV 24/7 for our entertainment ,thousands of homeless people,40 million without affordable access to healthcare .Are we the country that should be dictating how any country proceed with *development'?

[wikwox]

Can the US "save" itself? Not with the Political Leaders of either side we have now or with the Busines People we have now. Both are corrupt vultures feeding off Americas corpse.

[edejan]

Agree. Fanned.

[Robster]

I know what you mean- it's just hell here in America. Bodies pilling up, shuttered industres; pollution spewing every where; it's the third world I tell ya. Maybe we should look to Cuba- after all, all those boat people leaving Florida trying to get there well, they could teach us a thing or two! And yea, we are the biggest polluter, but thats only because we produce so much. And we are efficient: the European Union has a GDP equal to the US; but we generate that wealth with 300 million people, the Europeans need 500 million to to do it. So you can hate your country but where else would you go, really ? And if you won't go then why not ????

[WorldofTomorrow420]

"So you can hate your country but where else would you go, really ? And if you won't go then why not ???? "

Don't be ridiculous. Same old conservative tripe about loving it or leaving it. How about self-criticism in order to promote improvement, or is that concept over your conservative head?

[junaidnoori]

The United Nations is a large part of the problem affecting my country at the moment. Where is the so-called "billions of dollars of aid" that was supposed to reach our people? The organization was in charge of distributing those funds, so any blame of misallocation falls squarely on them. While translators earn $5000-$10,000 a month, teachers and doctors are lucky to even earn $100. This creates inflation i.e. landowners increase rent, price of food skyrockets, etc. There is also less desirability in using Afghan currency as most people working in UN-affiliated agencies are paid in US dollars.

Then, there's that sorry excuse of an election they imposed on our people. Even the US representative walked away in protest because there was massive electoral fraud and the UN initially pretended like it never even existed! Why would the UN be so careless and insensitive to the fate of our country? Didn't they even consider that the Afghan people have the right to choose their leader in a fair manner? This is why countries like Russia, China or Iran don't take the UN's calls for "fair" elections in their respective lands properly: The UN itself doesn't even believe in it!

Before that, the United Nations refused to recognize any government that didn't have Burhanuddin Rabbani as President. They claimed the Taliban were horrible Islamic fundamentalists. Since when did that stop you from recognizing heads of state? And isn't Rabbani an Islamic "fudamentalist" as well?

UN=pathetic.

[mjc]

Excellent post. The US leadership in EVERY administration from the beginning of the UN, following WWII, has paid lip service to the ideals and goals of the UN. Only Truman actually knew how to employ the UN in the cause of non-aggression in Korea and in the end maybe it was a lost cause.

[bighat]

The U.N. gives speeches and issues sanctions. Generally speaking no one listens to the speeches and the countries of whom sanctions are imposed ignore them. What does the U.N. do when a country ignores the sanctions. Generally speaking nothing. Although sometimes that will add harsher sanctions and the process is repeated.

But by all means let the U.N. guide Obama. In fact let U.N. forces replace American forces.

Let the U.N. show the world that it can carry out the missions for which the entity was designed.

[Carl Caroli]

The two main reasons we are supposedly in Afghanistan are terrorism and human rights. If that is the case then the UN and all its members need to step up to the plate, since both these issues are international ones, not just American ones. Stepping up to the plate should consist of a)clearly defining the role of any military actions in the country and b)making significant contributions towards that effort. So far the UN leadership and its members have been markedly quiet on both fronts and pretty much let the neo-cons define the mission. This is not acceptable. The only way to convince the Afhgani people that the motives for occupation are pure is for the UN to be vocal and for all troops there to be international in nature and identified as such. The overwhelming majority of forces are American and flying under our flag. That is no way to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the people. Each member nation must contribute a proportional amount of resources relative to population and GDP and fly under a common flag.

[WilliamL]

If I remember correctly, I thought we went there to track down Binladen and to kill him and his followers.

[OneTop]

Both are a good read

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/afghanistan-a-war-of-lies.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jenkins/western-export-of-the-bal_b_331677.html

[Oldwave]

Save Afghanistan from what?

[WilliamL]

From some of its people, from itself, from extemists.

Perhaps the question sd. be-"sd. we sacrafice American citizens."

The only people that can save Afghanistan are their own people.

[ezeflyer]

Save Aghanistan for the oil companies and war profiteers, silly.

[justthefacts17]

Afghan oil? You are a funny kid.

[bweiss]

Ah the things the Nation does... Now supposedly we're there to what exactly? Control the Taliban, or hunt down the Taliban, or keep the Taliban from retaking the place or what? I don't remember anyone saying exactly, or they've said all of the above. That said, how does one know what a Taliban is? Their the ones shoot at us? Hmmm, so Afghans who don't want us there and perhaps voice their opinions with an AK-47 are automatically a Taliban? Even though armed tribesmen and para-military militia have been a way of life there since the Kyber Rifles. Or, are the Afghans who oppose the crooked Karzai government and who are perhaps uneasy about someone else's military swooping around firing missiles hither and thither and then voice that opinion with guns automatically make them a Taliban? Images of Osama bin Laden and Ronald Regan's support of Osama's Mujahideen spring to mind. That worked out well. Seems like the wheels of this bus just go round and round. So how then does one know what a Taliban is exactly? Do they wear a name tag? Until someone decides just what victory is; and please let's not try Victory with Honor again, the Red Menace from North Vietnam has yet to swim over here as predicted, until we know why we are there and more specifically what it is we are doing, then perhaps it isn't all such a good idea to stay.

[Balzac]

Good points. People who keep talking about the "Taliban" are not at all clear in how our military is supposed to identify them from other Afghan militants. Almost any Afghan man outside of Kabul can be declared a Taliban fighter after he's shot. But he can't protect his family with his AK47, and he'll probably want to fit in too, wearing the turban and all. That doesn't make him a Taliban fighter, he may well be only a humble family man, trying to feed his family and protect them.

[mjc]

All of the UN "cooperation" and the US "cooperation" with the UN comes about for one reason, and one reason only: the US is the strongest.­...militar­ily and probably economically....of any of the nations who belong to the UN and it is the most vocal about the needs of the United States nation. None of the other countries there actually USE the UN as much as we do. Convening a "peace" conference with many nations would be a great UN achievement but I do doubt that our nation would really accept a solution from such a body, unless it was OUR solution. Our nation has rarely, if ever, accepted a decision by either the Security Council or the General Assembly if it cast the slightest aspersions on the United States. And, of course, we have the power in the UN to protect our "allies", such as Israel when other nations have been about to condemn Israeli actions. I think that we have few friends in the UN, but perhaps there are a very few allies who would stand with us in a crisis. Moral accounting is perhaps a frequent ploy of the third world "nations" but that usually doesn't get more than a dime's worth of coverage in the international media.

[eileenflemingWAWA]

"Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system"-Dorothy Day

The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has been persistently calling for a moral accounting.

Surveys of Afghan citizens consistently find that the people want lasting peace and they desire a truth and reconciliation procedure, like the one that took place in South Africa, to set it on an honest intellectual and moral footing.

IMAGINE, if the US would only listen to and honor the hopes and desires of the Afghan people!

[justthefacts17]

The Left is quoting Mao ,Castro and Dorothy Day every day lately.
Sumpuns' up out there,fo' sho.