The Munk Debates Podcast - Friday Focus: Taliban @ 2 – Asia Summit

Episode Date: August 18, 2023

Friday Focus provides listeners with a focused, half-hour masterclass on the big issues, events and trends driving the news and current events. The show features Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and bestselling author, in conversation with Rudyard Griffiths, Chair and moderator of the Munk Debates. The following is a sample of the Munk Debates’ weekly current affairs podcast, Friday Focus. On this edition of the Friday Focus podcast, Janice and Rudyard open the show with a debate on the two-year anniversary of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Is now the time to consider some normalization of relations with Kabul? Or, are there aspects of this regime, most notably its gender apartheid, that preclude legitimatizing the Taliban? The second half of the program takes up the big summit this weekend that will see President Biden host the leaders of Korea and Japan to formalize a new security partnership meant to oppose China and the perceived threat it represents in the region. Why are Japan and Korea drawing closer? And, how is China likely to react to a strengthened US block in Asia? To access full-length editions of the Friday Focus podcast consider becoming a donor to the Munk Debates for as little as $25 annually, or $.50 per episode. Canadian donors receive a charitable tax receipt. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue. More information at www.munkdebates.com.Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The following is a complimentary excerpt of this week's edition of the Friday Focus podcast by The Monk Debates. To access full-length editions of each and every episode, along with all kinds of great additional benefits and perks, become a donor to the Monk debates. You can do that for as little as $25 a year, and you'll receive each and every year 50 Friday Focus episodes at full length. It's all available right now on our website. in just a few simple clicks. Triple W. The Monk Debates.com. Look for the Friday focus option in our navigation bar, the top right of the website.

Make your donation, and we will send you each and every Friday a link to listen to the full-length edition of this program. Thanks in advance for your generous contribution. Hello, Monk members. Roger Griffiths here, the executive director of the Monk Debates. Welcome to this, the regular Friday Focus podcast. We're going to dig into some of the biggest issues. and ideas in the news this week. Hopefully leave you with some new analysis and insights.

We do this each and every Friday with Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs, internationally renowned scholar and author. Janice, how are we finding you on the 18th of August? Hi, Roger, you keep reminding me how the weeks are passing in August. I'd like a calendar to slow down, slow down this calendar for us, will you? Well, the nights are getting cooler. I'm enjoying that, sleeping with the window open. And yeah, the seasons change, as does the news not giving us much of a break.

I want to split today's show, Janice, between an anniversary that we're marking this week. And then a second story that kind of provides an interesting kind of look forward on a big issue that we've discussed a number of times on this program. So first on the anniversary, what is it? Well, it's two years since the Taliban have taken over Afghanistan. We've seen both the good, the bad, and the ugly. Yes, there is some good in Afghanistan. Supposedly no checkpoints in the country. Return of peace and security in a way that the Afghan people arguably have not experienced

in the last 40 years. the ugly, food insecurity across the country, mass malnutrition, especially tragically amongst Afghan children and girls, and then yes, girls, gender apartheid, continuing in the country in a brutal way, stopping women from working, getting any kind of education at the high school or post-secondary level. Janice, two years into this, I guess my big question for you is, is it time to acknowledge that the Taliban are here to stay? And that regardless of the parts of this regime that we find loathsome and abhorrent, we have to normalize relations with the Taliban and acknowledge that we lost this war. They won.

and winners get to set the terms to a great extent of whatever engagement happens. The Taliban certainly have done that. Boy, that is an agonizing question, read your day, you're asking. Let's just call it for what it is. The Taliban is the most ruthless oppressor of women's rights anywhere in the world. You know, Saudi Arabia, we might have talked about a decade ago. There's been huge movement inside Saudi Arabia for women. The Taliban promised when it came to power that it would not recreate the regime that it had from 1996 to 2001 when all this went on.

and it's back, exactly as it was. So I have a lot of difficulty recognizing this regime and legitimating what it's doing to women. The other side of the story, and this is why it's so agonizing, depriving Afghan people of food aid, medicine. It's got the worst food insecurity problem, as you rightly said, is unconscionable, frankly.

