The CubanAmerican Voice®

Why is the United States, in Addition to the United Nations and the EU, Helping the Taliban?

Why Are the UN, EU, and the US Helping the Taliban?Why is the United States, in Addition to the United Nations and the EU, Helping the Taliban?

The massive amount of weaponry that the Biden-Harris administration has donated to the Taliban regime has not impeded the National Resistance Front led by Ahmad Massoud from resisting the fundamentalist onslaught. The Panjshir Valley is still today a free Afghanistan. One would have thought that the desire to end a military presence in a country would not set aside systemic safety ramifications for republican societies. Developments keep pointing to a concerning string of events that are inconsistent with the defense of freedom. Why are the U.N., E.U., and the U.S. helping the Taliban?

The illiberal nature of Sharia law, an indispensable component of political Islam, should suffice to warn all freedom-believing countries, regions, and institutions about the futility of supporting Islamic fundamentalism in the hopes that movements like the Taliban can be tamed in the absence of force or other aggressive deterrents. When one adds to the equation the place that jihad with its perennial war against the Judeo-Christian civilization has, it becomes inconceivable that no effort is being made to help the Afghans that are challenging the Taliban, much less come to their aid. 


“Why Are the UN, EU, and the US Helping the Taliban?”. (EFE)

The U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Martin Griffiths, was in Kabul on Sunday, September 5 to meet with Taliban leaders. The purpose of the reunion between the diplomat and the apparent ruling body over Afghanistan was to convey U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ position on avoiding a “looming humanitarian catastrophe.”

Guterres, a member of the Portuguese Socialist Party and former prime minister, has not demonstrated much “humanitarian” concerns over leftist tyrannically caused “catastrophes” carried out in Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua for example. In the case of Afghanistan, the U.N. worries are of food shortages and other material deficiency consequences of the American exit. The decimation of elemental human rights is not high on the list. 

The E.U. is following a similar pattern. The Vice-President of the European Commission for Interinstitutional Relations Maroš Šefčovič stated on Wednesday, September 8: “The European Union is ready to continue to offer humanitarian assistance.” Šefčovič, a former member of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovenia), highlights the E.U.’s priority in Afghanistan and the prerequisites of respecting basic civil and political liberties are not on the agenda.  

That the U.N. and the E.U. choose to ignore Afghanistan’s biggest plight—the threat of barbarism and genocide ordered from the seat of government and the ensuing crimes against humanity— should surprise no one. The surprise would be, in fact, if that were not the case. The insistence on extending unconditional “humanitarian” aid to the Taliban regime, as caretakers of the captive Afghan people, serves greatly to stabilize the new Islamic dictatorship. The absence of precondition demands for this assistance will only embolden the savagery the fundamentalists will exercise, first, against their own people, and later against the free world. Might the U. S. have contributed to this amoral (or immoral) position?

The “peace agreement” signed by the U.S. and the Taliban on February 29, 2020, is a disgrace. It set the stage, in part, for the legitimation of the jihadist terror organization now seated in Kabul. The methodology employed in executing with gross callousness America’s farewell to Afghanistan is the other variable. Running three and a quarter page, the “agreement” was flawed from its inception.   

The prisoner exchange, as established by the accord, was favorable to the Taliban by a five to one ratio. Five thousand Islamic prisoners, mostly suspected terrorists, were released within ten days from the agreement signing. It is most probable that most of them joined the Taliban’s war machine. Relevant to the broad-based assistance being offered by the U.N. and E.U. and contemplated by the U.S. with a high probability of being carried out is the explicit mention of the removal of sanctions against the terrorists that control and compose the Taliban. The U.S., as stated in the document, would “review” current American sanctions and initiate “diplomatic engagement” with members of the U.N. Security Council to remove sanctions as well.

“Judging from the available empirical evidence, Trump would not have let the Taliban get away with what the Biden-Harris administration has”. (EFE)

The agreement gives the indication that the American government never expected the constitutional regime of Afghanistan established in 2001 to survive the Taliban overthrow. The U.S., reads the signed accord, “will seek economic cooperation for reconstruction with the new post settlement Afghan Islamic government.” A “new post settlement Afghan Islamic government”? What about the then-Afghan republican government? Additionally, the notion of “economic cooperation” between a capitalist-based U.S. and the Sharia Law-directed Taliban seems far-fetched.

In defense of the truth, this defective agreement, negotiated and signed by the former Trump administration, and executed, in its most seminal part, by the Biden-Harris government, could have produced better options. That may have been Trump’s idea. Applying, apparently, the seasoned Theodore Roosevelt diplomatic strategy of “speak softly and carry a big stick”, Trump bombed the Taliban just four days after signing the peace deal because the terrorist group attacked Afghan forces.

That American response to the agreement violation forced the Taliban to beg for its desisting. Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman for the Islamic extremists said at the time, that the organization “plans to implement all parts of the agreement one after another to prevent conflict escalation.” Judging from the available empirical evidence, Trump would not have let the Taliban get away with what the Biden-Harris administration has.

The U.N. and E.U. are run by leftists that are sympathetic to Islamism, given their hatred for Western civilization, capitalism, and republican governance. Communist China has enormous influence with the U.N. They will fight any legitimation qualms the Taliban may face. The E.U.’s leadership and bureaucracy is structurally socialist. The bond between socialism and Islamism is tight.

With a current U.S. administration, including its military command, on a proactive mission to impose cultural Marxism’s Critical Race Theory, Gender Ideology, and Critical Queer Theory on America, issues such as Islamic terrorism are secondary, if anything.

©The Cuban American Voice. Originally published in @El American. All rights reserved.

J M Shiling autor circle red blue🖋️Author Julio M. Shiling 
Julio M. Shiling is a political scientist, writer, columnist, lecturer, media commentator, and director of Patria de Martí and The CubanAmerican Voice. He holds a master’s degree in Political Science from Florida International University (FIU) in Miami, Florida. He is a member of The American Political Science Association and The PEN Club (Cuban Writers in Exile Chapter).

Follow Julio on: 

          twitter X icon   

   📚Published books   📺In the media   👨‍🏫 Conferences and Symposiums    🎙️Podcast The Shiling Summary

Did you like it? Share your thoughts!