On Sunday, the Taliban announced the transfer of power in Afghanistan at the presidential palace in Kabul after taking control of large parts of the country and the Afghan president had fled into exile. But the transfer of power and the siege of Kabul came sooner than US intelligence agencies had anticipated.
While global media outlets have declared the West a failure in Afghanistan and the US president found himself in a tight corner, experts have taken the news from Kabul with little surprise. After all, the Taliban had been expected to take power in the country since the announcement of troop withdrawals by Western powers, particularly the US. This has been repeatedly stated by political analysts on various media platforms.
Nevertheless, the US administration is under fire at home, accused of betraying its allies in Afghanistan, that its foreign policy has failed as it did in Saigon –being portrayed in the media as a PR disaster–, that numerous soldiers and Afghan civilians have died in incidents for nothing, and billions of dollars of investment in the country have gone to waste after the Taliban once again took power – and that, even before the announced withdrawal of the last remaining foreign troops.
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken dismissed any criticism on Sunday and blamed the Afghan people for the Taliban’s quick takeover, claiming that “they surrendered without fighting”. Moreover, he declared the mission in Afghanistan a success, stating that the mission’s main goal was to eliminate the terrorist threat from Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, which they, according to him, accomplished. On the contrary, Dr. Peter Frey, the editor-in-chief of the German state television ZDF, countered this with a quote from former German Defense Minister Peter Struck that “Germany’s security begins in the Hindu Kush.” The West and Germany, according to Frey, had failed in Afghanistan. So, the change of power in Kabul again poses a threat to the West, he stated.
Two crucial questions emerge from the statements above that deserve special attention:
- Didn’t the US initially want to bring democracy, freedom, and stability to Afghanistan rather than (exclusively) avenge 9/11?
- What, then, is the success of US operations in Afghanistan, after tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians have died, and the Taliban have retaken power? By what criteria does the US define the existence of the Taliban, which has come out of the long fight with even greater strength, as “the elimination of the terror threat emanating from Afghanistan”?
In his address assessing the situation in Afghanistan, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called on all leaders not to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate leadership of Afghanistan in order to deny them space to exist and act. However, the criticism came too late, as China directly and Russia indirectly have already done so; as has Turkey, which had advocated dialogue with the Taliban, causing the Turkish president to face criticism in the West. The following explains why dialogue with the Taliban is now critical for regional stability and the well-being of all, particularly the Afghan people, around whom the discussion revolves or should revolve.
The Taliban are the strongest force in Afghanistan. This was made clear once again by their rapid seizure of power last weekend. The struggle in Afghanistan over the last 20 years has been in vain, as the political situation is back to square one: The Taliban ran the country between 1996 and 2001 and will do so again as of now. What this illustrates very well is that external intervention does not bring more freedom, peace, and democracy to a state. Another appropriate example of this is the unending proxy and civil war in Syria. According to political theory, a country can only become freer and more democratic through a bottom-up movement, the validity of which has been proven yet again by realpolitik in Afghanistan. Thus, the process of a paradigm shift in that country must be left to the people there. If a political orientation other than a theocracy based on the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam is to prevail, the Afghans themselves must take this into their own hands and fight for it.
Only in this way can a successful and sustainable ideological change be accomplished in the country, provided that this is intended for the long term. It is critical not to punish the Afghan people by breaking off the dialogue with the new Afghan leadership, as PM Johnson demands, but to support them because the Afghan people’s well-being is still at stake in the question of the future of their country. In this regard, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas’s statement that he will henceforth prohibit any aid to Afghanistan is evenly displaced, as at least aid through charities should continue to ensure the standard of living.
In this respect, the political mantra that China and Russia can expand their power in a country that had formerly been under the Western influence also has no validity. For what matters most here is also the will of the majority of non-Taliban Afghans, who are equally in favor of outright independence after the country was ravaged first by British colonialism in the 20th century, then by the Soviets, and, from 2001, US imperialism. Thus, the Taliban welcome China’s support to rebuild the country, which will bring them economic and reputational gains. Beyond that, they reject any military aid, even though the economic investment will likely create equally strong dependency relationships. However, this demonstrates once again that China is on the right track and identified the Achilles heel early on. At this point, it is even more critical to seize the opportunity and, through dialogue with the new Afghan leadership or so-called soft power, assist the local population and make life easier for them in the new Afghanistan, assuming, of course, that this is the true goal of the West. The last twenty years in Afghanistan, as well as the last century elsewhere in the world, have demonstrated that open confrontation is of no avail.
In the same vein, Turkey’s strategy should be evaluated and praised. Through dialogue, Turkey has set the goal of ensuring the well-being of the Afghan people and its own citizens in Afghanistan, thus creating regional stability and preventing a new wave of refugees. For it is only through the preservation of Afghan borders, intra-Afghan reconciliation, and integrity that the region can bid farewell to conflict and instability in the long run and provide some measure of prosperity to the Afghan people. If the situation worsens, the West will be confronted with another five million refugees attempting to reach Europe via Iran and Turkey. Furthermore, the Taliban is viewed as a threat to the West’s national security and well-being. But it is precisely for this reason that dialogue with the new Afghan leadership must be pursued, as it is the only way to avert dangers –without having to sympathize with the Taliban. Excluding Afghanistan from the international community will harm the Afghan people and cause discontent and further unrest, which could manifest itself in terrorist attacks both nationally and internationally, resulting in regional and, depending on the extent, global instability.
If the West does not learn from its mistakes in the future, there will be more unrest in Afghanistan and elsewhere as a result of more bad decisions. Therefore, it is advisable to seek dialogue as China, Russia and Turkey have done. In this context, it should also not be ignored that the Taliban will also have limited leeway for its previous orthodox course due to the challenging realpolitik of the 21st century. For example, Suhail Shaheen, its spokesman in Doha, has announced intra-Afghan reconciliation and recently stated on TRT World that women’s rights will be upheld within the framework of Islamic laws and that women will retain their right to education and work, indicating a more moderate course already. It is precisely at this point that Western aid and, at the very least, non-governmental support is required to create an equal life for women, instead of going for hard confrontation
