Recently, the English section of the Voice of America reported that the United States is seeking to reopen its consulate in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s control. However, it emphasized that Washington is approaching this cautiously without officially recognizing the Taliban. Following the widespread coverage of this issue, the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, currently situated in Doha, Qatar, rejected the Voice of America’s report, asserting that Washington’s stance on Afghanistan has not changed, and there is no plan for diplomats to return to Kabul—a statement that may not diminish the significance of the aforementioned news.
To verify the U.S. Embassy’s statements regarding Afghanistan, attention to the following points may be crucial:
1- Voice of America claims that the U.S. Department of State has drafted a new strategic document discussing the possibility of reopening the consulate in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s administration. The basis of this claim is not a personal statement but an institutional document from the Department of State. The document acknowledges the importance of ensuring access for American citizens to consular services in Afghanistan. It also states that establishing communication with the Taliban is crucial for the release of American hostages held by the group. Although the document asserts that the U.S. does not officially recognize the Taliban, it highlights the necessity of engaging with the group to advance various goals, such as counterterrorism, economic aid, local participation, consular services for Americans, and assistance to endangered Afghans.
According to Voice of America, these details are included in the Department of State’s strategic document. Without the existence of this document, it seems challenging for a media outlet to provide such specific information.
2- A few days ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives held a session condemning the systematic killing of former Afghan government military personnel by the Taliban. Suhail Sanjar, the publisher of the Hasht-e Subh Daily, participated as a guest and speaker. Participants in the session individually expressed that former military personnel are subjected to systematic slaughter by the Taliban. Some members of the House of Representatives explicitly criticized what is perceived as the Biden administration’s lenient approach to the Taliban.
One day after the aforementioned session, Matthew Miller, the spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, present at a press conference, responded to a question regarding the statements made by members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the Taliban’s killing of former military personnel. He downplayed awareness and stated, “I am not willing to comment on this matter.” However, later, some media outlets reported, citing the U.S. Department of State, that Washington is concerned about the Taliban’s killing of former military personnel but lacks strong evidence in this regard. This suggests that the Biden administration may not be particularly sensitive to Congressional concerns about the Taliban’s past military killings.
3- Recently, the United Nations Security Council claimed in a report that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and other terrorist groups are actively present in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s control. The report mentioned that Al-Qaeda has nearly eight training camps in various provinces of the country. It further stated that while the Taliban maintains its relationship with Al-Qaeda, they attempt to avoid making it universal. ISIS is also highlighted as a strong threat to Afghanistan’s security, primarily targeting the Shia community and then the Taliban and civilians.
In addition, UN experts released a 23-page report confirming the presence and activities of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Afghanistan. The report indicated that ISIS has operational maneuverability in the region and beyond. Regarding Al-Qaeda, it was mentioned that it still has “global aspirations” and its relationship with the Taliban remains intact.
Following these reports, the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) claimed in its quarterly report to Congress that the Al-Qaeda threat in Afghanistan is re-emerging. The SIGAR report stated that the current leader of Al-Qaeda is likely in Afghanistan. It was also mentioned that Al-Qaeda, following Hamas’s attack on Israel, intends to target the embassies of European countries, the United States, and Israel in some countries.
These three reports on the presence and activities of terrorist groups in Afghanistan do not seem aligned with the Taliban and appear to be impartial. It was expected that White House spokespersons would comment on this and show some support for the content of these reports, but the silence from the White House strengthens the assumption among observers that it might not be in agreement with the reports from these organizations.
4- In this intricate situation, SIGAR revealed that the Biden administration has provided nearly $11 billion in aid to Afghanistan over the past two years under the label of “humanitarian assistance” under the Taliban’s control. This matter does not imply Washington’s satisfaction with the current situation. However, $3.5 billion of this aid includes reserves from the Central Bank of Afghanistan, which were recently transferred to the Swiss Trust Fund. Two points are raised in this regard: first, there is a possibility of the Taliban misusing American aid, and international institutions have repeatedly expressed concerns about this. For example, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee has claimed several times in its previous sessions that the Taliban misappropriates the financial aid sent by Washington. Second, many believe that even if the Taliban do not directly misuse the aid, they indirectly benefit from it. In this sense, the existence of this aid addresses some of the people’s needs, and the Taliban may consider it an achievement attributed to their rule. A significant portion of society is unable to discern this issue and becomes unwitting prey to Taliban propaganda.
5- Recently, Xi Jinping, the President of China, accepted the credentials of Bilal Karimi, the Taliban’s ambassador, during a ceremony for the accreditation of ambassadors from over forty countries. This move received strong reactions, with even the United States stating that China must clarify whether this action signifies recognition of the Taliban or not. However, later, Wang Wenbin, the spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, clarified that recognizing the Taliban is conditional on establishing an all-inclusive government and actively combating terrorism. Subsequently, Uzbekistan also accepted the Taliban’s representative as an ambassador at the Afghan embassy in Tashkent—a development that could be influenced by Beijing’s actions. The excessive support of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Taliban, efforts to create a regional contact group, the hosting of a regional conference in Kabul by the Taliban, etc., are all causes for concern for the United States that the group might become a regional pawn.
These five points and their sequence indicate that the option of reopening the U.S. consulate in Afghanistan might be on the table for the Biden administration. However, operationalizing this option may be delayed due to various considerations. If China does this, it is not surprising, as it is not bound by human rights and democratic values. The United States, considering democracy and human rights as fundamental and universal values, naturally exercises caution in establishing formal relations with the Taliban, who violate these values, possibly driven by fear of public backlash.
Considering the fifth point, a question arises: when America’s rivals give high value to the Taliban, why doesn’t this country offer support to anti-Taliban fronts? The United States should do so, but it hesitates. Russia, China, and Iran also need to realize that if the Taliban proves loyal to America, they must turn their attention to opposing forces that are not yet prepared to accept this threat. The reason is clear: the lack of cohesion among the ranks of anti-Taliban forces.