On December 20, the United Nations Security Council held a special meeting on Afghanistan, where Roza Otunbayeva, head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), presented her quarterly report on the situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s rule. While assessing the human rights situation in Afghanistan as unfavorable, she called the world’s interaction with the Taliban insufficient, emphasizing the need to intensify the policy of interaction with this group. Additionally, Feridun Sinirlioğlu, the UN independent inspector for Afghanistan affairs, presented his mission report, which he had already put on the table of the Security Council. This report is also defined as a “roadmap”.
Representing Afghanistan at the meeting, Chargé d’Affaires of Afghanistan Permanent Mission to the United Nations Naseer Ahmad Faiq, contrary to the head of UNAMA, stated that the people of Afghanistan are against any kind of interaction between the international community and the United Nations with the Taliban. In the meantime, the reaction of Munir Akram, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the United Nations, was notable and bizarre, parts of which are mentioned below:
- The presence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan is a serious threat to this country, the region, and the world.
- Terrorist groups live in the shadow of the support and protection of the Taliban.
In Afghanistan, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and its affiliated groups have been given freedom of action and are attacking Pakistan’s interests.
- TTP attacks have become more complicated due to the acquisition of advanced weapons left over from Western forces in Afghanistan, and the United Nations should investigate this matter.
- The work of the Afghanistan Sanctions Monitoring Committee by the Security Council should be strengthened to impose more sanctions against the Taliban so that this group is forced to fight against terrorist groups. Any policy of interaction with the Taliban must be conditional on the seriousness of this group’s fight against terrorist groups, otherwise, the spread of terrorism in Afghanistan will lead to another September 11.
- The Taliban should rescind the restrictions imposed on the work and education of women and girls. Munir Akram’s statements can be described as unexpected because Islamabad is still a strong supporter of the Taliban, and more importantly, this Pakistani diplomat has acted as the Taliban’s spokesperson at the United Nations for more than two years. For example, the meeting of the Security Council, which was held specifically on the situation of Afghan women on September 26 of this year, prompted numerous news serious reactions. The reason was that Munir Akram spoke in defense of the Taliban against Naseer Ahmad Faiq, which is mentioned below in part of his statements:
- As a result of the Taliban’s efforts, Afghanistan’s economy has improved, security has been established, and trade with neighbors has flourished.
- The Taliban government should be recognized and Afghanistan’s seat in the United Nations should be given to the Taliban.
- Addressing Faiq, he said that he is an Afghan citizen who does not represent anyone.
- After Faiq responded to Munir Akram’s statements, he addressed the members of the meeting: “I do not want to attach too much importance to the remarks of this gentleman who claims to represent Afghanistan. I think his credibility is in question. He does not have a government, he does not represent anyone, and he does not have credit. In my opinion, it is an anomaly that the Security Council is obliged to invite him to speak to this Council, to spread hatred and misinformation in the Council. I believe the General Assembly should pay attention to this issue. This is a big contradiction. A political contradiction that must be addressed.
“In February, to justify the prohibition of women and girls from education, Munir Akram even said in one of the UN meetings that keeping women at home was the result of hundreds of years of Pashtun culture, which cannot be changed. This comment was met with a huge backlash, ultimately making him apologize. A clear contradiction can be seen between these two statements of the Pakistani diplomat: on the first occasion, he spoke in support of the Taliban, and on the second occasion, he spoke against this group. What the reader gets from reading these two statements is a seemingly serious U-turn in Pakistan’s stance towards the Taliban. Now the question that arises is that if Pakistan’s position towards the Taliban has changed, what will be its next actions against this group? Pakistan has five means of pressure against the Taliban, which it has used, but it has not resulted in the desired result: closing the border crossings, deporting refugees, protesting in international meetings, contacting the opposition forces of the Taliban, and military attack.
On several occasions, Pakistan has closed border crossings, especially Torkham, which is very important for the movement and transfer of commercial goods. However, under various pretexts, it has imposed restrictions on the work of Afghan businesspersons, to the extent that it has placed a heavy economic burden on them. For example, Mohammad Yunus Mohmand, the deputy of the Taliban Chamber of Commerce, stated on December 21, that the seizure of Afghan traders’ containers at the port of Karachi caused millions of dollars in losses. At the Chaman-Spin Boldak border, many restrictions have been imposed by the government of Pakistan that even patients cannot enter the country without a visa. This restriction has led to the mobilization of protesters on both sides of the border in the last two months. Earlier, commuting through this border crossing was free and there was no need to have a visa. Along with the patients, other people on both sides of the border could engage in economic transactions, which was beneficial.
Pakistan has also utilized the refugees as a tool of pressure against the Taliban, but it has yet to yield any results. The interim government of Pakistan has started the process of deporting more than one million Afghan refugees, which has not yet ended. Deported refugees are in a miserable situation on the eve of the winter season, a crisis that the Taliban have failed to manage. However, this group has not done anything to curb the TTP to gain the satisfaction of Islamabad. Pakistan has also used protests in international meetings. Akram, who supported the Taliban until yesterday, called this group a supporter of terrorism in the Security Council meeting. Other officials in Islamabad have also called the insecurity in Pakistan a product of the Taliban’s support for the TTP while talking to the international media. Pakistan Army Chief of Staff Munir Asim’s visit to the United States has also been made to highlight the Taliban’s hosting of the TTP.
These three tools of pressure used by Pakistan against the Taliban have not only been fruitful but have increased the volume of terrorist activities of TTP in that country.
For the time being, Islamabad has two effective pressure tools against the Taliban: support for the opposition forces of this group and a military attack on Afghan soil. The first option seems practical to some extent, but the second option is not. Although Pakistan does not have a good middle ground with the movements opposing the Taliban, especially the National Resistance Front (NRF), Freedom Front, and the Supreme Council of National Resistance for Salvation of Afghanistan, the hosting of the TTP by the Taliban has left no solution for it. For example, a few days ago, John Achakzai, the Minister of Information of Balochistan State, said that the Pakistani government should gather the opposition movements of the Taliban. However, it does not seem very practical for Pakistan to enter into a direct war with the Taliban. This is because it is faced with internal challenges. More importantly, countries like the United States, China, and Britain, which are its friends, are unlikely to support direct war. Furthermore, the important point is the effectiveness of the application of the above two options by Pakistan, which, will become clear over time.
A notable issue is the silence of the world regarding TTP attacks in Pakistan. Thus far, even Pakistan’s friend countries, such as the United States, Britain, China, some countries of the Persian Gulf, and others have not been seriously concerned. This is even though Pakistan has been successful in diplomacy with countries, in such a way that at the same time, it gets concessions from China and the US as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Reactions and concerns regarding the vulnerability of Islamabad from the TTP area have not gone beyond the border of diplomatic frameworks. For example, the head of UNAMA said in the meeting of the Security Council that the Taliban and Pakistan should take measures to end the tensions in the field of security.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the former representative of the US for Afghanistan’s reconciliation, invited the parties to a dialogue to resolve the differences, claiming that Islamabad supports ISIS against the Taliban. The world’s indifference to Pakistan’s vulnerability to TTP can have two reasons: first, this country itself is accused of supporting terrorism; second, the TTP’s goal for the time being is only focused on the geography of Pakistan, not necessarily beyond it.
