World peace: a Liberal Democrat perspective

Before 11 September the people of Afghanistan had lived in peace — unhappy with the fundamentalist Taliban, but in peace.

Paul Marsden MP, Not in Our Name - Global Justice not War, December 2001

On August 8, 1998, Taliban militia forces captured the city of Mazar-i Sharif in northwest Afghanistan, the only major city controlled by the United Front, the coalition of forces opposed to the Taliban. The fall of Mazar was part of a successful offensive that gave the Taliban control of almost every major city and important significant territory in northern and central Afghanistan. Within the first few hours of seizing control of the city, Taliban troops killed scores of civilians in indiscriminate attacks, shooting noncombatants and suspected combatants alike in residential areas, city street sand markets. Witnesses described it as a "killing frenzy" as the advancing forces shot at "anything that moved." Retreating opposition forces may also have engaged in indiscriminate shooting as they fled the city. Human Rights Watch believes that at least hundreds of civilians were among those killed as the panicked population of Mazar-i Sharif tried to evade the gunfire or escape the city....

In the absence of a full-scale investigation, there is no way to know precisely how many were killed in the weeks following the fall of Mazar to the Taliban. Based on interviews with survivors and other informed sources, Human Rights Watch believes that at least 2,000 may have been killed in the city and possibly many more. Many civilians were also killed in aerial bombardments and rocket attacks as they fled south of the city toward the Alborz mountains. Human Rights Watch is also concerned by persistent reports that women and girls, particularly in certain Hazara neighborhoods of Mazar-i Sharif, were raped and abducted during the Taliban takeover of the city.

Human Rights Watch, The Massacre in Mazar-i Sharif, November 1998

Marsden's brief article bears reading in full. As well as advancing a 'root cause' fallacy that is common in explaining terrorism, he maintains a view that is extremely unusual, at least when stated so baldly. Immediately after the remarks I quote above, he contrasts the state of 'peace' under the Taliban with this prospect:

Now [Afghans] face an uncertain future ruled by vicious warlords. How many more Afghanistans will it take before the west finally learns its lesson?

The only sense I can make of this is that Marsden - who during the Iraq war compared British and American troops to the forces of Nazi Germany - believes not only that the war in Afghanistan was wrong, but that Afghanistan was a better place under the Taliban than it is now.

Marsden's article was written a matter of days before he defected from the Labour Party to join the Liberal Democrats in protest at Tony Blair's policies in the war against terror. It's good to know that Marsden has found a political home for his views on peace and human rights.

Comments

[Simon]

Ken Livingstone said that Bush was "the biggest threat to world peace"....I take it that that is the Labour Party's line as well?

[Tom]

In the debate in the House on March 18th Ken Clarke and a number of other 'Left-wing' Tory MPs argued against going to war. Yet you do not characterise them as representatives of 'Tory Thinkers'. Many Liberals opposed the war because of its consequences and because they did not believe that war should take place without UN approval, that the UN process of Weapons Inspections had not run its full course. To claim that Marsden is representative is at best foolish and at worst disingenuous.

[Eamonn]

Marsden is very representative of how all the Lib Dem MPs voted, however.

[Brownie]

Eamonn makes the point.

Marsden's thoughts on the war are reflected in the way the parliamentary Liberal Democrat party voted and spoke on this issue. Conversely, the thoughts of the two Kens - Clarke and Livingstone - illustrate the wide range of views held within the other two parties.

Unless, of course, someone knows different? Was there a Lib Dem MP who backed the war?

[Bob]

Ken Livingstone also said, during the run up to the 1987 general election: All some northern MPs know about London is the wine bars and brothels of Westminster.

[john b]

...which is true, if not relevant.

[Simon]

Yes, all the Lib Dem MPs voted against the war, but that doesn't all mean that they thought the same way about it. To prove the point, you would never find Rt Hon Sir Ming Campbell QC MP say such a thing. Part of the party should grow up. Fine. But the same could be said of either of the other parties.

[Anthony]

I'm surprised Marsden didn't decide to make history and become the first Socialist Worker Party MP.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Marsden is a particularily vile example of Lib Dem MPs. I would point that those Tory who were anti-war are the ones who are most likely to be the ones who leave and join the Lib-Dems.

[Jurjen]

Tom, the topic was Afghanistan, not Iraq. The UNSC ruled US action in Afghanistan to be justified under Article 51 (the right to self-defence) of the UN Charter. Similarly, NATO ruled that Article 5 ("an attack on one is an attack on all") of the North Atlantic Charter was applicable, which meant that the US could have called on its NATO partners to assist. We haven't seen a more solid international backing for the invasion of a country and the overthrow of its government since 1945.

[Richard]

Brownie, I don't know if you have seen this but for some entertainment can I draw your attention to the following speech in the Commons war debate. It was for the vast majority of its course shaping up to be one of the best pro-war speeches made ...

(HANSARD 18th May 2003 Volume 401 Column 849) - a speech by a Mr Burnett of the Liberal Democrat Party.

To get a flavour you could also read Jack Straw's summing up (Hansard 18th May 2003 Volume 401 Column 896)

[Dave F]

Since I left the UK to return to S Africa in 1996, I fear the Lib Dems have kind of slipped beneath my political radar. I'm finding it hard to figure out how they got from gung-ho Paddy Pantsdown to their present position on almost everything. I have noticed that everyone on the other jeers and laughs when little Charlie Kennedy speaks (seeing someone get redder and redder is schoolboy entertainment, but that's the Commons for you).