In a manner that suggests the Taliban are participating in the third round of Doha talks, they have been seen actively engaging. Had they not intended to participate, they wouldn’t have introduced their delegation. According to media reports, the Taliban delegation is to be led by Zabihullah Mujahid, the group’s spokesperson. The decision to send their spokesperson to Doha prompts reflection. Initially, it was expected that either Mullah Hasan Akhund’s deputy, the Prime Minister of the Taliban, or Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Foreign Minister of the group, would represent them, due to the UN’s compliance with their demands. Perhaps in response to Antonio Guterres’ absence, the UN Secretary-General, at the Doha meeting, the Taliban have decided to send a delegation led by their spokesperson; otherwise, their delegation would have had a different composition. The reason for the Taliban’s reluctantly adhering to this standard is clear: the excessive pressure and flexibility of the United Nations.
Political and military fronts opposing the Taliban have expressed their position regarding the developments in Doha to the extent of stating their position. Each of these fronts has issued unilateral statements condemning the Taliban’s participation in the Doha talks and considering it a bearer of harmful consequences. They also reminded the United Nations that recognizing the Taliban as the sole representative of Afghanistan serves neither interests nor benefits. However, this goes without saying, as the United Nations itself is well aware but does not comply. The notion that the opposition to the Taliban is in disarray due to lack of unity has become clichéd from excessive repetition. Upon closer inspection, it is evident that this opposition is not as fragmented as advertised. Look at the Vienna Conference: nearly seventy politicians from ethnic groups and political-military organizations opposed to the Taliban attended. Only two apparent anti-Taliban movements were absent: the National Movement for Peace and Justice led by Mohammad Hanif Atmar and the United Front of Afghanistan led by Samay Sadat. If these two movements had been present, the inclusivity of the Vienna process would have been better achieved. But what would the outcome be? Only the number of guests would increase, not necessarily that the United Nations would heed their lament and deviate from its stance of inviting the Taliban unilaterally. Therefore, it can be said that the anti-Taliban movements have moved beyond the phase of disarray and are approaching relative unity. It is impossible to establish a unified hierarchical order among anti-Taliban fronts and have all of them recognize it. The United Nations will only pay attention to the demands of anti-Taliban movements if they claim to create an “earthly challenge” for this group. No country has yet supported the creation of an earthly challenge. Some countries have expressed their views clearly and repeatedly in this regard.
Not only the anti-Taliban forces but also women’s protest movements have repeatedly condemned and voiced their opposition to the Taliban’s unilateral invitation by issuing statements and broadcasting their voices through media channels. These movements have demanded the inclusion of women representatives and civil society in the talks. These movements are led by women and girls who have experienced the bitterness of Taliban imprisonment.
While the United Nations ostensibly considers defending women’s rights as its primary mission, it has once again excluded women representatives from the main table of the Doha talks at the Taliban’s request. Therefore, when the United Nations does not respond to the voices of protesting women, it simply will not heed the voices of anti-Taliban movements, especially those engaged in armed struggle.
International human rights bodies and organizations defending women’s rights have also raised their voices in lament for women’s rights, yet the United Nations has turned a deaf ear. Human rights watchdogs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly taken positions, but have received no response. While these organizations share common goals with the United Nations and are considered its subsidiaries, their words should not be ignored. Even a body known as the “Non-Governmental Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security,” composed of eighteen international organizations, gave the United Nations a three-day deadline to respond to women’s concerns regarding the Doha talks, but a clear response has still not been provided. The weight of these entities on the global scale is significant, yet the United Nations does not follow through with their words. When this is the case, it’s not surprising that the United Nations’ disregard for the positions of anti-Taliban movements and women’s protest movements comes with little astonishment.
The G7 group also criticized and called for a review of the agenda of the Doha talks, a request that was not accepted. This comes even though governments of G7 member countries have the most influence on UN decisions. The criticism from the G7 escalated to the extent that the media speculated about the possibility of their special representatives not attending the Doha talks. However, this speculation was quickly refuted, with the United States, as the most important member, declaring its representative would participate in the talks. Regardless of their positions’ seriousness or lack thereof, the UN’s disregard for their requests is noteworthy. When the UN stands by the Taliban against the G7, its ignoring of the Vienna Process facilitators’ voices becomes understandable.
The stance of the United Nations indicates it is not pursuing a solution to Afghanistan’s crisis, otherwise it would not exclusively favor the Taliban. Recently, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric remarked in response to reactions and criticisms, “The Doha talks are not intended to be an intra-Afghan dialogue.” If accurate, this statement is disheartening. Furthermore, Rosemary DiCarlo, UN Deputy Secretary-General, stated that the issue of appointing a special representative for Afghanistan has been put on hold, despite the G7’s call for clarification on this matter. All these indications suggest that the United Nations lacks a plan to resolve Afghanistan’s crisis and sees the solution in accommodating the Taliban while ignoring non-Taliban stakeholders. Therefore, it falls on non-Taliban stakeholders to disrupt the UN’s complacency and demonstrate that recognizing the Taliban as Afghanistan’s sole representative does not solve the problem.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here: