Diplomacy is one of the most vital instruments of foreign policy. It has been defined in various ways over time. Henry Kissinger famously described diplomacy as “the art of restraining power.” Yet, political history—particularly during the Cold War—demonstrates that diplomacy can also be understood as the art of augmenting power. Dr. Abdolali Ghavam, in his book Principles of Foreign Policy and International Politics, defines diplomacy as “the art of managing foreign policy and resolving international disputes through peaceful means.”
Along similar lines, Machiavelli viewed diplomacy as a crucial dimension of statecraft, essential for maintaining power and securing a state’s position on the global stage. He considered diplomacy a tool for advancing national interests through negotiation, to achieve maximum benefit without resorting to military force.
Diplomacy manifests in several distinct forms:
- Traditional Diplomacy
- Modern or Open Diplomacy
- Public or Media Diplomacy
1) Traditional Diplomacy
From the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 until the end of World War II, the absolutist nature of political systems meant that all diplomatic authority resided in the monarch. The interactions between kings were treated as the official relationships between states—this framework became known as traditional diplomacy. In those times, diplomats were often close and loyal associates of the monarch. Meanwhile, the general public remained uninformed about the content or direction of diplomatic relations, which usually led to misunderstandings, conflicts, and wars between states.
2) Modern or Open Diplomacy
In response to widespread public distrust toward traditional diplomacy, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, in his proposal for the establishment of the League of Nations, made “open diplomacy” one of its central principles. The goal was to reduce existing suspicions and disconnects between states and their citizens. In open diplomacy, nations publicly disclose their agreements and negotiations, ensuring that their populations are informed and aware of the diplomatic process.
3) Public or Media Diplomacy
The United States first introduced the concept of public diplomacy during World War II. At the time, President Franklin D. Roosevelt used radio broadcasts in 27 languages to rally European public opinion against the Nazis.
How Do the Taliban Define Diplomacy and Engagement with the World?
Diplomacy and foreign policy are closely interrelated concepts. While they can exist independently, separating the two often renders both ineffective. Diplomacy, when not rooted in a coherent foreign policy framework, becomes aimless, fragmented, and unproductive. Moreover, diplomacy conducted in the absence of a foreign policy breeds distrust among international counterparts and proves especially ineffective in times of crisis. Historically, diplomacy without foreign policy has been attempted, but its rare successes were typically the result of strong, authoritarian leadership, not the inherent effectiveness of such an approach.
Till now, the Taliban have not articulated a coherent foreign policy that could guide their diplomatic efforts. On multiple occasions, they have framed their engagement with neighboring countries and the broader world strictly through the lens of Islamic texts and Sharia law. This outlook fundamentally clashes with modern understandings of diplomacy and international relations. As a de facto government, the Taliban appear either unfamiliar with modern diplomatic values or view them as incompatible with their interpretation of Islamic principles. Taliban diplomacy—primarily traditional—is conducted by a select group without any public disclosure. The Afghan public remains unaware of the contents and outcomes of these international engagements. While most countries approach the Taliban based on their strategic interests, the Taliban, either knowingly or unknowingly, portray such interactions as diplomatic victories that legitimize their unrecognized regime and showcase these engagements as proof of their growing authority.
Following their return to power in August 2021, the Taliban have actively sought international recognition for their regime. According to a research paper by Aaron Y. Zelin, published in August 2024 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, no country has officially recognized the Taliban government, unlike during their first rule (1996–2001), when only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates did so. Nevertheless, compared to that earlier period, the Taliban now appear less isolated on the global stage.
In seeking recognition, the Taliban offer incentives to countries willing to accept their diplomats. For instance, China has established high-level diplomatic relations with the Taliban since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, sending an ambassador to Kabul and accepting the Taliban’s envoy in Beijing. However, such engagement does not come without returns. China views cooperation with the Taliban as essential for access to Afghanistan’s natural resources—especially its mineral wealth—and for securing its border regions. Consequently, it has expanded its relationship with the Taliban accordingly.
At the same time, the Taliban—eager to engage with foreign nations—rarely reject any diplomatic overture, no matter how minor the benefit may be. They are also intent on accessing Afghanistan’s diplomatic institutions, viewing them as a pathway to burnish their image and garner international attention. However, diplomacy in the absence of a clear foreign policy has not always worked in their favor. Niccolò Machiavelli, the 16th-century philosopher and historian, emphasized the role of goodwill in diplomacy but famously warned that “promises endure only as long as the circumstances that gave rise to them remain unchanged.”
Countries maintaining diplomatic ties with the Taliban occasionally display signs of instability and mistrust in their dealings with the group. For their part, the Taliban’s perceptions of their counterparts also appear to evolve, and there is little evidence of a long-term, coherent strategic vision. One of the Taliban’s key motivations in gaining access to Afghanistan’s diplomatic apparatus is to place loyalists in various positions across embassies and consulates, primarily to generate revenue. Since their return to power, consular activities have largely continued, ensuring this stream of income remains intact.
That said, diplomatic relations between the Taliban and other countries are primarily shaped by the strategic interests of those countries in Afghanistan. States that engage with the Taliban do so to exploit emerging opportunities that serve their national agendas. On the other hand, the Taliban, facing both domestic and international legitimacy crises, are striving to use these engagements to pave the way for formal recognition of their regime.
Unlike the 1990s, when the Taliban’s authority stemmed solely from extremist ideology and military strength, the group today appears to be drawing lessons from its direct negotiations with the United States and the 2020 Doha Agreement. It now places greater emphasis on regional engagement as a tool of diplomacy. The Taliban aim to present themselves as open to dialogue with various global actors, without making any concessions regarding their theocratic rule in Afghanistan. Through this regional diplomacy and calculated international outreach, the Taliban seek to obscure or downplay deeply rooted societal issues, particularly the denial of women’s rights. Rather than addressing these concerns head-on, they pursue strategies designed to deflect criticism and normalize their governance in the eyes of the world.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
