http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/22/afghanistan.militants.talks/index.html
March 22, 2010 11:32 a.m. EDT
Afghan president Hamid Karzai has held talks with the Hizb-i-Islami terrorist group, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a militant known for anti-US rhetoric. The leaders of the group, which was responsible for numerous deadly attacks in Afghanistan, submitted a peace plan to the president. Karzai has sought peace talks with al-Qaeda for several months, to no avail; reaching a negotiated peace has recently become even more important as coalition forces in Afghanistan plan their exit. The Afghan government has not released word yet of whether they would be accepting the plan that Hizb-i-Islami has put forward, saying they need time to read over the plan. Hekmatyar is a known supporter of al-Qaeda and has referred to the US-led forces as "infidels," calling Afghans to join in the fight against them. His peace plan is probably contingent upon the banishing of westerners from the country.
This event brings up the issue of whether governments can or should negotiate with terrorists. Should the Hizb-i-Islmai group be seen as an important player on the Afghan national stage? Can these terrorists be reasoned with as President Karzai might negotiate with a local governor or the president of a neighboring country? We know the nature of terrorists to be violent and irrational in general, so they couldn't really be members of a realist world of "rational" nations involved in complex relations with one another. These terrorists have committed atrocious crimes in the past, so why should the have the opportunity to work peacefully with the Afghan government now? Many nations would refuse to speak or to work with leaders of despotic states, or any country that had committed crimes against its own people or against another state. For instance, countries like Cuba and North Korea would never be invited to negotiations with the Western states, so why should Karzai meet with these terrorists or consider their peace proposal? They have already proved themselves to be immoral, irrational criminals undeserving of the respect that would normally be involved in peaceful negotiations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This issue sort of seems like an internal liberalism policy. The afghanistan government has to work with actors it doesn't particularly like to solve the greater problem of terrorism. Granted, the people it needs to work with are terrorists. I believe that Karzai would meet with the terrorists in order to seem proactive about bringing peace to Afghanistan. While I'm sure any extreme parts of the proposal will be dismissed, Karzai can create an image of a united Afghanistan working toward peace.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think is important to consider that, unlike Cuba and North Korea, the terrorist are in Afghanistan actively creating unrest. I believe this proposed a more direct and immediate danger to peace in Afghanistan.