generalspeaking

Warm and Friendly Does It

NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan to protect the Afghan public, and its government, and its police, and its military, but primarily its children and its women who lived far too long through demeaning human-rights violations and miserable oppression, were warned by their diplomats and their government agencies involved in the country that handing over prisoners like captured Taliban might be a questionable wartime practise under the Third Geneva Convention.

It was bruited about that Afghan prisons regularly practised torture. On investigation by Western interests evidence of torture was uncovered. It seems rather absurd that intervention by Western militaries to aid a Third World country mired in poverty and religious bigotry, led by warlords and attacked by vicious Islamists to regain control of a country that has seen more invasions and misery than any other, should lead to a condemnation of their long-established practise of torture.

The fact that a society whose heritage and culture has not moved beyond the Medieval era which maintains a system of gross inequality and bondage of women and children should be expected to respect the Geneva Convention while it battles a fierce insurgency is rather absurd in essence, but there it is:

Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.^[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

The NATO and UN-protected President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, expresses his appreciation when it suits him to do so -- usually when attempting to extract greater sums of money from the international community --  for the sacrifices made on behalf of his country's future by foreign countries whose personnel losses and treasury expenditures have been used to aid the country, and just incidentally line the bank accounts of the most corrupt government and bureaucracy worldwide.

That said, now that a dozen years have passed, foreign nations have mostly departed the scene, leaving behind a small contingent of their military to further train the inept Afghan police and military -- while countless NGOs offer their humanitarian aid to drag the country into some semblance of modern statehood and responsibility to the long-suffering population. Having extracted promises of ongoing financial aid, President Karzai busied himself insisting on full sovereignty.

The country must be respected, and it must be in full control of all institutions established within its purview, inclusive of the prisons, Guantanamo among them. The U.S. harbored some misgivings that while its military remained within the country it behooved them to maintain control of that prison in particular. A former Guantanamo detainee released into Afghan custody in 2007 was freed by them, the result now -- that he has become the Taliban's 2nd most powerful leader.

Those devilish details are what perturb the minds of governments. But U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have now managed to iron out all the frustratingly irritating differences that existed between the two states; sovereign equals as the irascible President Karzai likes to think of the situation.

"I am confident the president does not believe the U.S. has an interest except to see the Taliban come to the table to make peace and that we are completely co-operative with the government of Afghanistan with respect to the protection of their efforts and their people. We're on the same page. I don't think there is any disagreement between us, and I am very, very comfortable with the president's explanation", assured Mr. Kerry.

The explanation alluded to was the 'misinterpretation' by the press, by the United States, by the entire world relating to the impassioned declaration by President Karzai that the United States was underhandedly working alongside the Taliban to upset the plans of the government of Afghanistan to become fully sovereign, capable of defending itself without the military support and intervention of the United States.

"Today was a very good day", stated President Karzai, satisfied that the U.S has agreed at last to turn over the U.S.-operated Bagram military base. His statements, he generously elucidated, were not meant to "offend", but simply to state the obvious -- that American troops were abusing Afghan civilians. He spoke as he did to protect his people.

"When I say something publicly, it is not meant to offend our allies, but to correct the situation. I am responsible for the protection of the Afghan people. I am the president of this country. It is my job to provide all the protection I can to the people of this country."

The only question now remaining is: when will that turn in history occur?

Labels: Afghanistan, Conflict, Crisis Politics, Defence, Security, Taliban, Terrorism, United States

posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, March 26, 2013