But the Americans keep the maximum distanceMembers of the international community have different views on potential threats emanating from Afghanistan, especially under the new government of the radical Islamist movement "Taliban" (banned in the Russian Federation).
Each player notes different risks for himself. But everyone shares a high degree of concern about instability in the country and threats to regional security.
CHINA, IRAN, RUSSIA AND CENTRAL ASIAChina's main concern is to deter possible infiltration of militants into its territory.
At the same time, Beijing pays the main attention to the Uighur issue. The Chinese government has brought this issue up for discussion with the Taliban, and there are signs that the Taliban leadership has relocated some Uighurs further from the Afghan-Chinese border. However, some representatives of the Taliban are concerned that the continuation of this course may lead to the fact that Uighur militants will fall into the hands of the terrorist organization "IG-Khorasan" (banned in the Russian Federation).
Russia, Iran and the Central Asian states are mainly concerned about preventing the strengthening of the positions of "IG-Khorasan", although they are also concerned about other terrorist groups. If these States view the power of the Taliban as a guarantee that Afghanistan will no longer threaten regional stability, they may eventually lose patience with what is happening. After all, the repressive actions of the new Afghan authorities against IG-Khorasan did not prevent the group from carrying out minor attacks on the territory of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In this connection, these countries are intensively working out options for ensuring the security of their borders.
PAKISTAN AND INDIAIn Pakistan, the level of violence in tribal areas along the Afghan border has increased dramatically since the Taliban took over Afghanistan.
The activation of the terrorist organization "Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan" (TTP, banned in the Russian Federation) is the main concern of Pakistan. Taking advantage of the refuge under the rule of the Taliban, the TTP began to noticeably increase the scale of subversive operations.
Disappointed by the inaction of the Taliban leadership, Pakistan resorts to cross-border artillery shelling and periodic airstrikes. At the moment, the Taliban preferred mediation between the TTP and Pakistan to violent confrontation with militants. Islamabad has adopted this approach, but efforts to establish contacts have not yet led to a cessation of hostilities.
India has also resumed cooperation with the Taliban on security issues, possibly in the wake of growing tensions between them and the Pakistani authorities. But it is worth recalling that the intensification of bilateral relations follows a long history of hostility between New Delhi and the Taliban, who during their rule in Afghanistan in the 1990s provided refuge to militants of anti-Indian Islamist groups.
This time, India seems to be seeking to go down the path of interacting with the Taliban government to prevent the proliferation of weapons and militants in Kashmir. Earlier, the media reported that the Taliban promised New Delhi to take measures against groups that threaten the security of India, such as "Jaish-e–Mohammad" or "Lashkar-e-Taiba" (banned in the Russian Federation), as well as other formations that have traditionally enjoyed the tacit patronage of Pakistan. Al-Qaeda in the Indian subcontinent (banned in Russia) also continues to threaten attacks on India.
UNITED STATESFinally, Western governments remain deeply concerned about the activity of extremist groups that have been comfortable in Afghanistan since the Taliban came to power.
One example of this was the residence of the leader of Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a villa that once belonged to US-funded organizations in Kabul.
Washington and its allies have left Afghanistan in the hope of dealing with the terrorist threat from a distance. After the Taliban came to power, it was reported that the United States began to develop the so-called "over-the-horizon" strike potential, and the elimination of al-Zawahiri was their first major strike. Some American officials suggest that the Taliban have so far prevented the restoration of Al-Qaeda forces. But they are also concerned that the situation may change.
Having found the leader of the group in the territories controlled by the Taliban, US officials said they would revise their assessments of the situation in Afghanistan due to the failure of the Taliban leadership to comply with the terms of the agreement concluded with the United States in February 2020. Against this background, Western or regional Powers may be tempted to suppress the aforementioned threats with unilateral military actions in Afghanistan.
The complexity of "over-the-horizon" operations increases due to the lack of intelligence assets on the ground. However, American officials do not rule out the possibility of holding them. At the same time, returning to airstrikes or other attacks as the main tool in the fight against terrorism would be a wrong decision. The United States is likely to carry out repeated attacks if it finds the leaders of large terrorist groups like al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan.
Although targeted airstrikes are capable of eliminating individual terrorist leaders, by themselves they are unlikely to be able to destroy militant groups. At the same time, such tactics on the part of the United States may harden views on the ground and motivate a new generation of Taliban to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy.
Extremist organizations opposed to the radical Islamist movement "Taliban" and other regional governments are already recruiting militants in Afghanistan, portraying the Taliban as puppets of foreigners. The US anti-terrorist policy in the form of air strikes would only strengthen these beliefs, arousing suspicions of the Taliban collusion with the West.
