Absolute isolation can lead to irreparable consequences
Since the Taliban movement (banned in Russia) regained power in Afghanistan in August 2021, the United States has faced a dilemma. On the one hand, the US authorities are seeking to hold the Taliban regime accountable for harassing women, harboring terrorists and failing to organize an inclusive government. On the other hand, Washington wants Afghanistan to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe and civil war by managing to achieve at least minimal economic and political stability. Thus, American politicians are trying to balance democratic principles and a pragmatic approach.
POOR COORDINATION OF MOVEMENTS
To put pressure on the Taliban, the United States refused diplomatic recognition of their regime and traditional support, froze the assets of the Central Bank of Afghanistan and maintained sanctions against the leaders of the movement. However, Washington has been and remains the largest donor of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. He also does not support the Afghan armed opposition and has actually eased sanctions in order to ensure the delivery of aid to the Afghan population and stimulate economic activity in the country. Of course, such a US political approach contains internal contradictions. Humanitarian aid is aimed at saving civilians, and punitive measures undermine the Afghan economy and contribute to an increase in poverty. But such inconsistency is not surprising for a superpower with complex interests. Moreover, it has been traced in US foreign policy for decades.
But as the consolidation of the Taliban's power and the limits of international influence become more apparent, Washington and its partners, whether they want to or not, are moving towards a policy of closer interaction with the regime.
IT'S CRAMPED TOGETHER, BORING APART
A shift towards greater participation is the least destructive policy decision. It provides more opportunities for progress, especially in the field of economics and finance, than complete isolation. The international community can begin to cooperate with the Taliban on issues of mutual interest, while not easing pressure and refusing to recognize the regime until key human rights and security requirements are met. But both expanded interaction and complete isolation may not lead to a change in the Taliban's social policy. There are no simple and unambiguously correct answers here. Nevertheless, a long-term strategy of interaction with the Taliban authorities will help mitigate the damage inflicted on the civilian population of Afghanistan and allow the United States to realize its interests in issues related to security, the humanitarian situation and human rights in the country.
Despite the deteriorating human rights situation, especially for women and girls, a number of factors are pushing the United States and its allies to closer contacts with the Taliban. Among the main reasons are the following:
– the severity of current humanitarian needs and the exhaustion of social protection tools for Afghans;
– the lack of funding for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in 2023 and the growing interest in resuming support for social development;
– Steady consolidation of the Taliban's political power;
– The inability of the international community to put pressure on the Taliban to change its policy of gender discrimination;
– Building up diplomatic ties between the Taliban regime and the States of the region;
– The continued willingness of the Taliban to cooperate with the West, as well as the already existing evidence of cooperation between the parties on certain issues.
As of August, only 26.8% of the total required amount of $3.2 billion had been received under the UN Plan for the Response in Afghanistan in 2023 (an amount that was revised downward in June compared with the initial request of $4.6 billion). It is noteworthy that last year, against the background of other global shocks, the generosity of donors gave way to the demand not to increase Afghanistan's dependence on humanitarian aid, but at the same time to increase efficiency and focus more attention on combating the economic crisis.
RISK ASSESSMENT
So far, human rights violations by the Taliban have been the main obstacle to such a step. For this reason, the international community should remember that donor funds are limited instruments of political influence on the rogue regime. However, after two years, foreign players have a growing feeling that the Taliban regime is a reality that they have to deal with, whether someone likes it or not. Punitive instruments such as sanctions and the suspension of dialogue in response to the announced repressive policies have not helped to mitigate or eliminate discrimination against women and ethno-religious minorities. In addition, the States of the region are stepping up their interaction with the Taliban, sometimes even signaling that they may violate the consensus on non-recognition, which persists to this day. This puts pressure on the West, forcing it to continue to take part in resolving the Afghan issue, so as not to lose the degree of influence that it currently has. An even stronger economic collapse in Afghanistan could exacerbate existing cross-border threats. Experts agree that without access to Western financial markets and resources, Afghanistan will remain mired in deep poverty, a radicalized state that poses a serious threat to regional security.
