- US objective in Doha was to discuss key issues and pursue its ‘relatively limited’ interests with the Taliban, Kugelman tells Anadolu
- Very unlikely there would be any major policy changes until after November presidential election, says US Institute of Peace senior expert Andrew Watkins
ISTANBUL
The latest UN-sponsored talks aimed at increasing international engagement with Afghanistan brought together representatives from some two dozen countries in Qatar’s capital Doha.
More importantly, this round – the third since May 2023 – marked the first time that Afghanistan’s interim Taliban administration was present at the talks.
They presented some key demands, including the removal of sanctions on Afghanistan’s banking sector and the unfreezing of central bank reserves worth some $7 billion blocked by the US.
Taliban representatives also held talks with US officials on the sidelines of the June 30-July 1 meeting, including on prisoner exchanges, raising a critical question about whether there could be further engagement between the two sides down the line.
Michael Kugelman, director of the US-based Wilson Center’s South Asia Institute, believes there is a possibility of more engagement, but without any sort of steps toward recognition of the Taliban.
“My sense is that the US is firmly entrenched in a global diplomatic consensus on policy toward the Taliban, and that is a willingness to engage without extending formal recognition to the Taliban. I don’t think that has changed,” Kugelman told Anadolu.
The US decision to participate in the meeting was a reflection of that consensus, he said, adding it was all about “engaging and trying to discuss key issues with the Taliban, trying to pursue key US interests with the Taliban.”
However, he said those interests are “relatively limited” for the US.
“But I think they do include some very important objectives like trying to make headway and figuring out how to get the very small number of Americans still in Afghanistan out,” he said.
State Department spokesman Vedant Patel confirmed that Thomas West, US special representative for Afghanistan, and Rina Amiri, the special envoy for Afghan women, girls and human rights, met directly with Taliban representatives in Doha.
“During these meetings, Special Representative West pressed for the immediate and unconditional release of US citizens unjustly detained in Afghanistan, noting that these detentions impede progress in the Taliban’s own desire for international recognition,” Patel told reporters at a press briefing.
From the other side, the interim administration’s chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said Taliban representatives conveyed that Afghans held by the US, including at Guantanamo Bay, must be released in exchange.
According to Kugelman, these discussions represent a “key step” to evaluate “what the Taliban is willing to do and what types of obstacles it would pose.”
However, the analyst reiterated that he does not believe “the US saw this meeting as an opportunity to get closer to the Taliban.”
Disagreements persist
Andrew Watkins, a senior expert on Afghanistan at the US Institute of Peace, thinks the UN is attempting to facilitate a process that is much more of a delicate balancing act than a clear-cut process of normalization of the Taliban.
“It is undeniable that for the Taliban to be engaging with the world at this international scale, with the UN acting as host and facilitator, with the high-profile media attention that all of this brings, that certainly provides the Taliban with some public relations legitimacy, even if international legitimacy is not being awarded in any formal way,” he told Anadolu.
The Taliban are being treated more and more like, as the UN says, the “de facto authorities” running Afghanistan, he added.
However, Watkins pointed out that many of the countries involved in the UN process “are in disagreement and continue to debate about the scope of normalization and what they would want to see from the Taliban before that can move any further.”
Analyst Kugelman said the goal of the UN and foreign diplomats was to “essentially hear out the Taliban and allow the Taliban to hear the diplomats out to try to get a sense as to where the two sides stand.”
“At the end of the day, if you want to pursue certain goals in Afghanistan, particularly those that would lead to better outcomes, like more economic security for the Afghan public, I think that will necessitate engaging with the Taliban in the way that we saw with this recent event in Doha,” he said.
No formal recognition or major change in US policy
Both experts agreed that there is no chance of American recognition for the Taliban.
Kugelman pointed out that the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, particularly in its last few weeks, was “catastrophic,” so any move to recognize the Taliban would be an “utter political disaster.”
On a possible change in the White House come November, he said there would be “a fair degree of continuity” in the Afghanistan policy under a potential Trump administration.
Donald Trump would “not really be focused on Afghanistan and would certainly not be interested in pursuing a partnership with the Taliban,” he said.
“Trump wanted to get out of Afghanistan. He was never comfortable being in Afghanistan, and the only reason why he was keen to engage with the Taliban was to work out a deal for US troops to leave without the Taliban attacking them as they withdrew,” said Kugelman.
Watkins believes it is very unlikely there would be any significant progressions or changes in the status quo in US policy until after November.
“Afghanistan is such a politicized issue in the US. It is used as a political weapon and an accusation on both sides, both against President Trump and President Biden,” he said.
Officials working on this file in Washington are certainly going to avoid any major moves, progress or changes, said Watkins, adding that there may be much smaller developments, such as discussions on prisoners.
However, he said the US “also has reasons to not want to treat the Taliban’s detention of Americans as being rewarded with the release of other people.”
Discussions would continue on lower-level issues like this, but major changes are “unlikely,” he reiterated.