Again, let's just talk English here. You can't starve a population because of what its leaders are doing. Cindy McCain is the Director General of the World Food Organization, which was appointed by the Biden administration

two years ago. High on her priority was to get any prohibitions against all out humanitarian aid. to Afghanistan removed. And I think that's, she's right. That's where we need to go.

We put the non-governmental organizations that are trying to deliver this aid at risk, Rudyard, because you can be accused of violating the sanctions. I think, United States, Canada, we all have a lot to answer for, but we have to now move openly to say, the needs of the Afghan people come first, but we're not recognizing this regime. It's important.

So let me just play devil's advocate for the sake of our debates that we enjoy, Janice. It's not necessarily I subscribe to all these views, but one could say that the Taliban have had a very successful two years. They have virtually eradicated the opium production that was a major policy priority for the NATO countries and one of the justifications, for the invasion and subsequent multi-decade occupation. As I mentioned earlier, they have virtually stopped the violence in the country. During the war that we were part of, that we spent over a trillion dollars on, 100,000 Afghan civilians died over two decades.

Deaths in the country have plummeted. Furthermore, the Taliban are fighting a war against one of our enemies. or ISIS, the Islamic state, and arguably they are taking the brunt of this in terms of suicide bombings, but they are fighting that fight. And at least internationally, we've said that that's a good fight. So it's uncomfortable. It gives me no pleasure in saying this. But in two short years with all of their foreign reserves seized by the United States, some $6 billion, very few resources, frankly, what they've been able to do in that country in terms of the key policy objectives that we try to achieve with tens of thousands of troops and trillions of dollars,

they've done it in two years. We didn't do it in 20. Well, you said it's entirely accurate, Richard, all right? But any government that is prepared to suppress dissent from the end of a gun, which is what the Taliban does, can enforce order. So you're right. We were, let's be honest, we were oppressing dissent. We just thought we had a theory of the case of who the good guys and the bad guys were. We were ruthlessly oppressing the Pashtun tribal majority in Afghanistan.

We were ruthlessly suppressing the Taliban through. a multi-decade counterinsurgency campaign. So let's be honest with herself. They have their theory of the case. We have our theory of the case. Yep. Everybody's hands are bloody here. That's what I said.

We have a huge amount to answer for Rudyard. And that's where I agree with you. And frankly, I think we made a strategic mistake out of the gate. Think back to December 2001. The Taliban asked to, join the bond conference and to be part of a coalition. At Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said flushed with victory, no way, right? And shut out a significant component of the Afghan people.

And I think everything can be traced, frankly, to that really poor decision because he didn't understand or know anything about Afghanistan. So you're right. And the number of civilian deaths that occurred during those 20 years in Afghanistan is astronomical, frankly. I don't think we have to legitimate a government that is doing what it is doing to women. No women, as you said, are allowed to go to high school, much less university. That was not true in 1920 in Afghanistan. A hundred years later, it's true.

A lot of girls can't get to public school. even. So, yes, the death is down, but 50% of the population is being deprived of the most basic rate there is. There's no other country in the world, Roger, that is not by law allowing 50% of its population to go to school. How are we okay with that? We can't be. If you're enjoying the Friday Focus podcast as a donor, but haven't yet taken that next step of becoming a monk supporter, now is your opportunity. For the next couple of weeks, we have a flash sale on 30% off monk supporter level membership. You get all kinds of great benefits, including a decade and a half back catalog of terrific debates and dialogues covering all the

big issues of our time, a commentary e-book, a charitable tax receipt for Canadian residents, and the ability to share your monk membership with friends and family, Just a few of the incredible perks of becoming a monk supporter. You can do that right now by going to our website, www.w monkdebates.com. That's MUNK Debates with an S.com. Look for the top right navigation. Click on membership.

And at checkout, enter Munk 30, MUNK 30, to get your 30% off discount before it's gone. Act now. Become a monk supporter. thank you in advance for your generous support. That's how, you know, okay, but again, just for the sake of debate here, and I don't subscribe to all these arguments.