A number of political players agree that, paradoxically, the Afghan Taliban are ready for an international dialogue. There is evidence that the Taliban is afraid of becoming a victim of the Chinese model of foreign investment and wants to establish balanced relations with the West in order to avoid absorption by Beijing. This very desire, even if it is unevenly present among the Afghan leadership, suggests that the United States and its allies have leverage over the current Afghan regime.
Among other things, the Taliban is not a monolithic structure: there are internal disagreements within the ranks of the movement. Although officials from Kabul do not lead the decision-making process in Kandahar, they and the heads of other provinces influence the comprehensive implementation of the movement's policy. Nevertheless, last spring, the moderate wing of the Taliban, which publicly criticized the leadership's policies and supported the education of girls, nevertheless preferred loyalty to the emir to resigning from their posts. However, the confrontation in the ranks of the movement suggests that at some point a softening of the Taliban's policy will become possible.
As for security issues, at periodic meetings between U.S. and Taliban officials, both sides discuss the fight against terrorism and the detention of radical elements. But the window of opportunity for interaction cannot be open on a permanent basis. Politicians should strive to avoid a path that repeats the fate of North Korea, Iran or Cuba. Decades of punitive policies have failed to induce these regimes to change their course, but have led to catastrophic levels of poverty and suffering among the populations of these countries.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST
All of these factors are an argument in favor of more consistent interaction between the international community and the Taliban. The logic is that by conducting regular dialogue and taking confidence-building measures in several directions, the United States and its partners will be able to provide more support to the Afghan people and protect their own security interests. This principle assumes that a certain form of relationship with the Taliban can lead to the gradual achievement of mutual interests, while isolation is unlikely to change the behavior of the Taliban. Moreover, isolation can have the opposite effect, strengthening the positions of hardliners and weakening those who are open to cooperation with the West.
But there are also serious concerns about the risks of interaction. Some experts are calling for less involvement in the fate of Afghanistan and stricter conditions against the Taliban. They argue that more active interaction will strengthen the legitimacy of the regime. Foreign aid and participation often end in conflicts due to concessions to political rivals, unsuccessful negotiations on power and resources, as well as restrictions on rights or, conversely, concessions to citizens.
Questions about cooperation with the Taliban have caused a split among Western civil society and human rights defenders. In a survey conducted in August by Foreign Affairs, more than 50 reputable American, Afghan and international experts on Afghanistan were asked the question: "Is the United States following the normalization of relations with the Taliban?" The vast majority opposed normalization, but the responses provoked a deeper discussion about the definition of "interaction". At the same time, many experts who strongly oppose normalization of relations with the Taliban wrote that a certain level of interaction is needed – in the form of humanitarian assistance, targeted development efforts and cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Most observers seem to agree on two key principles:
– the human and financial costs of supporting the armed opposition to the Taliban will be too high;
– Complete isolation is unacceptable, as it will entail an even deeper humanitarian crisis and will not leave an opportunity for dialogue on the terrorist threat.
conclusion
In the current situation, there is a consensus on the need for result–oriented interaction, primarily with regard to the interests of the security sector. Thus, the main question is not whether it is worth interacting with the Taliban, but how and when to do so, what tools of interaction should be used, what political means should be used, and whether it is worth maintaining this interaction, despite the serious violations of human rights by the Taliban. In this regard, a long-term strategy of action is needed to resolve the Afghan issue. In March 2023, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution in which the Secretary General of the organization, Antonio Guterres, was instructed to assess and provide forward-looking recommendations on an integrated and consistent international approach to resolving the Afghan issue by November 17. Feridun Sinirlioglu, a former Turkish government official, was appointed Special Coordinator of the mission.
According to preliminary data, an independent assessment linked the recognition of the Taliban Government to Afghanistan's compliance with international treaty obligations requiring the movement to immediately eliminate radical restrictions on women's rights to education and employment. Dialogue with the movement does not exclude more extensive work by the international community in the field of human rights and political freedoms. The most important task for the United States and its associates will continue to be to help the Afghan people achieve what most Afghans want for their country, while holding the Taliban government accountable for its repressive domestic policies.
Larisa Shashok
Larisa Alexandrovna Shashok is an expert at the HSE Institute for Advanced Strategic Studies.
