Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Afghanistan Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 5 Years

1. Helping the Afghan Allies America Left Behind

Author:
Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
In February 2020, President Donald Trump agreed to a deal with the Taliban that would have seen the phased withdrawal of United States forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. This agreement served as the starting point that eventually led to the Afghan government’s collapse and the Taliban’s return to power. In January 2021, President Joe Biden entered office. Instead of canceling the flawed agreement with the Taliban—something that was in his power to do—he merely delayed America’s withdrawal date from May to September. By July, almost all US and international forces had left. On August 15, the Taliban took Kabul. By September 11, 2021, the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban controlled more of Afghanistan than it did on September 11, 2001. During the chaotic retreat, the US left an estimated $7 billion in military equipment in Afghanistan, most of which has now fallen into the hands of the Taliban or ended up on the black market around the region. However, this hefty price tag pales in comparison to the moral cost of leaving behind tens of thousands of Afghan allies who sacrificed so much for the United States over 20 years. In the weeks leading up to the final withdrawal, the US and its international partners attempted to evacuate Afghans who helped the international coalition over the years. By any objective measurement, this effort was a failure. The evidence of this failure was clear for the world to see during the final chaotic weeks at Kabul International Airport.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Taliban, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

2. International Support: How the Taliban are trying to uproot ISIS in Afghanistan

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
The Taliban and the Islamic State in Iraq & Syria (ISIS) seem to have shifted their focus. Latest reports coming from American security and defence intelligence agencies have indicated that, despite the US withdrawal from Afghanistan six months earlier, terrorist groups, such as ISIS and al-Qaeda are less likely to make the country a launchpad for international terrorist attacks against the West. These reports contradicted earlier statements made by senior US Pentagon officials. They had maintained that the newly formed branch of ISIS, the Islamic State Khorasan Province (or ISKP), would launch attacks on American and Western soil as early as 12 months within the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
Topic:
Security, Taliban, Violent Extremism, Islamic State, and Coordination
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, and United States of America

3. Responding to Afghanistan’s Humanitarian Crisis: The Potential Role of Digital Payments

Author:
Michael Pisa
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis continues to worsen, with the World Food Programme (WFP) reporting that 22.8 million people—more than half the country’s population—are projected to be acutely food insecure in 2022, including 8.7 million at risk of famine-like conditions.[1] Even before the Taliban took over the country on August 15, 2021, Afghanistan’s economy was buckling under the weight of the country’s worst drought in decades, a deteriorating security situation, and the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] Financial flows into Afghanistan collapsed immediately after the Taliban takeover, as foreign aid was cut, private sector activity fell sharply, and foreign banks and money service providers (collectively: “financial service providers” or FSPs) refused to process payments into the country for fear of inadvertently violating sanctions and anti-money laundering and the countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regulations. The exceptional nature of the situation hampers efforts to resume normal financial flows to Afghanistan. Never before has an organization designated as a terrorist group by the United States assumed control of an entire jurisdiction.[3] The United States and other countries responded to this novel circumstance by freezing the country’s foreign exchange reserves held abroad; keeping in place sanctions that criminalize most transactions with the Taliban; and denying official recognition of the Taliban as the legitimate head of the Afghan state, which has prevented the Afghan central bank (Da Afghanistan Bank or DAB) from maintaining correspondent accounts with foreign banks. Cumulatively, these measures have limited access to US dollars in the Afghan economy, leaving Afghans unable to pay for the food, fuel, and imported intermediate inputs their economy relies on.
Topic:
Security, Economy, Humanitarian Crisis, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and Middle East

4. Afghanistan: Where US-Iranian interests may yet intersect

Author:
Borzou Daragahi
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
A new issue brief, Afghanistan: Where US-Iranian Interests May Yet Intersect, authored by Atlantic Council senior fellow Borzou Daragahi delves into the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and how the swift collapse of the US-backed government in Kabul last summer not only shocked the United States and its allies in the 20-year struggle in that country, but also Afghanistan’s influential neighbor, Iran. As refugees continue to stream into Iran, the government in Tehran has still not recognized the Taliban regime and remains worried about a further deterioration in Afghanistan’s economy and social cohesion, as well as the growing presence of Sunni Jihadi militants. As Iran-Afghan relations evolve, will US concerns about Afghanistan’s fragile state provide a basis for tacit cooperation between Washington and Tehran, similar to what existed when the Taliban was last in power?
Topic:
Government, Taliban, Geopolitics, Economy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iran, South Asia, and United States of America

