Government ministers have said that Britain supports greater efforts to talk to hardline insurgents fighting in Afghanistan.
International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said that those who turn away from violence should be offered a chance to become part of the political process, while Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that “conservative Pashtuns” should be brought in and separated from “the hardline Taliban, who must be pursued relentlessly.”
“The reintegration of former Taliban requires offering bigger incentives to switch sides and stay out of trouble, alongside tougher action against those who refuse,” wrote Miliband in the Financial Times.
Alexander made his comments while visiting the Afghan province of Helmand, where most of the British troops are fighting. The total number of UK fatalities since operations in Afghanistan began in 2001 has now risen to 191.
He told BBC radio: “It is a difficult message for politicians — to talk about the issues of reconciliation and reintegration when British troops are fighting the Taliban. It is necessary to put military pressure on the Taliban while at the same time holding out the prospect that there can be a political process… whereby those who are wiling to renounce violence can find a different path.”
What do you think? Should entering into dialogue with the Taliban be part of our strategy in Afghanistan, or would it be wrong to give their leaders a place at the negotiating table?
Trackback
5 comments so far
One can bribe the Mujahideen. Quite successfully, to judge by the 80s and 90s.
One can talk to the Pashtuns, and maybe persuade them that by accepting better schools and hospitals from Westerners they are not endangering either their heritage or their souls. But I wouldn’t want to be the on who had to it.
One could talk to the Taleban. But since they are mostly foreigners who lack any concern for the welfare of Afghans, I’m not sure what about.
- Posted by Ian KemmishThe article isn’t clear in its distinction between moderates and hardliners. Surely the whole point of a ‘hardline’ stance is that it can’t comprimise? The situation is further complicated by the fact that those fighting against the Taliban are from a foreign power. Surely more explicit commitment is needed by the Afghan government before mediators have any hope of reaching the more conservative (let alone radical) elements of Afghanistan?
- Posted by Tanya JonesAny solution requires kinetic action, information and psychological operations and diplomatic engagement. Where the hostile force is subject of national governance then this is last is achievable, although challenging. where the opposing force is a non-state body then it becomes difficult. Does the dialogue represent the view of the majority, or even a significant minority that can lead through the conflict, or does it represent only an unsupported segment?
Progress cannot be made until negotiation starts, although as other respondents indicate that needs awareness and clarity around who one is dealing with.
- Posted by KarmaYou only talk to people if there’s something to negotiate. There’s nothing to negotiate with the Taliban.
- Posted by MatthewThere’s nothing wrong with a friendly “hello”
- Posted by Mr mister