So people don't jump down my throat on, on email after this or during this program. Of course, jump down. We send all kinds of aid into North Korea, sporadically, not all the time, but we've done it. And we do it to a regime that brutally suppresses its people, the most horrific ways that has built now, nuclear weapons, sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missiles. The North Koreans have continually

threaten their regional allies. They threaten the United States. And yet we've come to a point where we're okay, you can have a mission in New York where North Korea is represented. You can have maybe not full and open diplomatic relations, but you know, something far beyond what we're currently offering. The Taliban for a regime that, in my view, is just as bad as the Taliban in Afghanistan. I think, Janice, if you really want to be honest with herself, this is about being a sore loser. They beat us. They beat us with a thousandths of the resources. they beat us with, you know, heart and religious fervor and passion.

All these unquantifiable things that are military strategists and our grand theories and our hopes in, you know, our sophisticated weapon systems and training and all this, frankly, gobbledygook, these endless acronyms that are military and bureaucratic organizations spawn out one program after another, over a trillion dollars, they beat us and we don't like it. So we're behaving like a spoiled, petulant child when it comes to this issue. We're not looking at it clearly. So I don't think it's because, I don't think this, the policy right now is driven by the fact that we're a sore loser. because, you know, the West, because that's who we're talking about right now, frankly, has big interests in Afghanistan.

It's in a very strategic part of the world. And it really matters. And when the Taliban came to- And the Chinese are getting in there and eating our lunch because we're ropedoping the Afghan government. What about that $6 billion? Why don't we unfreeze that for food aid? So I'm absolutely in favor of using the maximum amount of spending and operations to free up money for food aid, food and medicine. You know, you have a vast humanitarian program.

We did that for years in Iraq. And it wasn't great, by the way, but it was sure better than what we're doing to the Taliban. Under Saddam Hussein, we had a vast humanitarian program when the sanctions were really punishing the population. And I have no truck without one, Richard. I think we've got to move on that and move on it fast. So, Jim, a critical key point here is that many organizations, including those in Canada, the United States, government organizations, have pulled out humanitarian assistance because the Afghan government, under the Taliban, does not allow women to participate. to participate in aid delivery. Okay, let's talk about that.

It's in a sense that it's policies of gender segregation. It is. Apply to aid delivery. So where do you stand on that? You're saying that you're in favor of aid. You're saying to release the money, and you're saying you're deeply opposed to gender apartheid, which I understand and appreciate and respect. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't have the aid, but then say, well, we're going to now withhold the aid, because this gender policy takes priority and paramounts over feeding people who are starving to death in this case. Yeah, I do not believe that you make humanitarian aid hostage to the Taliban's gender apartheid, because that's what it is. But let's talk practicalities, Roger. How do you help women who are in the hospital? They're segregated. No women can participate in the receipt of this aid. who gets the medical aid to the women.

Can't reach them right now. Food delivery. All right. Same issue. It only goes through men, and the men on the ground decide how much food is going to whom, when, under what circumstances.

We have no control. So even then, I'm just saying, we resume humanitarian aid, but understand even under those circumstances, if we unfrode the money and we wrapped up the humanitarian program, Women would still suffer because tribal elders make the decisions. Who gets help?

Who gets fed? Who gets access to medical care? And no women, despite the fact. Agreed, Janice. Have any voice in this. No argument for me here. But unless we're going to reinvade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, this is not going to change. They won.

They control the country. But they have lucrative sponsors in the Gulf region who are seemingly happy to support them financially, at least the extent that allows their regime to continue. It's not collapsing. It's not collapsing. So, so it's, you're often the steely-eyed realist on this show saying to people, we have to accept the world as it is, not how we want it. And I get that this issue of women is so critical. And it seems so unjust to us. And it goes against all of our core tenants in the West. But don't we just have to acknowledge that this is what? it is. It, it, it's a horrible situation, but we have interest there. We can help with the margins. We can

improve. Let's not let the, you know, the perfect be the enemy of the good. Listen, I think there is a way to do exactly what you're saying, right? Let's divide this pie into two halves. We push forward on humanitarian aid, recognizing women are going to get a tiny proportion of what comes into this country. Okay? We go ahead anyway. But under no circumstances do we recognize that government,

which is off the charts, frankly, in terms of what it's doing to women. There's no other government like this in the world that is doing to women what the Taliban government is doing. This is not Western political caressness, Western wokeness, Western fixation on human rights. It's none of that.

