Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
With the prosecution of low-level soldiers like SAS trooper Oliver Schulz for war crimes in Afghanistan, we should consider: what is the scope of accountability for war crimes under international and Australian law, and how does it apply to commanders who should have known about the crimes?
The New York Times editorial on 15 August was all about tragedy in describing the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. ‘Tragic because the American dream of being the “indispensable nation” in shaping a world where the values of civil rights, women’s empowerment and religious tolerance rule proved to be just that: a dream.’
The situation in Afghanistan is far more complex than the Australian parliamentary debate seems to credit. The international community and the Afghan government should be starting a bigger conversation about how a more transparent and accountable political culture can be encouraged.
Most analysts agree that fighting terrorism is not just a matter of using military force. Pakistan has to combine military, political and socio-economic development, to counter terrorism in the long-run. But this is easier said then done.
Was the decision to deny the Bakhtiyaris refugee status based on all the facts?