Attachments
Introduction
This week marks the one-year anniversary of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. For most Afghans, it has been a year of hunger. Donors responded to the Taliban’s violent seizure of power and subsequent repression by freezing development aid and cutting off Afghanistan from the global financial system. While the actions of the Taliban, including egregious human rights abuses, deserve consequences, such measures triggered the collapse of country’s already anemic economy. As famine loomed, international aid agencies and their Afghan partners launched the largest relief operation in the country’s history. These efforts helped keep catastrophe at bay.
But the overall humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan remains one of the worst in the world. Acute malnutrition has taken hold in many parts of the country. People are turning to desperate measures to feed their families. A mix of internal and external factors is to blame. The Afghan economy shows no signs of recovery, and this year’s harvest will likely underdeliver. Donors are falling short, and the war in Ukraine is making it harder to get food and other forms of aid into the country.
The Taliban’s oppression of women and girls is also taking a significant humanitarian toll. Afghan female aid workers are finding it more difficult to do their jobs, and women and girls in need are becoming harder to reach. To date, Western policy has not led to meaningful improvements in conditions for Afghan women and girls. But there are opportunities to better serve women and girls in need of assistance. Donors need to be pragmatic and flexible and exploit whatever openings can be found.
Another challenge to the relief effort lies at the thorny intersection of the Taliban and aid delivery. Donors are understandably concerned that the de facto authorities are benefiting from humanitarian assistance. The United Nations has documented Taliban interference in relief operations. But aid officials in Kabul favorably compare the levels of actual aid diversion to well-known trouble spots like Syria and Yemen. Aid agencies have developed systems for managing Taliban interference. But these systems depend on regular engagement with the Taliban de facto authorities across the country – an anathema to some donors and Western publics.
In addition, the aid architecture in Afghanistan is not yet fit for purpose. Challenges are emerging as part of the UN’s “humanitarian plus” programs designed to deliver basic services and build resilience and early recovery. The sheer magnitude of the international relief effort is also raising concerns over the emergence of parallel systems and a loss of Afghan ownership. Further, aid agencies are taking different approaches to coordination with the Taliban authorities, and the sanctions regime and the lack of a central bank continue to take a toll on aid operations.
More broadly, the people of Afghanistan are paying the price for the yawning gap between donor demands and Taliban behavior. Over the last year, Western countries have called on the Taliban to form an inclusive government, respect human rights—particularly those of women and girls—and make good on commitments that Afghanistan will not once again become a center of international terrorism. These are worthy objectives. But the Taliban have done little to comply – a fact underscored by the ban on girls’ secondary education and the recent drone strike against Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri in Kabul.
Indeed, it is far from clear that donors have the tools to change Taliban governance. On a recent research trip to Afghanistan, no one with whom Refugees International spoke thought the sanctions or suspension of development aid were having a meaningful impact on Taliban policy and practices. Indeed, the de facto authorities have shown little sign of being affected by the delinking of Afghanistan from the international economy. However, the same cannot not be said for the wider Afghan population.
None of this suggests that the international community should now reward the Taliban with vast sums of cash and legitimacy. But donors should be more precise and more realistic about what they are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. At the heart of the policy and strategy should be a pathway towards a sustainable improvement in overall humanitarian indicators and community resilience, and a realistic measure of economic security. In addition, Afghans will a need meaningful say in a process that safeguards their intuitions and capacity where they exist. All this will require greater donor engagement in Afghanistan.