A senior Taliban diplomat urged the international community to aid Afghanistan’s recovery during a meeting in Kabul on Sunday, emphasising the destruction caused by decades of conflict.
Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Shir Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai called on the United Nations and international NGOs to provide support to Afghanistan in the form of technical help, economic development initiatives and agricultural cooperation.
He particularly addressed countries that were previously militarily involved in Afghanistan, claiming they have a moral obligation to help rebuild the country based on the Doha Agreement.
Stanekzai indirectly pointed to Nato countries that took part in US-led operations, claiming that for 20 years these countries bombed Afghanistan and conducted military missions that led to fatalities and destruction of the country.
“Cooperate with Afghanistan in all fields, especially in politics, economy, agriculture and medicine, so that Afghanistan reaches self-sufficiency,” he said.
The United States and the Taliban signed a peace agreement in Doha that led to the ending of the US occupation of Afghanistan and the subsequent return to power of the Taliban in August 2021.
Since then, the Taliban government has been seeking international recognition and aid, while also facing criticism over its governance practices. As a result, no country has officially recognised the Taliban government yet.
Archive link
You don’t treat women as human.
Neither does the US.
The world in general doesn't treat women as human. Your conclusion is treating Afghanistan as if it's unique in that, when it isn't.
And should everyone, including the women, face starvation because they're controlled by misogynists?
Oh, or should they spontaneously develop feminism without the material basis for the formation of a feminist movement?
It's the same situation with North Korea. Either let people starve and hope something will change, or encourage bad leadership by saving their citizens from their bad decisions.
Dprk has been food stable for a decade, and their leadership seems pretty good given they've managed to stave off invasions and us meddling for so long.
The DPRK is pretty food stable? What bad decisions do you think the DPRK has been making?
The standard one - not shock theraping their population into humanitarian catastrophe to appease the empire and not letting the US oligarchs and their compradors plunder everything there.
Who do you think funded the Taliban in the first place?
Shitlibs don't even support paying reparations for problems they caused.
I still remember when Taliban was marching into Kabul and while US was fleeing out of the country, that there were many people who were desperate to argue for the war and occupation going to keep going, because Taliban would be bad for women's rights. There is no question about Taliban being bad towards women. However the logic of keeping the war going that killed mostly civilians, including women, to guard women's rights is just twisted. This "They don't let girls to go to school. let's keep bombing them" is just slightly worse of the "You won't let girls to go to school even after we bombed you. I hope you stay poor, suffer and starve".
What does motivate this? Neocon butthurth? Racism? A sense of vengeance of those who still believe in liberal universalism and nation building? A just general confusion and mixup in moral priorities?
Realistically what will US aid accomplish? Will those suffering even receive any of it? Won't it just provide the means for Taliban leaders and ideals to remain in power and strengthen? And won't that inevitably lead to them getting comfortable enough to lash out at the world once again?
I understand the problems and suffering caused by our "war on terror". Its not as simple as you make it seem though. its more of a moral dilemma rather than moral priorities.
There is no US aid, there are US sanctions and seizure of afghan funds. Who do you think is going to suffer from those? It's not the men in power with the guns, they will be fine either way. It just means that all the civilians will have even less opportunities.
What do you mean lash out again?
If you include the Afghan security forces that were basically an US proxy force during the occupation, then yes. If you look at the killed taliban to dead civilian ratio, then there were more dead civilians. Meaning that the war and occupation costed more civilian lives than it killed taliban. Not that it even stopped the Talibans eventual return, but that is beside the point.
So you want them to remain undeveloped. Do you even know how Afghanistan ended up under Taliban control to begin with?
I was commenting on the quote.
Are you afraid now of standing up for what you meant by your comment?
Interpret it how you want, I don't need you to tell me what I meant.
Everyone has their secret ways, I guess. Yours just show more than others.
So make any aid contingent on human rights improvement
Wow someone should have tried threatening peripheral countries by withholding trade deals, aid, loans from the World Bank and IMF in exchange for political changes. Why didn't anyone think of that already? 🤣
The global financial system does not care about human rights, firms want peripheral countries to remain undeveloped to keep costs down. With improvements in living standards come improvements in civil rights. That is what every single person who studies any society will tell you, except for liberals who want to justify extortion and sanctions, but only to "help" of course.
Nothing like liberals advocating for the death of women from starvation under the excuse of women's rights.