News
Afghanistan: two years after Taliban takeover the west is letting down the democratic opposition
The US has effectively turned its back on Afghanistan. (File photo: Mohammad Rahmani/Unsplash)
The consequences of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan two years ago are bad enough for the people who live there, especially women and girls, but also for the region and the world, in the flow of migrants and threat of terrorism.
Yet there is little appetite in western capitals to give a platform to opposition groups who want a different and better future for their country, and protect the social benefits achieved at such cost over 20 years of fledgling democracy.
The Taliban administration cannot last – it rules only by fear and violence. It faces internal divisions, with open expressions of dissent by senior figures – some of whom have been sidelined and simmer with resentment. And there is a worsening conflict between the Kabul-based Haqqani network and the political centre under the supreme leader Haibatullah Akhunzada, in Kandahar in the south.
In an indication of how serious this is becoming, a recent UN survey reported that Haibatullah is now protected by an elite suicide bomber unit, who were brought back from action against Islamic State group in the east of the country.
There is opposition to the Taliban inside the country – most powerfully from brave girls and women protesting about their total loss of personal freedom and rights. Shaharzad Akbar, the former head of Afghanistan’s Human Rights Commission, says that they exist without outside support and lack political coherence, but continue to channel the anger and frustration of a generation suddenly deprived of opportunity.
Outside Afghanistan it is a similar story. In the more than four decades of conflict since the Soviet invasion of 1979, successive waves of political refugees have washed up on western shores. These include people opposed to the communists, those who lives were disrupted by the civil war of the early 1990s and then those who could not live under the Taliban’s first regime in the late 1990s. Some returned to Afghanistan and have now fled again in the face of the Taliban.
The difference this time is that those have fled the country look back on two decades which – although marred by corruption, foreign mistakes and poor government decisions – opened the door for unprecedented social reform. Many of the key leaders of the potential opposition, who carry the flame of the lost republic, are under 40 years old. They are the first generation of Afghans since the 1970s to know of the opportunities of education and progress.
Opposition in exile
After the shock of the collapse two years ago, this new wave of political refugees were scattered across the planet. They include former ministers, civil servants, soldiers, spies, women activists, journalists, artists, writers and filmmakers. They took time to settle in new countries, but connected by the internet, they are now organising. They refuse to be called a “diaspora” – they prefer the word “exiles”, barred from their homeland by extremist violence.
The atmosphere at a recent conference at King’s College London was buzzing as former ministers, government officials and civil society activists networked and planned for a better future. Meetings in Dushanbe in Tajikistan and Vienna in Austria have similarly brought together people who want to write a democratic plan for Afghanistan. The resulting “Vienna Process” is a mechanism to unite Afghan opposition groups to develop a road map for a return to constitutional government.
But all these gatherings are supported only by private foundations. The US has effectively turned its back on Afghanistan. US president, Joe Biden, still believes that the withdrawal was right. He is deluding himself that the Taliban are cooperating with the US to prevent terrorism spreading from Afghanistan. Speaking at the King’s College conference, the US’s special investigator general for Afghanistan reconstruction, John Sopko, revealed that he had no cooperation from the Pentagon or State Department when he investigated the 2021 collapse of Afghan forces. They would prefer to forget.
Mission impossible
But dialogue with the Taliban is impossible. The “Islamic Emirate” has no concept of a space for other voices. Taliban exceptionalism makes them unique. But still the US is trying to work with the Taliban on a range of issues as well as terrorism, and continues to be the biggest aid donor to Afghanistan.
This is “creeping recognition”, according to Nasir Andisha, the Afghan ambassador to Geneva – one of a number of envoys still still flying the flag of the former republic. And the US policy of soft engagement comes despite evidence that the aid is being siphoned off by the Taliban.
But the US is not “the west”. There is an opportunity for other countries – the UK, EU, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – who all gave blood and treasure for Afghan freedom since 9/11. The alternative is that other countries, Russia, China and Iran, fill the vacuum of leadership.
Support for democratic opposition will involve taking a pragmatic view of those who have and will take up arms to take back their country. It is not necessary to support the armed opposition – but at the same time it would be counterproductive to boycott constitutional opposition groups that have an armed wing.
There are enormous challenges in building a different track. Non-Taliban Afghanistan is riven with ethnic and political disputes – 40 years of conflict has left much unfinished business. But the former MP, Fawzia Koofi, says that focusing on division misses the point. “It could be that it is the Taliban who are divided,” she says, “while we are actually more united than we think”.
There is very wide agreement on the need to protect women’s rights and oppose the Taliban. But forging a new Afghanistan will not come without cash and support to meet and deliver a different future to what is now on offer.
David Loyn, Senior Visiting Research Fellow, Department of War Studies, King’s College London
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
David Loyn, King's College London
