You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
U.N. announces Afghan disarmament program
2003-04-06
Officials announced a landmark program Sunday to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate an estimated 100,000 fighters across Afghanistan over the next three years. The U.N.-sponsored program with start in July and last up to 500 three years, the government said. Members of the new national army and private Afghan citizens who keep weapons to protect themselves would not be disarmed, said Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan. "It is ... the tanks, the cannons, that are in the hands of the factional armies that you want to take away," he said. U.N. mission spokesman Manoel de Almeida e Silva said the program will help ensure that former fighters reintegrate into civilian life. It will also provide them with vocational training, employment opportunities and access to credit. Others will be given the chance to apply for positions in the national army.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#6  guys, guys,

1. The UN has been working well with the Karzai govt (and the US) in afghan since the Bonn agreement - this isnt Iraq - the politics are very different here
2. I doubt very much that this initiative was launched without approval of the Karzai govt - this is a direction theyve been trying to go for some time.
3. The militias are hardly the equivalent of our state national guards - they are effectively private armies, which are larger and stronger than the national army.
4. Leaving small arms in the hands of private citizens is simply realism - this is one of the most heavily armed societies in the world - they simply want to make sure no one is strong enough to overthrow the central govt, or to prevent the central govt from collecting customs duties and appointing officials (note that in theory the central govt appoints provincial governors, though in cases where the local warlord has a huge conventional army the govt has little choice but to accept the warlord's selection for governor.


I fear the Iraq situation, and associated anti-UN rhetoric (justified in that case) is making it harder for us to intelligently discuss afganistan.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-04-07 08:22:31  

#5  Another job for Hans Blix?? ;)
Posted by: Former Russian Major   2003-04-06 21:13:12  

#4  Obviously, no one in the United Nations asked the Afghani people if they wanted this - the UN just 'decided' it was necessary and said they were going to do it. I can see the deaths of hundreds of UN envoys to Afghanistan who try to actually implement this program. Don't these people ever stop and think? One more reason to pull the plug on the United Nations, and fumigate the place after the last rat has gone home.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-04-06 19:17:35  

#3  Essentially, they want to eliminate our equivalent of state militias, while supposedly preserving a form of Second Amendment rights for private citizens . I would worry the moment they want to disarm private citizens also.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-04-06 18:08:45  

#2  Oh god this is the last thing the Afghanis needed, the UN to come in a #%^! everything up while they're still trying to rebuild. Haven't they suffered enough?
Posted by: g wiz   2003-04-06 17:29:17  

#1  I remember reading a report a few months ago that Pakland was going to donate weapons to afghan government. Surely this like exporting sand to the Middle East.
Posted by: rg117   2003-04-06 16:54:14  

00:00