THE DUBIOUS PEACEFULNESS OF THE TALIBANRegular airstrikes can have other negative and difficult-to-predict consequences.
The Taliban themselves try not to provoke the hostility of foreign jihadists, whom they receive on their territory, but at the same time dissuade them from planning terrorist attacks abroad that could provoke the anger of foreign governments against the Taliban.
Pakistan has already inflamed militant sentiments among the Taliban by launching airstrikes against TTP targets, which has caused tangible tension in relations between the two countries. Although both sides managed to defuse the situation, the Taliban representatives are now aimed at doubling support for anti-Pakistani groups in order to gain leverage on the situation and prevent further violations of Afghanistan's sovereignty.
The Taliban appealed to regional and Western countries to exchange "relevant intelligence information" with them, rather than acting unilaterally. At the same time, the readiness of the Taliban leadership to take adequate measures to counter terrorism remains very uncertain. And the willingness of foreign governments to share information is also questionable.
Regional and Western governments could benefit from a policy of pragmatic cooperation with the Taliban on a narrow range of security issues. As well as cooperation with them in solving some practical problems for the sake of ensuring stability in ways that benefit the Afghan population and stimulate the Taliban's desire for a clearer fulfillment of security obligations.
LIMITED INTERACTIONIt is difficult to imagine this immediately after the elimination of the leader of Al-Qaeda (banned in the Russian Federation) al-Zawahiri, but some opportunities for interaction with the Taliban on security issues remain even in Western countries that deeply distrust the movement.
Other States can benefit from this kind of limited interaction – for example, to be able to more closely monitor the changing regional political landscape.
Such interaction could also strengthen the trust needed for deeper cooperation, although such a result remains a distant prospect at the moment. At least, senior Taliban officials continue to insist that their government is bound by the Doha Agreement of 2020, and this can contribute to pragmatic interaction with Western countries.
The United States and the Taliban have repeatedly accused each other of violating this agreement, which eventually paved the way for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban's attempts to mislead the American side about its ties to Al-Qaeda and the unclear situation with IG Khorasan raise serious questions about whether they are ready to fulfill their part of the deal.
Nevertheless, the agreement should theoretically define more clearly the Taliban's obligations to prevent terrorism – as well as the US obligations not to strike at Afghan territory. Revising the text of the agreement would be a mistake, as it would open a Pandora's box. But talking about how to implement the deal would be timely. The US special envoy who concluded the deal had previously stated that the document contained secret appendices containing benchmarks for evaluating the activities of the Taliban. Such an assessment can lead to greater clarity on both sides.
Some Western officials hope that interaction with the Taliban is still possible after Zawahiri's death. In their opinion, it can be strengthened through practical steps aimed at making Afghanistan a safer place for its citizens and preventing the spread of the terrorist threat to neighboring areas. This may include joint efforts to control the proliferation of weapons in Afghanistan and reduce cross-border arms trade.
WAR TROPHIES AND EXPLOSIVE DEVICESThe troops of the former republic left in the country a significant amount of weapons and military equipment, most of which were provided by Washington.
This technique will be extremely dangerous in the hands of various extremist groups, although large-scale arms trafficking has not yet been reported. Preventing the smuggling of captured military hardware is a key priority for the Taliban and the States bordering Afghanistan.
Foreign actors can also support the strengthening of Taliban border controls and assist in the identification, storage and destruction of surplus weapons. On the humanitarian front, extensive mined territories, unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are of constant concern. The Taliban are taking steps to collect and dispose of old explosives, but there are still many accidents on the territory of Afghanistan. Civilians, including children, continue to lose their lives, encountering IEDs in search of scrap metal. Regional and Western players can help the Taliban security forces to get rid of this danger.
SLOW CONFIDENCE BUILDINGAnother option for limited cooperation may be the exchange of intelligence with neighboring States that can provide information about the influx of anti-Taliban insurgents in exchange for information from Afghanistan about transnational threats.
Indeed, some regional figures have been building such relations with the Taliban for years.
Intelligence sharing with Western governments is a more distant prospect, given the low level of trust, especially after the al-Zawahiri episode. But such a scenario is theoretically possible in the future, depending on how relations with the Taliban develop and whether the Western powers gain sufficient confidence that the leadership of the movement will use the information provided in a legitimate and responsible manner.
Thus, the likelihood that decades of conflict will turn into rapid cooperation between the Taliban and the outside world is low. Nevertheless, the strategic goal should be to strengthen the relationships necessary for the Taliban to take action against transnational threats, even if achieving this goal is only possible in the long term.
Larisa ShashokLarisa Alexandrovna Shashok is a teacher at MGIMO (U) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
