As things start to get heated in the United Nations Security Council, England poses a realistic approach. Rather than shutting down all options involving negotiations with the Taliban, England has suggested that, “In order to create a viable option or solution to this problem that was set before us, we must, as the UN Security Council, decide to negotiate with terrorists in this instance because in the past, terrorists have not had nuclear capabilities.” One would hope that other countries would realize that alternative steps may be necessary in this case due to the fatalities involved if nuclear weapons were used.
It is understood that it is part of many countries ethics to avoid consultations with terrorist organizations, but at some point comes the decision weather it is better to maintain your values or protect your country from a nuclear disaster. By refusing to negotiate with the Taliban, a decision may not be made by the deadline given, which would result in a horrible situation potentially leading to another World War.
With Israel and India being the foremost targets of a nuclear Taliban, it would be reasonable to think that they would want to solve this problem as quickly and agreeably as possible. This in fact doesn’t seem to be the case as Israel’s leader states defiantly that, “Israel will not negotiate with the terrorists.” So the question is, how does Israel plan to combat this grave threat to their country? Rising up with the United Nations? Maybe, but as England’s Prime Minister had said in his response to the United Nations security council meeting, “it is completely necessary to negotiate with [the Taliban]”. England has shown competent problem solving skills in the past, and it is time to follow their lead in order to shield the world from a serious global threat.
By: Sara Wilson
No comments:
Post a Comment