We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Taliban fighters hold Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan flags on the first anniversary of the fall of Kabul.
Jihadists, liberators, or administrators of Afghanistan? The Taliban respond.
The Taliban celebrated the anniversary of their return to power in Afghanistan last week.
They assembled at Bagram airbase, the last military outpost of the 20-year American occupation. Flags were hoisted, leftover US military equipment was displayed, and Taliban soldiers wore uniforms shed by fleeing forces loyal to the former government. Speeches were made, and the Quran was recited.
But not much was said about the continued suppression of women, the escalating violence, or the near-universal poverty Afghans find themselves in today.
So, where does the regime stand, and why should the international community trust the Taliban despite this dismal record? We interviewed Suhail Shaheen, the group's international spokesperson and head of its political office in Qatar. (He’s technically also the UN ambassador, but the world body doesn't recognize the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government.)
Our conversation — edited for clarity and length — was published on the day that ISIS-K claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at the Russian embassy in Kabul that killed at least six people, including a top diplomat, the first such attack on a diplomatic mission since the Taliban swept back to power.
Khan: One year after taking over, what are the Taliban’s greatest achievements and biggest failures so far?
Shaheen: Our achievements in the past one year are restoring peace and security; ending corruption in government departments; presenting a budget based on internal revenues with [the] allocation of a portion of it for development; initiating big agricultural projects [...] that’ll irrigate millions of acres of land; converting deserts into farmlands and gardens of fruit-bearing trees; and launching a consortium of Afghan businessmen to invest in key economic projects.
As far as our failures are concerned, we can say we have not been able to totally eliminate poverty and create job opportunities for qualified Afghans. The reason is we have inherited an empty treasury.
It’s true that Afghanistan’s war-dependent economy was essentially broke when the Taliban took over. In response, the group started pushing for getting access to the over $7 billion of Afghan government funds frozen by the US. That didn’t go anywhere — though the UN did appeal to finance the humanitarian crisis triggered by drought and displacement during the last winter.
Khan: Afghanistan’s funds remain frozen and the country remains cut off from the international finance system because it is run by a government nobody recognizes. What does this mean to the Taliban?
Shaheen: These are more political decisions in nature rather than legal ones. Legally, we have all the requirements needed for recognition of a country like having control over the country, being able to defend borders, and having the support of the people. It is a fact that some tools are used against us as pressure; this also includes the matter of not recognizing the current government. However, the present government in Afghanistan is an objective reality, and should be treated as such.
Khan: Claiming the support of the people is a stretch. In August, women marching for their rights in Kabul were dispersed by automatic gunfire. This followed a rollback of the announced policy of allowing girls to attend schools, which was vetoed by Mullah Haibatullah, the Taliban’s supreme leader. Doesn’t this reveal divides within the Taliban regime?
Shaheen: We all agree that access to education is the basic right of the Afghan people, but how to implement this in the light of the Islamic rules and norms of the Afghan society is a matter of deliberation. Now, the issue of opening secondary schools for girls is pending until a new order from the supreme leader.
Khan: But it’s not just about women, some of whom are allowed to work in essential services and humanitarian relief. The Taliban are also criticized for not being inclusive of Afghanistan’s complex ethnic makeup. In the north, the pro-democracy National Resistance Front continues to put up a fight. The problem is that countries won’t work with the Taliban because the Taliban won’t work with all Afghans.
Shaheen: We have representatives of all Afghan ethnicities in the government. For us, it is an inclusive government. However, their definition of inclusive government is different. This is the crux of the matter. They want some high-profile officials of the past government installed in the current one, while we have a different view.
Khan: The Taliban promised peace, but the security situation is still worrisome. Even top Taliban clerics have been killed in a spate of attacks across the country. The International Crisis Group says that the Taliban now face not just one front, but two, ISIS-K in the east and the NRF in the north.
Shaheen: Security is prevalent all over the country. Our opponent's forces do not have a physical presence in any area of the country. Our opponents are in hiding mode. Similarly, they are not able to launch massive attacks against our security forces.
However, they launch individual attacks here and there on soft targets like mosques or schools. This further marginalizes them in the society and reveals their brutal nature to people. Also, security in Afghanistan is in the interest of the international community, while lack of it harms us all.
Khan: But if the Taliban really were concerned about the safety of the international community, why would they allow terror outfits like the Pakistani Taliban to still operate from Afghanistan, as alleged by Pakistan, the US, and even the UN? And what about the presence of al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri in a Kabul residence linked to the Haqqanis, the clan of the Taliban’s interior minister?
Shaheen: The Pakistani Taliban do not operate in Afghanistan, but Pakistani authorities requested us to host talks between the two sides, which we did because we want peace and stability in the region. Each time they would come to Kabul from across the border, take part in negotiations, and return back to their places. This we did in order to play a positive role for the cause of peace.