5. Lessons from NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan

Author:
Benjamin Zyla and Laura Grant
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
AFter US troops began withdrawing from Afghanistan on 1 May 2021, the Taliban launched an offensive to take back control of the country. By August, the militants had retaken con- trol of most (administrative) districts and President Ashraf Ghani and other key officials fled the country. NATO Allies rushed to close nearly all of the military and civilian infrastructure they had built since 2001, and hastily set up air bridges to evacuate their citizens and personnel from Kabul. Most of this was done by the member states while NATO as an organization mainly stood on the fringes. Critics have focused on these events to call for an evaluation of this hasty and uncoordinated withdraw- al, and of the entire Afghan intervention more gener- ally. Among others the NATO Parliamentary Assem- bly called upon member governments and parliaments of the North Atlantic Alliance not only to “conduct a thorough, clear-eyed, and comprehensive assessment of the Alliance’s 20-year engagement in Afghanistan”, but also demanded to incorporate these lessons into “NATO’s New Strategic Concept”.1 This Policy Brief aims to contribute to the lessons learned analysis that will be central to discussions at the NATO Summit this coming June in Spain. We of- fer eight findings and recommendations, based on a four-year long study of the effectiveness of the Af- ghan intervention.2
Topic:
NATO, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Europe, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

6. An Unfinished Agenda: Carving Out Space for Humanitarian Action in the UN Security Council’s Counterterrorism Resolutions and Related Sanctions

Author:
Agathe Sarfati
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the UN Security Council has developed two main streams of work related to counterterrorism: the sanctions regime established by Resolution 1267 and measures under Resolution 1373. However, these resolutions and related sanctions regimes have been criticized for failing to safeguard and facilitate impartial humanitarian action. In response, the council has progressively incorporated language that better considers international humanitarian law (IHL) and humanitarian principles. Despite these efforts, humanitarian organizations have continued to criticize counterterrorism resolutions and related sanctions regimes for inhibiting humanitarian activities. This policy paper considers how the Security Council’s counterterrorism resolutions and related sanctions regimes can continue making progress to better protect humanitarian action. It begins by describing the council’s main streams of work on counterterrorism as well as their subsidiary organs. The second section discusses the impact of these counterterrorism measures on impartial humanitarian activities. The third section then reviews the incremental steps taken by the Security Council to incorporate language relevant to IHL and humanitarian affairs into these measures. The fourth section analyzes the four most recent counterterrorism-related resolutions adopted by the Security Council. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for entities both within and outside of the UN to better safeguard humanitarian action within counterterrorism resolutions and related sanctions regimes: For humanitarian organizations, relevant civil society groups and UN entities, and independent experts: Advocate to keep humanitarian action high on the Security Council agenda; Monitor the implementation of the humanitarian exception for Afghanistan; and Issue independent opinions on advisable forms of humanitarian carve-outs. For the UN Security Council and other UN member states: Reinforce implementation and monitoring of provisions in Security Council resolutions pertaining to IHL and humanitarian action; Provide adequate resources to monitor the impact of UN counterterrorism measures and related sanctions on humanitarian action; Amend language in UN counterterrorism resolutions and related sanctions regimes to facilitate humanitarian action; and Empower elected members of the Security Council to be agents of change.
Topic:
Sanctions, Counter-terrorism, UN Security Council, and Humanitarian Response
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and Global Focus

7. When Interventions Fail: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Latin America

Author:
Leticia Abad and Noel Maurer
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
In the middle of 2021, despite two decades of effort, the Afghan government collapsed in just nine days. The United States failed to create a state with the capacity to control its own armed forces or local officials. As early as 2009, eight years into the intervention, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry had already noted that the Afghan government could not carry out most state functions and that its leadership showed little interest in trying. U.S. civilians and soldiers tried to fill the gap.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, State Building, and Intervention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Latin America, and United States of America

