Afghanistan is largely a forgotten international concern, overshadowed by escalating tensions in the Middle East and the protracted Russia-Ukraine conflict. And a recent change in America’s high-level engagement with Afghanistan seems likely to push the country further into the background.
Thomas West, the US Special Representative for Afghanistan since 2021, has transitioned from his position, leaving the post vacant. This is significant, not only because of the American-led role in conditioning the global response to the Taliban’s return to power, but also because the United States has no immediate plans to replace him.
The Trump administration is unlikely to treat Afghanistan as a priority.
This carries a risk. International policy on Afghanistan continues to drift, without change from the present approach, which is to refuse to engage with the Taliban – officially at least. Meanwhile, since the takeover in Kabul, the Taliban have consolidated their rule in accordance with their preferences, calling attention to achievements in generating revenue, reducing opium cultivation, constraining corruption, and countering security threats.
Accounts about Afghanistan and the Taliban are now nuanced, foregrounding what appears to be growing if grudging international acceptance of a reality that Afghans within the country already confront and cope with daily.
This moment presents a critical window to reframe how engagement with Afghanistan is imagined.
From legitimacy to credibility, from dictating to detecting
Traditional modes of engagement resting on notions of legitimacy conferred by the international order are increasingly inadequate. Given the credibility that the Taliban have demonstrated in certain critical aspects of administering Afghanistan, a reframing of the international approach that builds on credibility rather than legitimacy is necessary.
Crucially, building on credibility requires a recalibration of mutual expectations, without impelling a reconciliation between the international community’s values and those of the Taliban – an outcome that has been sought unsuccessfully and is likely to remain elusive in the near term.
Moving forward in reframing international engagement also requires shifting from dictating the moments and terms of engagement – by the international community – to detecting moments of collective opportunity to address humanitarian need. A shared understanding of vulnerability serves as a vital first step towards setting expectations and enabling a common minimum agenda of credible humanitarian action with international support.
Reframing engagement: leadership, location, and agreeing vulnerability
A reframing of international engagement in this critical moment should consider the following three elements.
Firstly, the element of leadership and who asserts it matters. The absence of a US special envoy to Afghanistan presents a significant opportunity to recalibrate the leadership dynamics within the architecture of international engagement.
While this vacuum could be unfamiliar and temporarily destabilising to Western engagement, it should be seen as a critical moment to move beyond the inertia of the U.S.-centred approach, which has frequently triggered unhelpful reactions from the Taliban.
In this regard, encouraging leadership from regional actors, such as Indonesia and Malaysia in Southeast Asia, could be particularly beneficial, especially to enable diplomatic engagement with on-the-ground actors to navigate the complexities of Taliban governance, as we have argued previously in The Interpreter.
Secondly, and relatedly, the element of where Track 1 Dialogues are hosted matters, and shifting the venue for talks could reinvigorate engagement efforts. Afghanistan’s dialogue with the international community needs to break free from the inertia of the current Doha-based encounters and the ministrations of those across in the Persian Gulf.
More than ever, a fresh setting with new leadership is required. With Western powers distracted, others are stepping in to engage. Their offers – while narrower in scope and benefit for Afghans on the ground – appeal to the Taliban.
There are Afghanistan-based civil society actors, Taliban interlocutors, and technical members of the local authorities who have been working quietly to develop and discuss such an agenda, which includes the conditions for return to school for teenage girls and the conditions for return to work for women.
Third, at the heart of this reframing is the element of shared vulnerability underlying a common minimum agenda that both the Taliban and the international community can discuss and agree on the basis of joint definition of vulnerability.
The UN estimates in its appeal that 23.7 million Afghans require humanitarian assistance, which is comprehensive in need across demography and geography. On the other hand, it is unclear if the Taliban view humanitarian vulnerability similarly, preferring instead to prioritise those with drug addiction, mental illness and physical disability as well as war widows, disaster displaced, and so on.
Unless verified, the Taliban definition and estimate of vulnerability should be assumed to be at significant variance with the international community.
As we have highlighted in our earlier analysis, this agenda should prioritise achievable, mutually beneficial goals – at present it is an agenda for humanitarian action that overlaps to acceptable degree with Taliban interpretations of Afghan public-facing need.
Overall, the focus must shift from convergence of values to issues of mutual concern and interest. There are Afghanistan-based civil society actors, Taliban interlocutors, and technical members of the local authorities who have been working quietly to develop and discuss such an agenda, which includes the conditions for return to school for teenage girls and the conditions for return to work for women. Their considerable agenda development and advocacy should be included and elevated as part of this reframing.
Seizing the moment
Thoughtful, measured interaction between Afghan stakeholders on the ground and the international community is essential to reframe and support engagement. The burden to seize this moment is shared, and opportunities to converse with the Taliban in this regard should be explored with openness and supported generously.
Adopting a position of detection allows for openness to opportunity and to agile action in a shared, evolving understanding of contextual vulnerability, even when values remain fundamentally different.
In due course, as the contextual needs evolve, the same approach to framing engagement can serve to anchor appropriate collective action that serves Afghan and broader good. With careful facilitation and a focus on credible actions, while far from perfect, there is still an opportunity to take steps that can help point Afghanistan away from further isolationism and disengagement.