[Al-Zawahiri] is a US claim. We have launched a comprehensive investigation to find out the veracity of the claim. However, one thing is clear: our leadership was unaware of his presence.
Khan: From having reneged on their agreement to upkeep citizens’ rights to the al-Zawahiri killing, do the Taliban have a message for a skeptical international community that doubts the regime’s intentions because of growing evidence that the Taliban cannot divorce themselves from their jihadist roots?
Shaheen: My message to the international community is that the current government is a reality. The Afghan people have suffered a lot during the past four decades. The current sanctions add more suffering. These should come to an end. The approach of marginalization and confrontation is a vicious circle, we should come out of it. Instead, we should have engagement which, I think, will hopefully resolve outstanding issues.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan meets with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in Lviv, Ukraine.
What We're Watching: Erdogan's diplomacy, carnage at Kabul mosque, US-Taiwan trade talks
Erdogan is everywhere
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been very busy this week. On Thursday, he flew to Lviv to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and UN Secretary-General António Guterres, the Turkish president’s first visit to Ukraine since Russia’s war began six months ago. Erdogan, who has tried to position himself as an elder statesman and mediator between Kyiv and Moscow, vowed to help rebuild Ukrainian infrastructure just weeks after brokering a deal with Russia to resume Ukrainian grain exports from Black Sea ports amid a global food crisis. The trio also discussed efforts to secure a contested nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine. This comes a week after Erdogan held a face-to-face with Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Russia, where they pledged to boost energy cooperation. What’s more, Erdogan’s Ukraine trip came just one day after Ankara announced it was restoring full diplomatic ties with Israel. Indeed, Erdogan is looking to get wins wherever he can as he tries to divert attention from Ankara’s deepening economic woes. In a move that made many economists shudder, Turkey’s central bank on Thursday further slashed interest rates to 13% despite the fact that inflation has topped a whopping 80%. Loosening monetary policy to boost growth has long been Erdogan’s shtick, but as a cost of living crisis continues to hurt Turks, his ruling party is falling in the polls less than a year out from elections.
Worshippers killed in Kabul
At least 21 Afghans were killed, and scores more injured, in a blast on Wednesday night at a mosque in Kabul while worshippers were engaged in evening prayers. Though no group has taken responsibility for the carnage, it is thought to be the work of ISIS-K, an offshoot of the broader Islamic State movement that expanded to Central Asia in 2015 and was responsible for a deadly attack on American troops amid the US withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer. Over the past year, ISIS-K has been intent on antagonizing the Taliban, which it says insufficiently enforces Sharia law (the two groups have also clashed over territory in the past). This attack also comes weeks after the Taliban labeled ISIS-K “a false sect,” banning Afghans from interacting with the group. Some analysts say that Afghanistan has recorded fewer violent incidents over the past year, in part because US forces are no longer targeting Taliban strongholds. But it's unlikely that many Afghans caught in the crossfires of this deadly battle for influence — in addition to a growing humanitarian crisis — feel the same way.
US-Taiwan trade talks
The US and Taiwan will hold formal trade talks in the fall, Washington announced two weeks after US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's uber-controversial trip to the self-governing island sparked a furious response from China. Details are vague, but so far the discussions will focus on boosting digital and agriculture trade, anti-corruption standards, and a range of other issues. Taiwan sold almost $66 billion worth of goods in 2021 to the US, which is Taipei’s second-biggest market after China. But the island is far more dependent on trade with the mainland, which along with Hong Kong accounts for more than 40% of Taiwanese exports. The US, for its part, is keen to deepen economic ties with Taiwan as it tries to expand its influence in the Asia Pacific. Additionally, Washington is very hungry for one thing that Taiwan makes a lot of: semiconductors. Although the CHIPS Act recently signed into law by President Joe Biden aims to boost domestic manufacturing of the tech, the US will still need lots of Taiwanese-made semiconductors in the near term. China, for its part, blasted the talks, warning the US not to undermine Beijing’s “core interests.” While the US maintains robust ties with Taiwan, it does not formally recognize its independence from the mainland.
The Graphic Truth: Who runs the Taliban?
The Taliban have been in control of Afghanistan for a full year. But before they took over, they had a shadow government operating across vast swaths of the country, complete with a justice, policing, and tax system. After the US left, and the democratic Afghan government fled, the Taliban didn’t take long to form an “interim” government not just in Kabul but also their own “spiritual” capital of Kandahar. Today, the regime is split, with the all-important religious leadership residing in Kandahar, and the more bureaucratic, hands-on cadres in Kabul. And this comes with its political divides as well: recently the Kandahar-based supreme leader vetoed Kabul’s decision to let girls return to schools. We list the leading who’s who of the Taliban regime.
