The only country that is pursuing a correct and balanced policy towards the Taliban and the situation in Afghanistan is Tajikistan.
Author: Rustam Roshangar, analyst
Before discussing the approach and strategy of the countries of the region towards Afghanistan, it is necessary to answer the question of which countries we mean by the countries of the region, or, in other words, which countries can play an important role in the development and stability of Afghanistan.
The countries influencing Afghanistan in the region can be divided into three groups depending on their level of power:
The first group: Russia, China, and India.
The second group: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
Third group: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.
But if our goal is to classify countries based on their influence on Afghanistan, we will have a different division. For example, when discussing influence, Russia from the first, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey from the second, and Tajikistan, UAE, and Qatar from the third group have the most influence. In fact, when we talk about the countries of the region, we mainly mean the last seven countries mentioned. India, China, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan are in the second degree of influence if we mean real influence. This means that the mentioned countries can also move up from the second rank to the first. Moreover, India and China have become more active in Afghanistan than in the past, and it is likely that in the future they will surpass Russia, Iran, and Turkey in this area. Among the recently mentioned countries, more points can be given to India. In recent years, the country has played a more active political role than its regional rival China.
Now let's move on to the first question. How do the countries of the region (the same seven influential countries) deal with Afghanistan? If we want to get clearer results, we must divide our question into two parts. Exploring 1) the individual and 2) the collective role of the countries of the region. So far, we have never witnessed the formation of a regional consensus on Afghanistan.
After the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, it was believed that this consensus would emerge, but it seems that this was an illusory hope. Today, more than ever, the countries of the region are divided, confused, and not united over the Afghanistan issue. Everyone goes their own way and no one presents a clear and effective plan.
When we look at the positions and approaches of the countries of the region towards Afghanistan over the past year and a half, we are surprised to find that all of them in one way or another follow the American policy towards Afghanistan. Even Russia, Iran, and China, who consider the US their rival and enemy, their policy towards Afghanistan is the same as the two-headed American policy: informal interaction with the Taliban!
As for the Americans, the policy of informal interaction with the Taliban is in fact a policy of "no politics." That is, out of necessity and in order not to leave the field empty, they do some things and utter contradictory and disparate words that cannot really be called politics. To some extent, this may be a natural phenomenon. The US had a military presence in Afghanistan for twenty years and planned to leave the country for at least seven years. Now, although they are talking about their return to Afghanistan, it seems that even if they are honest and serious in their statement, it will take them another seven years to plan and implement a return plan. But, as was said, they think that their regional competitors have not dared to enter the field they left, and this can indeed be considered a strong motivation for the US return to Afghanistan. They see that they left the land to the enemy, but the enemy did not take it. In short, the field is empty, and if it can be filled at a low cost and with a focus on long-term benefits, how much better! In this regard, they are pouring some money into the empty pockets of the Taliban so that they can plan and implement their new policy in Afghanistan.
We said that the countries of the region are following America's policy towards Afghanistan. Why? This issue is the key element of the crisis in Afghanistan and throughout our region.
Russia, the only rival of the US, which should have played an active and effective role in Afghanistan after their departure, has become mired in Ukrainian affairs. Perhaps the correct hypothesis is that by hastily withdrawing from Afghanistan, the US caught Russia by surprise, got involved in the war, and indirectly attacked. Americans themselves sometimes talk about it.
Another powerful country that could become more active after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan was China. Although China has been active in the Afghan economic sector, it has shown no desire to play any role in it. China's economic program in Afghanistan is also similar to how a fox benefits from hunting a lion. China has thrown Afghanistan into the trap and hands of the current shaky and unstable regime and is considering awarding major contracts in the mining sector, which is more like taking hostage resources or, in other words, buying the property of an immature and defenseless orphan.
Pakistan, the first-class patron of the Taliban, has always pursued a policy of subordinating Afghanistan to groups lacking political conscience and national understanding. He considers himself to some extent to achieve his goal after the restoration of Taliban dominance, and to some extent due to internal problems and following the old policy of isolating and weakening Afghanistan, he does not want, or rather, cannot do anything.
Iran, which was somewhat taken aback by the American departure and initially viewed the Taliban as an anti-American group and tended to glorify and praise them, has been dealing with domestic issues and their resolution in recent months and does not seem to have a new plan for Afghanistan. Interestingly, Iran also uses a policy of gaining time and has not yet proposed any effective solution for Afghanistan.
Turkey's policy is somewhat similar to Iran's policy towards Afghanistan. Turkey's ruling party faced difficult domestic conditions, and the war in Ukraine forced Turkey to focus more on its western and northern borders, with a few anti-Taliban military and political figures enough for Afghanistan as a reserve.
The United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which are de facto supporters of the Taliban and have now assumed the role of mediators between the Taliban and the US, have no plans of their own and are subordinate to the US. We cannot expect more from them.
The only country that is pursuing a correct and balanced policy towards the Taliban and the situation in Afghanistan is Tajikistan. This country is well aware that the Taliban and its allied groups pose a serious strategic threat to peace and stability in the region. But the problem is that, on the one hand, in economic terms, Tajikistan is a poor and weak country that cannot independently pursue an effective and active policy towards Afghanistan, and on the other hand, Tajikistan protects the anti-Taliban Resistance Front, so today every plan and proposal presented by this country to change the dire situation in Afghanistan is viewed with suspicion by others and considered biased. And this is despite the fact that, in addition to the issue of protecting anti-Taliban forces by Tajikistan, this country has a correct understanding of the danger of the Taliban, and if you pay attention to the plans of this country and form an international consensus based on them, the situation may change in favor of Afghanistan.
The truth is that the policy of the countries of our region has never been aimed at creating regional peace and stability. This issue can be better understood by looking at the regional policies of European countries, East Asia, Latin America, and even Africa. There are regional policies of varying degrees that have put peace and stability in the region on the agenda. Regional policy means that several countries must work together to create an atmosphere of cooperation and think about how they can support the poor and weak countries in their region and counteract the factors of crisis, instability, tension, war, and conflict that limit opportunities and sustainable development, identify and solve them together. each, to identify and solve them jointly. This has never happened before in our region. There can be many reasons for this, and they are complex. It is not very clear which of the countries has a destructive role or a diverging factor. All in an aura of ambiguity and confusion. Usually all countries equally blame the external factor. Everyone thinks about their own interests, and the feeling of neighborly solidarity and sympathy is completely absent.
Within each of the countries of the region, the situation is not very stable. Many of them are involved in serious problems that seem insurmountable. As if in the strategic calculations of any country in our region there is no place for regional factors as factors that exacerbate internal crises and backwardness. All countries consider the problems either entirely internal and arising from the internal structural relations of their own countries, or they blame distant powerful countries for destroying the order and stability of countries by their intervention. All countries talk about peace and stability in the region and the need for regional consensus to solve problems, but no country has assigned a strategically important role in solving them.
