Violence not acceptable at any level

Amnesty International has said that the US and Taliban talks on reducing of violence, should end attacks on civilians in Afghanistan. In a statement, the AI has said that these talks should include both sides pledge to follow the war laws and zero civilian casualties. The statement adds that in a clash that its index is attack on civilians, the terminology of “reduction of violence” is meaningless. Because in believe of AI, there is no acceptable rate of violence.
The US and the Afghan Taliban must be committed to follow claims of the war laws and conclude all attacks to civilians. According to deputy regional director of (AI) for South Asia, there won’t be serious peace talks until the warring factions stop attack on civilians.
According to him, the warring factions should be committed to protect civilians and all attacks on civilians must be assessed and prosecuted and peace talks should be in no circumstance permission of immunity from crime.
In response to a request of American negotiating delegation from Taliban that negotiations would be suspended until Taliban agree with ceasefire and give up violence, instead of ceasefire the Taliban suggested a short term reduction of violence for only seven to ten days and so far no response has been released in media on its acceptance or rejection by Americans, but this issue caused certain reactions.
The Afghan government called it meaningless and ineffective for peace and adds that reduction of violence lacks legal weight and security and military effect. The Afghan government has emphasized that Taliban should announce ceasefire so constructive peace talks be started. Amnesty International has connected this issue to the civilian casualties and called it meaningless and emphasized that there is no acceptable violence that culminate to civilians’ casualties and both sides should respect war laws in their approach before civilians.
Nevertheless, this is a reality that reduction of violence is meaningless. Because in the first step there is no sample of this inhuman experience and except now that Taliban have suggested it, we have not been witnessing a similar issue in other times and countries. In the second step it cannot be understood that what does reduction of violence mean?
Whether reduction of violence means that for instance instead of ten suicide attacks only two will be taking place, instead of ten missiles, only five will be launching on cities and instead of ten roadside mines, five will be used and finally instead of killing of ten innocent Muslims only five will be killed?
What is the logic and justification of this suggestion that more murders will not be taking place but only less will be taking place, while Islamic Sharia has not even allowed killing of one innocent person and has considered killing of an innocent person as killing of all people.
In the third step, there is no standard for this issue that in which case there is reduction of violence and in which case more violence. If there was a violation, it should be prosecuted and the violator will shoulder the burden of guilt.
As the amnesty International had already said that, the war laws must be respected and both sides give up steps that result in civilian casualties and civilians must be secured.
As the Afghan government has already said that if the Taliban really intend to end disputes and current conflicts through a political dialogue, they should accept ceasefire, make the violence zero and simultaneously with signing of agreement with Americans, immediately start direct talks with the Afghan government so a positive and constructive step be taken for peace.
Announcement of ceasefire beside being recognized as a security and legal issue, restores people trust and confidence and causes improving effectiveness of talks to reach peace.

Related posts

Quick decisions on peace process harmful

Saida Ahmadi

Public support of ANDSF essential to suppress enemies

TheKabulTimes

Aid suspension, effective punitive action against Pakistan

Saida Ahmadi