8. Strategic Patience: Sustainable Engagement with a Changed Afghanistan

Author:
Adam Weinstein
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
One year after the United States withdrew its military from Afghanistan, relations between the two countries are stuck in a holding pattern. The United States remains the single largest humanitarian donor to the people of Afghanistan, with over $774 million USD distributed since the Taliban takeover, but the United States maintains no diplomatic presence in the country — nor does it send official diplomatic envoys.1 U.S. sanctions have not altered the Taliban’s calculus on human rights or ties with al-Qaeda. The Taliban has proved intransigent and unrealistic in its relations not only with Washington but with neighboring countries like Pakistan. Its senior leaders lack a coherent vision for the country and its emir remains reclusive.2 Future U.S. policymakers might be tempted to disengage diplomatically and economically from Afghanistan and instead rely primarily on “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism.3 The most likely consequence of this approach would be a more isolated and unstable Afghanistan, which in turn could foster an even more permissive environment for transnational terrorists. Consistent diplomacy tied to long-term U.S. security objectives is likely to produce incremental results at best, but is still preferable to diplomatic disengagement or military intervention. This brief provides a concise background and analysis of the most pressing issues affecting U.S. interests in Afghanistan. It draws on open source data; interviews with government officials — including from the de facto Taliban government; and interviews with private analysts that were conducted remotely or in person — in the United States, Pakistan, and Qatar. Broad policy recommendations • The United States should work closely with regional countries, including Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to ensure they are prepared to handle security challenges as they emerge. If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is revived, opportunities may emerge to engage Iran on Afghanistan. These should include routine dialogue, intelligence sharing, and capacity building, such as policing and border security. Washington should engage separately with India and Pakistan to bolster humanitarian aid and limited commerce to Afghanistan. • The United States should reiterate mutual responsibilities under the 2020 agreement it signed with the Taliban in Doha, but recognize that it lacks effective enforcement mechanisms and therefore is better understood as an aspirational framework. • Formal recognition of the de facto Taliban government should be withheld until it demonstrates a clear commitment to its counterterrorism responsibilities and respect for basic human rights, including for women. But Washington should place diplomats in Afghanistan either through the creation of an in-country Afghanistan affairs unit, whether based in the prior U.S. Embassy or inside a friendly third country’s diplomatic mission, or by sending temporary delegations to Kabul, as our allies have. This should be coupled with multilateral steps to remove the leadership’s travel privileges. It is important that U.S. officials interact with Taliban cabinet members in Kabul and other Taliban stakeholders based in Kandahar.4 Direct outreach by U.S. military officials and the intelligence community may have utility but it is not a replacement for a coherent civilian-led diplomatic strategy. • Sanctions intended to target the Taliban as a non-state actor now extend far beyond their original scope, since they became the de facto government of Afghanistan. If not yet determined, the U.S. government should communicate what steps the Taliban must take to be de-listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Group.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Engagement
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia, India, and United States of America

9. A question of balance: India and Europe after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Author:
Frédéric Grare
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
European officials are frustrated at India’s apparent fence-sitting over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet, for Indian policymakers, maintaining a workable relationship with Russia is central to counterbalancing Chinese hegemony in their shared neighbourhood. India also depends significantly on Russia for arms supplies, including advanced systems that help it keep pace with China. Despite this, India has for some time been slowly decoupling from Russia and strengthening its relations with the West, especially the US. Europeans should be aware of how India defines its own strategic positioning, and support India where possible as they negotiate the tricky issues relating to the Indo-Pacific region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sanctions, Arms Trade, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and India

10. Looking for Legitimacy: Taliban Diplomacy Since the Fall of Kabul

Author:
Aaron Y. Zelin
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The group’s international profile has risen substantially with help from China, Turkey, and other states, but Western leaders should curtail their engagement so long as Kabul keeps gaslighting them about its al-Qaeda ties. When the Taliban first ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized its “Islamic Emirate.” Yet while no country has officially recognized the new government established after the group recaptured Kabul one year ago, the Taliban is far less isolated today than it was during its first iteration. In March, for example, Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu called for international recognition of the Islamic Emirate, while his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov argued that it should be granted a seat at the United Nations. Just how extensive is this diplomatic momentum? And how might it be affected by the July 31 targeted killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was reportedly being sheltered in Kabul by Taliban interior minister Sirajuddin Haqqani?
Topic:
Diplomacy, Terrorism, Reform, Taliban, Democracy, and Legitimacy
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia