Would you recognize the Taliban?

Would you recognize the Taliban?

The Taliban have returned to power in Afghanistan after two decades. Over the next few weeks and months, a host of foreign nations with a stake in the country's future will have to make a very tough choice: grant legitimacy to a regime that has committed atrocities against its own people, or risk the potential fallout of turning Afghanistan into the isolated, drug-running state sponsor of terror it was prior to US occupation. For some, the decision will depend on how the Taliban behave, while others seem to have already made up their mind.

Here are a few arguments on both sides of the international recognition debate.


Against

A fundamentalist, violent regime that writes off women and girls is unacceptable to those who value human rights. For democratic governments, doing business with the Taliban is an absolute non-starter because they know that whatever they say now, they'll keep women and girls at home, take them out of school, and beat them if necessary to preserve their ultra-conservative brand of political Islam. Afghan women already fear the worst is yet to come once the foreigners leave.

The Taliban hosted the terrorists who planned 9/11, and will do it again given the chance. Al-Qaeda may not be as militarily strong as it was in 2001, but its leaders and fighters are still being protected by the Taliban. After all, the whole point of the US staying in Afghanistan so long was precisely to prevent the Taliban from allowing terrorists to use Afghan territory as a base from which to attack America and other Western countries.

They can't be trusted. The Taliban repeatedly violated the terms of the 2020 peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration by attacking US troops. Who'll believe them now when the Taliban insist they'll respect women's rights — albeit under their own interpretation of sharia law — and renounce all support for terrorism?

Can the Taliban even run Afghanistan without US cash? Actually governing an entire country is way more complicated and expensive than holding territory at gunpoint, which is all the group has achieved so far. If America delays recognition and keeps US-held Afghan government assets frozen, the Taliban will struggle to just keep the lights on. With the value of local currency in freefall and the head of the central bank gone, it's hard to imagine how the Taliban will stay in power for long if they can't pay the bills.

In favor

Mutual self-interest. For some outside players, there is much more to gain than to lose from Taliban recognition: pragmatist China seeks to make money building infrastructure and extracting minerals, while Pakistan is happy to have the US out, despite some big domestic risks. In exchange, the Taliban would ensure access and security for Chinese projects, and keep tabs on the resurgent Pakistani Taliban on their porous border.

If you don't antagonize them, the Taliban can stop terrorists from attacking you. Former enemy Russia is already engaging the Taliban to ensure they don't give safe haven to militants targeting Russia and the Muslim-majority former Soviet republics in Central Asia. China too is worried about instability on its own borders, and about Uighur separatists who used to be friendly with the Taliban.

No one wants a refugee crisis. Among neighboring countries, Iran for instance may offer recognition if the Sunni Taliban agree to not go after Shia ethnic minorities the Iranians can't take in. If you're the EU, doing everything in your power to stabilize Afghanistan might lessen — however slightly — the odds that countless Afghans will want to seek asylum in Europe, where they're also not wanted.

On the other hand, starving the Taliban could make them (even) more dangerous. For 20 years, the group funded its insurgency against the Afghan government mainly through the lucrative drug trade and illegal mining. The flip side of putting economic pressure on the Taliban is that if state coffers run dry, Afghanistan could become a narco-state run from the very top that already corners the global market for heroin.

What do you think? Let us know here.

Ken Burns discusses Muhammad Ali's background and how the journey of boxing's greatest champion is just as relevant today—in sport, culture and beyond.

"He is speaking to us with a kind of force and clarity...that to me is just so enduring." - Ken Burns

No country in the Western Hemisphere is more closely associated with disaster and misery than the Caribbean nation of Haiti. Its latest upheaval centers on news that the country's top prosecutor wants Haiti's prime minister to answer questions about the murder of the president in July. Haiti is again locked in a power struggle among competing factions within its ruling elite.

Why is Haiti still so poor and disaster-prone?

More Show less

For UN Secretary-General António Guterres, the pandemic has made the world even more divided than it was before COVID. That's especially true on climate, in his view, because rich and poor countries simply don't trust each other anymore. If we want COP26 to succeed, Guterres says we must rebuild that trust — or face the consequences of inaction. "If you are on the verge of an abyss, you must be careful about your next step." Watch his interview with Ian Bremmer on the latest episode of GZERO World.

"Pandemic" was the most used word of 2020. "Delta" looks set to inherit this year's title.

Vaccination rates are ticking up slowly. Governments aren't talking to each other enough. Parts of the world are back to normal, while others are still locked down.

Have we actually made any progress since the COVID-19 outbreak?


Unfinished Business: Is the World Really Building Back Better?

Wednesday, September 22nd, 11am ET/ 8am PT

Our speakers:

Special appearance by António Guterres, UN Secretary-General.

Visit gzeromedia.com/globalstage to watch on the day of the event.

Salvadorans protest Bukele, Bitcoin: Thousands of people took to the streets of El Salvador's capital on Wednesday, the 200th anniversary of the country's independence, to protest against President Nayib Bukele's increasingly authoritarian streak and his embrace of risky cryptocurrency. Last May, Bukele ended the Supreme Court's independence; perhaps unsurprisingly, the court then decided to lift the constitutional ban on presidential term limits — presumably so Bukele can run for reelection in 2024. Meanwhile, last week El Salvador became the first country in the world to accept Bitcoin as legal tender, but the rollout was, to put it mildly, messy. The protesters resent Bukele's dictator vibes and warn that Bitcoin could spur inflation and financial instability. The tech-savvy president, for his part, insists that crypto will bring in more cash from remittances and foreign investment, and remains immensely popular among most Salvadorans. Still, Bukele's Bitcoin gamble could erode his support if the experiment fails.

More Show less

22.7 million: Trinidad-born US rapper Nicki Minaj has caused a political uproar after telling her 22.7 million Twitter followers that the COVID vaccine caused her Trinidadian cousin's friend to get swollen testicles and become impotent. The country's health minister called out Minaj, as did the White House.

More Show less

On Monday, Canada's liberal hunk of a PM heads into early elections that no one seems to have wanted... except for him.

When Justin Trudeau announced the move back on August 15, many people questioned the wisdom of holding a national election amid the economic and public health upheavals of the pandemic. "Read the room, Justin," was a common quip, with many saying the early vote was irresponsible from a public health perspective.

More Show less

Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares insights on US politics:

Will the House Democrats actually be able to "tax the rich"?

The answer to that question is yes, the House Democrats this week rolled out a proposal in order to partially finance their plans to spend $3.5 trillion. The tax proposal is notable for three things. One, while it does raise taxes on corporate America, including the corporate rate (that's 26.5% from 21% today), it goes a little bit softer on them than a proposal from Senate Democrats or from the Biden administration who wanted to be much more aggressive in going after the overseas earnings of US multinational corporations.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

UN Chief: Still time to avert climate “abyss”

GZERO World Clips

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal