In Afghanistan, Don’t Replace Wishful Thinking with Utter Cynicism

by Shamil Idriss, CEO, Search for Common Ground

With NATO forces out and Taliban-appointed government officials now in place, every nation now faces a choice: whether or not to recognize the new government of Afghanistan.

My organization Search for Common Ground has supported locally led peacebuilding in volatile conflict settings and under oppressive political contexts for decades, and our experience leads us to this conclusion: all who are concerned with the rights and well-being of the Afghan people should understand the necessity of dealing with the Taliban.

Any provision of assistance to a population beset by ecological disasters and a looming economic crisis will require the approval of — and coordination with — Taliban authorities. And for the foreseeable future, any progress in protecting the rights of Afghan citizens, including women and ethnic minorities, will have to come under Taliban rule.

There are understandable doubts that progress is possible in today’s Afghanistan. They are rooted in how the Taliban ruled the last time they were in power and in some of the early indications emerging this week. The international media’s portrayal of the Afghan people — either as cowering victims unable to escape (or lucky to get out) or as predators waiting to unleash their terror — exacerbates the sense of hopelessness.

Lost in this picture are the Afghans who are determined to stay. Those who seek to contribute to their country’s development — not by taking up arms, but by forging connections across dividing lines to meet the needs of the people, solving their country’s many problems, and advocating for the Taliban to make good on their promises on issues such as women’s education and avoiding retaliation against their opponents.

These Afghans are hopeful but not naïve. We know because these are the Afghans with whom we work most closely. They know — far better than outside observers– what the risks are. But they also know, better than any foreign government, how to navigate the social, political, and cultural challenges that block the development of their country. That is why they are best positioned to work from within to build a more stable, healthy, and just Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, we need not choose between a misguided hope in the prospects of a decades-long military occupation to yield sustainable development on the one hand, and a cynicism that says Afghans can achieve nothing as long as the Taliban are in power on the other.

Afghans, like all people, have agency, diverse perspectives that confound the stereotypes of outside observers who see the country through their own agendas, and an extraordinary resiliency born out of the decades of war they have been forced to endure.

Some will argue geopolitical and security reasons why the Taliban-appointed government should be isolated. But to the extent that the international community has even basic shared interests in Afghanistan — to avoid the country becoming an organizing base for international terrorism, or to prevent the dislocation of tens of thousands of Afghans that would trigger a humanitarian catastrophe and could destabilize the broader region — they have an interest in securing the cooperation of the Taliban leadership toward those ends.

The Taliban, like all revolutionary movements turned governing bodies, will struggle. They will face internal debates between those who favor more authoritarian governance and those who seek to be responsive to the demands of a population that is, on average, just 18 years old; over whether and how to meet the conditions that outside governments may place on them in return for recognition; and on how to prevent the country from devolving into civil war in the face of challenges from the National Resistance Forces, ISIS-K and others. Moreover, governance across Afghanistan — as in other countries — tends to be negotiated between formal government and other forms of social organization, which can be influenced by local activists for the good or ill of the broader Afghan society.

As Afghanistan enters this new phase, the Biden Administration and Congress should do three things:

First, avoid doing more harm to the Afghan people. Prioritize the provision of basic needs — including food and medicine — by ensuring that any sanctions that might be imposed do not block these goods from entering the country and by meeting — and rallying others to meet — the UN’s humanitarian appeal. The UN exists, in part, to enable international cooperation during times of humanitarian catastrophe in politically challenged contexts. Work through it to prevent the starvation and dislocation of hundreds of thousands of Afghans.

Second, resist the calls from those who would turn Afghanistan, yet again, into a civil war zone of rival factions each serving as armed proxies for outside powers. Indeed, these are the conditions that gave rise to the first iteration of the Taliban in 1996.

Third, enable the continued work of those committed to building a safe, healthy, and just society in Afghanistan. Ensure that U.S. policy facilitates non-governmental organizations that are committed to remain working in Afghanistan in support of locally led efforts. Allow them to dialogue and work with the full diversity of Afghan people. As non-governmental organizations, our political impartiality is our power. While Ambassadors and other official representatives must worry about conferring legitimacy on those with whom they accept meetings, no one cares much if the Afghan leadership of our NGO coordinates with a local Taliban authority on a vital healthcare project or with a professor at a state-run university on an education project that can lift up an entire community.

Hope is a prerequisite for any positive change. In Afghanistan, the international community must avoid swinging wildly from decades of misplaced hope to a cynical kind of hopelessness. Somewhere in between lies the reality of Afghanistan and a realistic hope for its future based on the enduring commitment of Afghans who remain.

Photo credit: © EU — photo by EC/ECHO/Pierre Prakash, CC BY-ND 2.0 license. No modifications were made to the original file.