New crises come about constantly, from war to wildfires, vying for a share of our attention. But in Afghanistan, many Afghans remain in dire straits, especially women. We must not forget that American choices helped to cause the situation there, so American responsibility for helping them remains.
U.S. goals for Afghanistan are clear; we just aren’t achieving them. They include: obtaining counterterrorism cooperation, vastly improving the Taliban-led government’s treatment of women, controlling dangerous narcotics, and stabilizing the country to prevent destabilizing surrounding countries — a goal that calls for broadening the government.
Afghans in touch with senior Taliban leaders tell me that even some of them are aware that long-term stability is unlikely with a government resting on only a fraction of the Pashtun population. But how to broaden it without losing control eludes them, and they see foreign demands for “inclusive government” as code for giving up the power they spent 20 years of struggle and thousands of lives to achieve.
The Taliban remain unresponsive to our pressures. They understand us as little as we understand them and are highly suspicious of our intent. Does America want regime change in Afghanistan, or would changed policies lead to recognition and help? The Taliban cite America’s unrelenting criticism — actually well deserved — over women’s conditions while noting that we refuse to recognize the improvements they have brought to the country, including improved security overall and a reported lessening of corruption at border crossings.
There are no silver policy bullets. America should not give concessions for promises, nor give up its demands for changes in the treatment of women. But resting in sterile immobility achieves nothing. There are two steps we can take — one, to recognize a huge change in drug control and two, to shift some of the burden of relief away from U.S. taxpayers by enabling Afghan citizens to help themselves. This might open a very small space for dialogue and would serve our interests.
The Taliban announcement, within months of taking control, of a ban on opium poppy cultivation was greeted with considerable skepticism. Now, the BBC and new spectral photography and analysis document a massive reduction of poppies — far more than the U.S. ever achieved — as well as a huge reduction in methamphetamine production. As David Mansfield, for years the leading researcher on Afghan poppy cultivation, reports, “The reality is, an effective ban on poppy cultivation has been imposed in Afghanistan in 2023 and opium production will be negligible compared to 2022. … In Helmand, cultivation has fallen from more than 120,000 hectares in 2022 to less than 1,000 hectares in 2023.”
There is some skepticism about Taliban motives and whether the ban will continue next year. For now, however, recognizing publicly the Taliban’s achievement in this effort would be justified — and would be a small step toward showing that the U.S. is not totally hostile to the regime when it takes actions we regard as positive.
The second area for action is humanitarian relief. Nineteen million Afghans face extreme food scarcity, the World Food Program estimated last year. International aid is shrinking. The United Nations’ appeal for humanitarian aid for Afghanistan is unlikely to be met as new needs — in Ukraine and elsewhere — pull on the same donors. America is the most generous aid donor for Afghanistan, but is also seen as being most responsible for conditions there given our decision to quit the war. The U.S. should avoid aiding the Taliban, but neither is it in our interest to throttle the economy and starve the Afghan people. A partial answer lies in ceasing to block Afghan citizens from helping themselves.
For example, several sources have confirmed to me that approximately $700 million belonging to private Afghans, and deposited for security in America, is frozen in U.S. banks. That money is neither the Taliban’s nor ours. We have no moral right to hold it and should release it to the owners. Doing so would not solve all problems, but the result could be a stimulus to the Afghan economy, a sign of true concern — and it’s the right thing to do.
Other steps could allow Afghans to do more business and improve economic conditions. Many legal transfers of money are blocked because nervous U.S. banks refuse transactions, despite U.S. government assurances that they are legal. Besides harming the Afghanistan economy, this blockage results in monthly cash shipments by the United Nations to fund humanitarian relief; a form of transfer that’s harder to track and more subject to leakage than bank transfers.
Returning private funds and loosening some banking restrictions would not end Afghanistan’s dire humanitarian situation, but these moves could alleviate some of the problem and, by letting Afghan businesses grow, could allow more Afghans to feed themselves.
There would be some leakage of funds to the Taliban. Perfect controls will never exist, and they don’t now. But not assisting with positioning Afghans to help themselves will leave America to choose between giving more taxpayer money for relief or shouldering the moral responsibility for any deaths that occur. Neither of those choices is where we want to be.
America needs to continue putting various pressures on the Taliban. It should continue to lead the international consensus demanding that the Taliban reverse its actions against women and help to control terrorism. It can hold fast to these policies and sanctions and still find room to recognize progress, give the Taliban credit when they deserve it, and allow more breathing room for the Afghan economy. Pressure on the Taliban must be separated from hurting the innocents.
Perhaps, if America takes these steps, which do not involve substantive concessions to the Taliban, it will inch us a bit along the way toward creating the conditions for further dialogue and progress.
Ronald Neumann was U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, 2005-07, and has returned there frequently since his retirement.