Do the Taliban even need US recognition?
Back in August, when the Taliban took over, we asked whether anyone in the international community would recognize them. Now it looks like things are heading that way.
This week, the Kremlin hosted a summit with the Taliban that was attended by China, India and Pakistan, as well as all five Central Asian Republics.
The domestically-focused US, however, wasn't there. The US continues to maintain that the Taliban can't be trusted. But does it matter? In 2021 does a Taliban-led government even need American recognition to function and thrive?
Background: who's willing to recognize the Taliban?
Regional powers like Russia and China have suggested they'll recognize the Taliban, provided that the group safeguards their respective interests.
A pragmatic and increasingly ambitious China wants two things: access to Afghanistan's mineral wealth, and an opportunity to build bridges and roads across the country as part of its vision to crisscross Asia with Chinese infrastructure. Russia wants to ensure the Taliban don't give safe haven to militants targeting Russia and the Muslim-majority former Soviet republics in Central Asia.
The isolated Taliban will surely want Beijing's infrastructure investment – and the job creation that goes with it. And while it's unclear how much economic influence Russia has on the ground, Moscow has emerged as the key power-broker in recent months, suggesting it does have diplomatic clout as it tries to maintain good relations with the new government in Kabul.
Moreover, Pakistan has long enjoyed close ties with the Taliban, while Turkey has been cozying up to the Taliban as part of its effort to expand its influence in Muslim-majority countries, and stop an influx of Afghan refugees arriving via Iran. India – worried that a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan would help its arch-nemesis Pakistan launch attacks against it – wants to maintain solid relations with Kabul as well.
But… does the Taliban-led government even need the US' endorsement to function?
To a certain degree, yes. The US dominates the global financial system, with some two-thirds of international trade and lending done in US dollars. It also has sufficient control over the SWIFT system, which allows financial institutions and banks to safely transfer money around the globe. Indeed, blocking countries from this network can be extremely painful (just ask the Iranians).
The US has also used its clout at international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank to compel these institutions to suspend projects and payments to Afghanistan in recent months. Additionally, there is still some uncertainty about how US sanctions might apply to a Taliban-run Afghanistan. Anyone caught doing business with Taliban-administered banks might face the risk of sanctions, as is the case with Iran. This is hardly a solid PR ploy to attract outside investment.
What's more, the bulk of Afghanistan's foreign reserves – more than $9 billion – are tied up in US banks, and Washington has ensured that the Taliban only have access to a meager 0.1-0.2 percent of this stash. Even before the takeover, the country's economy was slated to shrink because of the pandemic. Now, a depreciating currency as a result of a cash crunch and falling imports is making matters worse: the IMF recently warned that the state's GDP could shrink by 30 percent this year.
Still, the Taliban can get support and aid from other places. Indeed, the Islamist group could turn to regional development banks for disbursements like the Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which the US is not a member of, as well as the Asian Development Bank that already has extensive operations in Afghanistan.
And if all else fails, there's always opium. The Taliban have made a mint from opium production in recent years, with the group accounting for around 85 percent of the global supply. Illicit mining activities have also proven to be a cash-cow, as has the side hustle of selling US-made weapons and vehicles left behind amid the chaotic American withdrawal.
Looking ahead. For all the banter about America being in decline, Uncle Sam still pulls (most of) the levers of power in the global financial system. The Taliban can find alternative sources of support and income – but it certainly won't be easy.
Former Central Bank Governor Ajmal Ahmady discusses Afghanistan's perilous future
Ian Bremmer speaks to exiled Afghan Central Bank Governor Ajmal Ahmady on his own harrowing escape and the perils that await the very much aid-dependent country's economy now under Taliban control.
Calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan was a crisis of Biden’s own making
Joe Biden has been looking for a way out of Afghanistan for decades, and regardless of how ugly things get, he's not turning back. After Trump reached a deal with the Taliban in 2020 to end the war, Biden decided to stick with the arrangement, overruling his own generals. Ian Bremmer explains that while he agrees with Biden's decision to get out, he did not foresee the incompetence of the execution. In that sense, the last few weeks have constituted the greatest foreign policy crisis for President Biden to date, and one that was largely self-imposed. Ian looks at four key failures led to this disaster on GZERO World.
Watch the episode: Afghanistan, 2021: Afghan & US military perspectives as the last soldier leaves
Enter China, exit policeman: How the world has changed since 9/11
The world has changed dramatically since the terrorist attacks on New York And Washington on September 11, 2001. Pop culture has evolved — significantly — as have the ways we eat, communicate, work, and get our information about the world.
Geopolitically, the past two decades have been transformative, and these developments have impacted how many observers reflect on the post-9/11 era.
Here are three examples of big geopolitical shifts over the past two decades, and how they may influence our understanding of global events today.
