News coming out of Afghanistan claims that a United Nations envoy has held secret talks in Dubai with Taliban leaders to discuss peace terms. If confirmed, the meeting would be the first ever between the U.N. and senior Taliban members. —JCL
The Guardian:
Taliban commanders held secret exploratory talks with a United Nations special envoy this month to discuss peace terms, it emerged tonight.
Regional commanders on the Taliban’s leadership council, the Quetta Shura, sought a meeting with the UN special representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, and it took place in Dubai on 8 January. “They requested a meeting to talk about talks. They want protection, to be able to come out in public. They don’t want to vanish into places like Bagram,” the Reuters news agency quoted a UN official as saying, referring to the Bagram detention centre at a US military base outside Kabul.
The Dubai meeting was confirmed to the Guardian by officials with knowledge of the encounter, but they said they could provide no further details.
It was the first such meeting between the UN and senior members of the Taliban. The fact that it took place suggests that peace talks have revived since exploratory contacts between emissaries of the Kabul government and the Taliban in Saudi Arabia last year broke down.
We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.
In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.
Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.
Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.
Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.
Big B, let’s not forget about the money from the heroin trade, a major source of cash for US and UK banks, and one of the primary reasons the US/UK are interested in getting rid of the anti-drug Taliban. Also, let’s not forget that the reason the pay-offs worked in Iraq was because the genocide against the Shias that the invasion precipitated was mostly completed by the time the bribes became an effective tool. There is one sure way of getting the Iraqis, the Afghanis and others to stop killing US troops: end the damnable occupation, and get the empire’s thugs, er, I mean troops, out of there.
Why don’t we just pay them to not shoot at us, or blow up our convoys? (after all, that policy worked in Iraq. most of the violence against the occupying US army stopped after we started paying the Sunni tribesman, warlords, and yes, Osama and the boys, to just stop fighting us) Our boys just stay huddled now in the over 50 military bases that dot the pipeline from the kurdish north to Basra.
We are only there to protect the oil, after all.
Afghanistan is a whole other sticky kettle of fish. Or is it? Are we just there to prevent radical elements of Islam from taking over Pakistan, and thus a small but effective nuclear arsenal? Or is still to just protect the oil from said arsenal?
I hate to give anyone any bad ideas, but the easiest way to bring the west (the US) to its knees would be to nuke not Israel, but the oil fields and shipping stations along the Saudi coast. Imagine what would happen then. We would be forced to close ranks, and procure oil by any means possible (perhaps invade and occupy Nigeria, Venezuela, or Canada) There is no low we won’t sink to in order to keep our petroleum addicted economy afloat, even if it’s just for a few more years ‘till the shit runs out and we have to go back to swinging from the trees.
One would hope that, if such meetings are held, there would be more listening on the part of the US and its allies and less talking. We have a lot to learn—if we can just stop flexing our military muscles for a few hours, days, weeks.
Conclusions and just settlement will not be reached by one side dictating to the other, using threats, making unreasonable demands and expecting unrealistic goals that pay no attention to specific circumstances of the opposition, to cultural differences and to historically embedded complaints.
Of course Obama knows these things. The difficulty is in getting the popular but ignorant bombast out of long-standing American foreign policies. The war corporatioins, and even the so-called “think tanks” are full of it, not to mention the politicians of both major parties.
By FRTothus, January 29, 2010 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment
Big B, let’s not forget about the money from the heroin trade, a major source of cash for US and UK banks, and one of the primary reasons the US/UK are interested in getting rid of the anti-drug Taliban. Also, let’s not forget that the reason the pay-offs worked in Iraq was because the genocide against the Shias that the invasion precipitated was mostly completed by the time the bribes became an effective tool. There is one sure way of getting the Iraqis, the Afghanis and others to stop killing US troops: end the damnable occupation, and get the empire’s thugs, er, I mean troops, out of there.
Report thisBy Big B, January 29, 2010 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment
Why don’t we just pay them to not shoot at us, or blow up our convoys? (after all, that policy worked in Iraq. most of the violence against the occupying US army stopped after we started paying the Sunni tribesman, warlords, and yes, Osama and the boys, to just stop fighting us) Our boys just stay huddled now in the over 50 military bases that dot the pipeline from the kurdish north to Basra.
We are only there to protect the oil, after all.
Afghanistan is a whole other sticky kettle of fish. Or is it? Are we just there to prevent radical elements of Islam from taking over Pakistan, and thus a small but effective nuclear arsenal? Or is still to just protect the oil from said arsenal?
I hate to give anyone any bad ideas, but the easiest way to bring the west (the US) to its knees would be to nuke not Israel, but the oil fields and shipping stations along the Saudi coast. Imagine what would happen then. We would be forced to close ranks, and procure oil by any means possible (perhaps invade and occupy Nigeria, Venezuela, or Canada) There is no low we won’t sink to in order to keep our petroleum addicted economy afloat, even if it’s just for a few more years ‘till the shit runs out and we have to go back to swinging from the trees.
Report thisBy gerard, January 29, 2010 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
One would hope that, if such meetings are held, there would be more listening on the part of the US and its allies and less talking. We have a lot to learn—if we can just stop flexing our military muscles for a few hours, days, weeks.
Conclusions and just settlement will not be reached by one side dictating to the other, using threats, making unreasonable demands and expecting unrealistic goals that pay no attention to specific circumstances of the opposition, to cultural differences and to historically embedded complaints.
Of course Obama knows these things. The difficulty is in getting the popular but ignorant bombast out of long-standing American foreign policies. The war corporatioins, and even the so-called “think tanks” are full of it, not to mention the politicians of both major parties.
Report this