The Taliban and America

Stephen Vasciannie

THE LAST seven days have witnessed dramatic transformation in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime is now on the verge of total collapse. Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban supreme leader, has apparently surrendered Kandahar, the regime's final power base. Kabul is fully in the hands of Northern Alliance forces. Muhammed Atef, the military commander of al Qaeda, has reportedly been killed in an American air strike. And 19 Taliban leaders, attempting to flee Afghanistan, have been detained: they include the former governors of Kabul and Herat.

The transformation brought about by military force has also had early social consequences. As has been highlighted in the international media, Afghanistan under the Taliban was an extraordinarily grim place, with crypto-religious intrusion in social life being enforced and reinforced by the whip, the sword, and the gun. So now, with the collapse of the Taliban, some men have taken to shaving off beards as a sign of liberation, which may seem paradoxical until you remember that the Taliban would actually punish men for not having beards. Now, too, radios and televisions can be purchased and utilised. The Taliban had banned access to all electronically produced visual images, and had condemned most sound images, ostensibly as part of religious fulfilment, but, no doubt also to fuel backwardness and ignorance.

There are also signs that the brutal treatment of women and girls, offered as part of divine instruction by the Taliban, will be relaxed at least to some extent by the Taliban's successors. Tentatively, then, some women have removed their burkas, and they contemplate sending their girl children back to school. This change in gender perspectives may have life-saving consequences. One reported Taliban viewpoint is that male doctors should not treat female patients. But, because educational opportunities were closed to women, there are almost no female doctors. Women have therefore suffered physically and intellectually from this most curious and brutal philosophy.

Much of the recent discussion of the Taliban has, of course, been linked to the fact that the Taliban Government has given comfort and shelter to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan. This is understandable. The Taliban were busy brutalising the people of Afghanistan long before the September 11 attacks on the United States of America, but it was the reality of September 11 that convinced the United States, the United Kingdom and some other countries that the Taliban had to go.

Hypocrisy

Does this mean that the Western powers have been hypocritical in their attitude towards the Taliban? I do not believe so. The Taliban have not been overthrown in Afghanistan because of their human rights abuses; they have suffered their fate simply because, following September 11, they refused to hand over bin Laden. The relief that Afghans may feel now that the Taliban have been scattered is a matter for rejoicing, but, clearly, that is a consequence, not a cause, of the American action. There is also reason to believe that the Taliban should understand the basis for the American action.

Writing in the Times Literary Supplement for November 16, M.E. Yapp explains the matter in the following terms. With reference to the Pashtunwali, the customary law or etiquette of the Pashtun people who largely constitute the Taliban, the Taliban could be said to have offered bin Laden hospitality (or malmastiya). When they did so, they also accepted responsibility for his behaviour, and this they did regardless of whether bin Laden was a guest or a dependant (hamsaya). Persons seeking revenge (badal) on bin Laden would be free to attack his hosts and also his close relatives. In addition, honour (nang) would prevent the Taliban from giving up bin Laden, but, equally, honour would prevent the United States from avenging the deaths brought about on September 11.

This form of rationalisation, in terms of the Taliban's own ethical code, is clearly not decisive for the United States. Rather, the American position is constructed on the basis of self-defence. Under international law, where a State has been attacked, it has the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence. But what happens if the attack is made, and then, the attacker goes into hiding? On one view, the victim State is then obliged to do nothing, because any response on its part would be a reprisal, meant to punish the attacker, rather than an act of self-defence. Where, however, the original attacker continues to pose a threat, the victim State may take action: the action is then justifiable as an act of anticipatory self-defence, as it anticipates the prospect of further attacks. In the case of bin Laden, the prospect of further attacks by al Qaeda is real and unquestionable.

Here is what Mullah Muhammad Omar recently told BBC World Service: "You, the BBC, and American public radios have created a sense of concern but the current situation is related to a big cause, that is, the destruction of America. The plan is going ahead and, God willing, it is being implemented, but it is a huge task that is beyond the comprehension of human beings. If God's help is with us this will happen within a short period of time. Keep in mind this prediction. The real matter is the extinction of America." (quoted in The Times, November 16, 2001). Add to this the fact that plans for the construction of nuclear weapons have been found in Kabul houses once held by the Taliban, and it is exceptionally clear that America has every right to act in self-defence against bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban.

Stephen Vasciannie, a UWI lecturer. is currently a Visiting Fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge, England.

Back to Commentary