China got big. In 2001, China wasn't even a member of the World Trade Organization, and it was still considered a developing country that was largely closed off from the global economy. In 2001, China recorded a GDP per capita of $1,053 compared to $10,500 in 2020.
Today, China's leaders speak of "a new era" in which China will move "closer to center stage" in world affairs. President Xi Jinping now calls for a "Chinese solution" for the world's problems.
In 2001, China's geopolitical interests were not strictly defined in opposition to the US' (and vice versa). In the aftermath of 9/11, the former leader of China's Communist Party, President Jiang Zemin, expressed some sympathy with the US and supported a call for action at the United Nations Security Council. He also backed an anti-terrorism resolution calling for the ousting of the Taliban that had provided safe haven for al-Qaeda.
That spirit of cooperation is a far cry from what we've seen in recent years, when Beijing, a veto-wielding member of the UNSC, has used its power to thwart US-driven resolutions. When it comes to Afghanistan, China says it is open to recognizing the Taliban and is now working against US strategic interests in the region.
The US is no longer willing to be the world's policeman. In September 2001, the United States was at the height of its post-Cold War power. America was the unrivaled global hegemon, and despite arguments over how and whether to intervene in African conflicts and the former Yugoslavia, there was more domestic consensus across the political spectrum about how and when the US should deploy that power, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. Just one member of the US Congress, California Democrat Barbara Lee, voted against the war in Afghanistan.
American politics have always been acrimonious, yet in the immediate post-9/11 era, there was more bipartisan consensus about what the US mission in Afghanistan should be — and less opposition to the idea that America had a broader "responsibility to lead" to advance American political values. That's no longer the case. As Ian Bremmer recently pointed out, if there's anything that Democrats and Republicans agree on today — and there isn't much — it's that the US should withdraw from Afghanistan. Part of the reason for that, Bremmer explains, is that lawmakers — and American voters — no longer want to be "the promoter of common values."
In October 2001, 80 percent of Americans supported a ground invasion in Afghanistan to get the bad guys who wreaked havoc on New York City. Today, by contrast, there is very little appetite to send American troops to far-flung conflict zones while Americans at home grapple with COVID recovery, crime and other domestic political priorities. The recent killing of 13 US service members amid the hasty US withdrawal from Afghanistan is likely to reinforce that stance. That's not to say that the US is pursuing an isolationist foreign policy — far from it. But American assumptions about the role the US should play in the world have certainly changed.
What is a war anyway? Twenty years ago, a military offensive — a boots-on-the-ground intervention — was the primary way for the US to exert maximum pressure on an adversary. But the nature of war and combat has evolved dramatically over the past two decades. State-of-the-art pilotless aircrafts and "killer drones" can be used in surveillance missions and war, and from an army's perspective, can provide a more precise and less costly alternative to traditional aerial missions. Most militaries, including NATO, are looking at how to use technology to avoid casualties without compromising the mission's objectives.
The United States has been developing its drone tech for some time, but in recent years, China too has been increasingly focused on upping its drone game: China's state-run Aviation Industry Corps has sold advanced drone tech to at least 16 countries over the past decade, and is also building a drone factory in Saudi Arabia, the first in the region.
China, for its part, has pushed back on accusations that its drone production is fueling a new arms race, but the Pentagon is certainly on edge because more countries are developing drone technologies that are being used in war-like scenarios, sometimes by bad actors. (Azerbaijan used Turkish-supplied drones against Armenia in last year's conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, while the Kremlin has agreed to send drones to Myanmar's oppressive military junta.)
And future wars are more likely to be fought mainly with cyber-weapons than with air power projected by aircraft carriers. In fact, cyberspace is an increasingly dangerous arena for conflict. That's true not only for war, but for acts of terrorism — including the next 9/11.
- 20 years since 9/11 attacks - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: The cost of America's post-9/11 wars - GZERO ... ›
- Farewell to the flip phone: How media has changed since 9/11 ... ›
- Hard Numbers: 9/11's enduring toll - GZERO Media ›
- 9/11 and after: A personal reminiscence from inside the machine ... ›
- The alternative versions of 9/11 - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: A safer America 20 years after 9/11? Michael Chertoff and Rory Stewart discuss - GZERO Media ›
Story of an escape from Afghanistan; "I wasn't supposed to be on that plane” - Ahmady
When Ajmal Ahmady saw the Taliban were about to take over Afghanistan, he knew it was time to get out — fast. The former central bank chief was lucky enough to board a flight, unlike so many of his fellow Afghans desperate to flee. "I was not supposed to be on that plane," Ahmady tells Ian Bremmer about his harrowing escape on this episode of GZERO World.
Watch the episode: Afghanistan, 2021: Three perspectives on the brutal close of a 20-year war