Why NATO Needs to Engage with the Taliban
The Taliban is failing to govern Afghanistan. They lack the financial resources and bureaucratic capacity to even provide for the population of Kabul. The UN World Food Programme claims 22.8 million Afghans face acute food insecurity, which is nearly 60% of Afghanistan’s total population. Not only is the country on the verge of starvation, economic collapse, and diminishing access to public services such as water, electricity, and medical care, Afghanistan also faces a major security threat from the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISIS-K). ISIS-K has carried out numerous attacks on civilian and Taliban targets, including the bombing at Hamid Karzai International Airport that killed hundreds of Afghans and 13 U.S. service members, as well as a more recent attack on a Shi’ite mosque that claimed nearly 50 lives. This crisis comes on the heels of the U.S. and NATO withdrawal and the subsequent suspension of aid from most countries and non-state actors, which has also led to an outflow of refugees. The UN recently pledged to send $20 million from its Central Emergency Response Fund, but this alone will not solve the problem. It is a bandaid on a cracked windshield.
NATO’s position at the moment is that they will not engage or recognize the Taliban unless the new government proves it will uphold international human rights, although the Taliban has repeatedly invited NATO member countries to reopen their Kabul embassies.
My bottom-line up-front is simple: NATO needs to engage with the Taliban to prevent Afghanistan from becoming an Islamic State stronghold and to prevent a further humanitarian crisis.
NATO cooperation with the Taliban would allow the international community to more effectively combat the threat of ISIS-K, which has been increasing its activity in Afghanistan in wake of the U.S. and NATO withdrawal. It would also help alleviate a dire humanitarian crisis that is facing Afghanistan. We have to pick the lesser evil.
Without any support, Afghanistan will further destabilize, and ISIS-K will be able to create a stronghold in Afghanistan more so than they already have. Not to mention the countless Afghan citizens who will be left without food, water, electricity, or any other public services. We can help Afghanistan without helping the Taliban, but not if we wait until the Taliban “lives up to international commitments,” per Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
I am not saying we should ignore the brutality of the Taliban. I am saying we need to prevent Kabul from being the next Mosul, and then we can concentrate on making sure the Taliban upholds human rights. Why should we make sure women can go to school before we make sure they can eat?
Russia and China have publicly engaged with the Taliban without formally recognizing the legitimacy of the new government. NATO can do the exact same, and will still be able to use the “recognition game” to pressure the Taliban. Many NATO members voiced dissent to the U.S. withdrawal, because the lack of a U.S. presence forced NATO personnel to exit in the midst of their own efforts in Afghanistan. Now, there is an opportunity for European NATO leaders to take initiative and help fill the vacuum the United States left behind so abruptly, before Russia and China secure the country for their own interests.
NATO cannot remain hyper-focused on dealing only with “good guys” because the reality is that the United States and NATO-backed Afghan government was incredibly corrupt, inefficient, and flat-out fraudulent. Members of that government were previous warlords, often guilty of war crimes in their past such as former Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum. On top of that, the international community has turned a blind eye towards Pakistan’s involvement in destabilizing Afghanistan over the past 20-plus years.
“Engagement” is vague. What does engagement look like? Engaging with the Taliban can mean a spectrum of initiatives. Priority number one should be getting food, water, and medical supplies to Afghans. Obviously, this cannot be done without permission or input from the Taliban. Engaging in a dialogue with the Taliban can help NATO coordinate with the new government on the safe passage of aid. The Taliban showed they were willing to cooperate during the withdrawal, which indicates they are interested in collaborating with Western nations when they see some form of benefit. What can we offer the Taliban aside from saving their country from starvation? Security from ISIS-K. Tens of thousands of personnel are not needed to stabilize Afghanistan. NATO can give the Taliban two things that can be taken away at any second; air support and counterterrorism. An air campaign can be utilized to weaken ISIS-K and undermine their ability to carry out attacks. Air assets can also be used to help drop humanitarian assistance to those in need. NATO can also leverage the fact that the Taliban is not experienced enough to wage a counter-terror campaign. The Taliban should be incentivized to allow a small contingent of NATO special operations personnel to carry out counter-terror operations while intelligence assets can provide the Taliban with assistance in preempting attacks, identifying ISIS personnel, and dismantling their networks. None of these actions would give the Taliban money or new capabilities; it would simply save Afghan lives.
The Taliban takeover is a horrible thing. However, this is not an excuse to let Afghans starve and continue to be maimed and killed in horrific attacks perpetrated by ISIS-K. Human rights, civil rights, and women’s rights are all things the international community should continue to dedicate itself to upholding for all humans… but these values mean nothing to the dead.
NATO must not remain complacent. Failing to provide sufficient aid and neglecting to assist the Taliban in combating ISIS-K will do more harm than good to human, civil, and women’s rights in the long term.
