“Taliban Mackay?”
Monday, October 1st, 2007When NDP leader Jack Layton declared that negotiations should occur with the Taliban in Afghanistan, critics at the time called him “an appeaser”, “a Chamberlain,” “soft” on terrorism, and so on. Jack Layton was called “Taliban Jack.”
The recent discussions undertaken by Western-appointed Afghanistan leader Hamid Karzai with the Taliban are interesting as much for the reaction in the West as they are for the nature of the peace talks themselves.
Defense Minister Peter Mackay reacted very astutely, and with poise, when he said that “as long as there was a renunciation of violence and that there was a respect for NATO presence” were negotiations a good idea — predicated on these successful foundations. MacKay’s recent pronouncements from Halifax showed the positive effects of his experience with the Foreign Affairs portfolio. Negotiation is an option. Gone is the simplistic, “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” mantra enjoyed by many on the far right.
But who is calling Peter Mackay “Taliban Mackay”? Where are they? And where is the credit to Jack Layton for calling for a diplomatic front before anyone else?
Hamid Karzai has succeeded in splitting the Taliban (Pashtun tribesman) with regard to their approach. There is now in-fighting within Taliban enemy ranks, something that has been, so far, pretty muted.
This strategy of diplomatic engagement, and playing upon tribal self-interest (Karzai is offering the Taliban governmental positions of power), is exactly the strategy that the entire West must subscribe to when it comes to the whole of the Islamic world.
However, the “divide and conquer” approach has many who oppose it. Others wish to collectivize Islam and Muslims and “terrorists” into a hoard of one. The fact is tremendous divisions exist within the Arab and Muslim world. These divisions need to be recognized and exploited, not the opposite.
But the opposite approach persists. There are powerful interest groups in the U.S. today, led by the Neo Con “intellectual” Norman Podhoretz, whose book, “WWIV, The Long Struggle Against Islamic-Fascism” promotes this flawed notion of grouping all Arabs and Muslims and terrorists into a single collectivity; how curious it is to note that terrorism is, itself, a tactic and hence “waging war against terrorism” is absurd, for you cannot wage war against a tactic.
Podhoretz, for his own narrow geopolitical interests, wants to see the whole Middle East cowed by the West and Israel. But since that isn’t going to happen, we better start talking.