They are pushing 50% of their population or more into abject poverty because they've shut down education and women are treated only by other women whom they won't educate. They're not educating anymore women, doctors and can't see a man doctor unless their male partner is in the room. Now, come on. There has to be some residual outrage left in the world. world. Okay. Well, I think there's a lot of outrage. I just think there's other regimes like China,

like China that are saying, well, there's all kinds of fantastic minerals and opportunities Afghanistan. And we're, you know, we're not going to get overly hung up or vexed on these rights-based kind of issues. And we can host the Taliban in Beijing. We can start to do extractive kind of deals with them. And we can advance China's interests. Other powers are not sitting around on, you know, parsing the, you're trying to calibrate finally this idea of humanitarian assistance versus any other crime. Recognition, at least some form of diplomatic engagement that, that allows us and leads all countries to articulate their interests, to pursue their interests, and to further, hopefully, some kind of mutual understanding that maybe, Janice, maybe over time,

does move the Taliban towards some type of reform. I mean, you've spent your whole career arguing about the importance of dialogue and engagement and negotiation. And here you're saying no negotiation. Not with no dialogue, at least in the diplomatic institution state to state way. These guys are verboten. They're pariahs. And we're not going to have anything to do with them.

So I don't believe that Taliban will be moved by any material incentives on this issue. Right. They are ideologically so fixated in their approach to women. Nothing is going to move these guys. they had every opportunity when they came to power, Roger, exactly what you said was done. The offers were made repeatedly in those in September, October, November, and the Taliban committed not to do what it's doing right now, right? And then as the pressure lifted, they moved in a series of steps and they have recreated absolutely the worst of what exists

in Afghanistan in those five years. And by the way, That is not Afghanistan, right? We forget the Taliban were in power from 96 to 2001. Women went to university in Afghanistan under the king in 1920. So this government doesn't speak for all of Afghanistan on this issue of women anymore than the West speaks for Afghanistan in its benignate attempt. No recognition for these guys. You do everything you can. We negotiate with all kinds of regimes that are authoritarian, that do not represent the people in any way, shape, or form.

We allow them reciprocal embassies in our countries. We allow them seats on the United Nations. They brutally suppress their people. They kill them in the thousands or tens of thousands. And we have diplomatic relations with them. We do. And, you know, look at China's human rights record. And I would be the first to say, engage, engage, engage.

Saudi Arabia, I believe very strongly. We need to engage actively because there's a trajectory that we can see in the case of Saudi Arabia, where some of the things we care about are actually getting better. There's the trajectory with the Taliban is worse. It's regressed. The trajectory of China is worse. Yeah. The trajectory of China is much worse, but it can inflict, you know,

getting it wrong on China and shutting China out can influence. It's like huge damage on all the rest of us because this is the one relationship that if it goes to war, we all, the whole world suffers. That's not true. That is a perfect segue to our second topic, which we're going to get into right after the break. Big meetings in the United States this week, Joe Biden sitting down with the presidents, the heads of South Korea and Japan to countries that have had a lot of animosity between each. other now seemingly coming together under U.S. leadership to act as a counterweight, a countervail, to Chinese authority and power in the region. We'll have that conversation for you right after this short break. Thanks for listening to this excerpt of the Friday Focus podcast. To get full-length

editions of each and every episode of this program, simply go to our website, triple-w, the monk debates.com. Click on the Friday Focus tab in our navigation on the top right of the site. Make a donation as little as $25 a year of 50 cents an episode and we'll send you not only the full-length editions of each and every Friday Focus podcast, but all kinds of special offers, perks, access to events, and additional content. Again, you can do that right now by becoming a donor to the Monk Debates at Triple-W Monk Debates, MUNK, Debates with an S.

on.