Afghanistan’s Civil Instability: A People Deprived of International Guardianship
Reporting by Ammarah Ahmed, BBC
A look inside the proceedings of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on the enduring Afghan civil crisis.
Allow an initial contemplation of the following: Under what circumstances may it be justified to intervene militarily on humanitarian grounds? Perhaps a utilitarian approach may lead one to beliefs starkly disparate from that of libertarians? A highly contentious issue, delegates of the UNSC had much to debate in this morning’s council.
Amongst much political discourse, the issue of methods in which basic necessities should be allowed to flow into Afghanistan was raised in council, and Vietnam brought to light a thought-provoking observation in which directed the primary trajectory of discussion. The Taliban’s innately terror-inducing and violent nature has led to the deterrence of innumerable aid workers within the nation, exacerbating the economic climate. The Delegate for the United Kingdom responded with a strong assertion to counter the cost of the Taliban’s terror, and proffered employment of the United Nations’ troops to monitor and ensure an overall recognition of civil humanity throughout the state.
The UK informed the BBC that they plan for an armed group of troops to be sent to escort the resources that could thus enter Afghanistan with them.
“There is also a need to convince organisations that have pulled out of supplying aid to Afghanistan due to safety fears. The troops will be soldiers that are experienced and handpicked from the UN Department of Peace Operations and will serve for a fixed period of time before being rotated by another group. Further details are being ironed out as we speak,” said delegate for the United Kingdom.
The UK further maintained that this will not be a military intervention, and instead there will be active restrictions placed on the troops to ensure they do not engage in any local affairs unless the safety of the UN or NGO teams are threatened.
China concurred the UK’s sentiments, affirming their wish to dispatch their own nation’s troops to aid peacekeeping efforts, however there was a controversy-sparking catch; China, under the strong belief that military intervention was disagreeable, propounded an idea to put forward an unarmed troop with no weaponry. The nation attested that military intervention and weapon-equipped troops would aggravate Afghanistan’s state of affairs, and drew on the failure of U.S intervention as supporting grounds.
Mexico was swift to rejoin against China’s pronouncements, reiterating the Taliban’s history as “militant terrorists”. They upheld the idea of an arm-less army to be all but a preposterous notion, in firm scepticism of China’s intentions. The delegate for the People’s Republic of China countered this through argument that the nation had acted as an intermediary for the Taliban and Afghan governance in the past, and therefore would be best suited to negotiate with the militant group in peaceful abidance to international legislation.
So the question lies, can the world get aid to Afghanistan’s innocent civilians? Well, our options remain limited. And rather precarious. We remain at risk of provoking the Taliban, or promoting their governance. A people deprived of international protection, security and support are subjected to inherent violations of their human rights every day, yet sadly, there is negligible action being able to be effectuated in countenance.