Initially, when the Taliban regained power, some people believed that their control might weaken and eventually collapse. However, after two years, it turned out that many opponents of the Taliban were deeply concerned about the situation in Afghanistan.
The opponents of the Taliban can be classified into two main groups: the first group favors civil struggle and direct negotiations with the Taliban, while the second group favors armed resistance against them. Although each group holds distinct views and justifications, the main focus lies in evaluating the results and determining which approach will be most effective.
In the current situation, many former political leaders, along with political and civil activists, support intra-Afghan dialogue and direct negotiations with the Taliban, with a focus on resolving disputes through peaceful dialogue. However, some leaders have adopted a different approach. They have chosen the path of armed resistance and have formed groups to fight against the Taliban.
The National Resistance Front of Afghanistan (NRF) wholly believes that the Taliban have not shown any signs of positive change, highlighting the Taliban’s constant human rights violations, particularly regarding women’s rights, which have led to a significant reduction in social freedoms. According to these fronts, considering the current situation, the only appropriate option is to participate in armed resistance against the Taliban. This is because they see the Taliban in a cycle of conflict and violence and see no alternative but to confront them militarily.
Recently, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) published a report stating that approximately 21 armed groups are trying to fight the Taliban. Even though these groups have a shared adversary, they have independently taken up arms against the Taliban, indicating disharmony within them. These groups or fronts have not yet been able to garner the support of the international community. This is because the international community believes that the world has changed, and Afghanistan needs a constructive intra-Afghan dialogue rather than armed conflict.
Despite the Taliban controlling all areas of Afghanistan, it is worth noting that we still observe the demonstrations of brave Afghan women in big cities. This demonstration signifies the ongoing civil movements inside the country, forcing both the international community and the neighboring countries to pressure and encourage the Taliban to make internal reforms and comply with human rights standards.
Although the Taliban do not respond to the requests of the people and the international community, political and civil activists are still hopeful. They believe that insisting on non-violent civil activities can ultimately affect Afghanistan’s internal politics, and with the support of the international community, they aspire to exert pressure on the highest levels of Taliban leadership.
This strategy is conditioned on the fact that the structure of the Taliban is hierarchical (from top to bottom), where decisions and orders are issued from the highest levels of leadership, especially from the supreme leader of this group. Achieving dramatic changes and reforms requires targeting this leadership structure. Qatar has been the official host of the Taliban office for several years, and significant negotiations between the Taliban and the US have been held in Doha, Qatar. This shows that Qatar has maintained its relationship with the Taliban leadership and is capable of influencing them. Therefore, it can be concluded that Qatar’s cooperation is necessary to gain significant influence over the Taliban. Qataris can act as mediators in these situations and use their influence to help achieve desired goals and outcomes.
The recent history of Afghanistan has featured continuous conflicts and civil wars between opposing factions competing for power. From Dawood Khan’s coup against Zahir Shah to the re-establishment of the Taliban regime, armed conflicts and coups have repeatedly led to the overthrow of governments and the establishment of new regimes.
Afghanistan’s contemporary history offers an important lesson: governments that come to power through the use of force and conflict often struggle to maintain stability and instead suffer a similar fate to their predecessors. These violent overthrows have always led to short-term governance cycles; because in the end, they were forcibly overthrown by the opposition groups through armed conflicts.
Although armed resistance can rapidly undermine governments and seize power, it is often costly and can lead to instability. On the other hand, civil struggles that rely on negotiation and nonviolent resistance may take longer, but the ensuing governments are more stable, having a better chance to connect with the people and create a popular support base.
Therefore, the example of countries such as India, South Africa, and many others provides strong evidence that the governments that emerged through non-violent civil movements and national support have been more successful in maintaining stability and achieving lasting peace and tranquility inside the country.
To address the current challenges in Afghanistan and achieve sustainable peace, the most effective way is through civil movements and peaceful negotiations among Afghans themselves. Relying on non-violent methods and participation in intra-Afghan dialogue is the main key. It is crucial to know that the option of armed resistance will only lead to more human suffering and repeat the mistakes of the past, without leading to lasting peace.
