Voice of the Taliban?
The antiwar BBC.

By Andrew Apostolou, a historian at St. Antony’s College, Oxford
October 9, 2001 9:35 a.m.

s feeble excuses go, the explanations which were trotted out by the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Zaeef, for his regime's sheltering of Osama bin Laden could well become classics of mendacity. At first, Mullah Zaeef claimed that bin Laden could not possibly have been behind the September 11 massacres in the United States, as the Saudi fugitive was under Taliban surveillance. Then, mysteriously, the Taliban lost bin Laden. Despite being able to track down and murder their opponents, such as Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Taliban carelessly allowed their best friend to vanish. Yet as fast as he had slipped through their friendly fingers, bin Laden was found. Time and again, the Taliban have said they will, and will not, discuss handing bin Laden over, complaining that they have yet to see evidence linking him to terrorism. Bin Laden is now, claims, Mullah Zaeef, in protective custody — all this in the space of a fortnight.

Mullah Zaeef fibs with the revealing smirk of the average British schoolboy, as this former very average schoolboy can confirm. Few have been taken in by this blatant playing for time, except, that is, for the BBC correspondent in Pakistan, Daniel Lak. In an impressive example of the BBC's ability to "go native," Lak, after speaking to Mullah Zaeef on September 30, claimed that Afghanistan: "is a country and a society that values negotiations above many other things." Unfortunately, one thing that the Taliban seem to value more than negotiation is the use of force. The same day, the Washington Post was a little more to the point, with an article which discussed the "Culture of War" in Afghanistan.

Mullah Zaeef's excuses have now worn out, in part because they were unoriginal. Pressed to hand over bin Laden after the U.S. embassy bombings back in August 1998, the Taliban claimed that bin Laden had vanished. Then on July 9, 1999, four days after the U.S. gave up trying to get sense out of the Taliban and imposed sanctions, the Taliban conveniently found bin Laden. The Taliban then supposedly placed bin Laden under surveillance, to keep an eye on him. Then, as now, the Taliban bemoaned the supposed lack of evidence coming from the Americans. Indeed, the main Taliban spokesman at the time, Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, even claimed that the Taliban intelligence service was in charge of keeping bin Laden under wraps. The source of this important report? The BBC.

Daniel Lak's incredible statement was not just designed to make the Taliban seem reasonable, it staked out the standard rhetoric of the antiwar movement, that America is always wrong. According to Lak, for the Taliban: "Very little, outside of the strictures of Islam, is set in stone. But America's demands seem to be. They are not negotiating; they are demanding — and promising certain retaliation if they don't get their way." The Taliban's position on bin Laden, like the man himself, is a moving target. Nobody can accuse the Taliban of honesty, aside, it would appear, from the BBC. Meanwhile, the Americans, asking for the man responsible for the public murder of close to 7,000 civilians, are portrayed as unreasonable bullies.