If the rise of the Taliban government in Afghanistan has eroded the "achievements of the last 20 years" in the case of Tajikistan the rise of extremist thoughts in society could jeopardize the achievements of the last 100 years
Author: Abdullah Rahnamo
The events that took place in Afghanistan in August of the current year, with their complex political, economic, and ideological, value and forceful consequences, began to shape a new political and geopolitical situation in the region. The coming to power of the extremist group Taliban is not just a victory for a political group in Afghanistan, it reflects the changing interests and balance of power, political, economic, and ideological influences in the region. Similarly, we are facing a new political and geopolitical landscape in Central and South Asia that is very different from the situation before August 15, 2021.
The new situation, first, raised serious questions about the concept of "terrorism" and the level, form, and limits of the cause or fight against this phenomenon. Thus, great questions and mysteries have arisen not only in public opinion, information, and political will but also in international law and the practice of this position.
Although extremist and terrorist groups have always been supported and used as tools by regional and global powers though to this day, at least at the level of the conceptual apparatus, political will and frameworks, values, and international law, there were some standards and agreements in principle that accordingly countries and organizations identified and regulated their relations on extremism and terrorism. In particular, at the level of regional and international organizations and bilateral and multilateral cooperation between countries, a large volume of documents and serious agreements were signed, which imposed serious limits and responsibilities on the countries in the occasion of and fight against these phenomena.
The common lists of international organizations, including the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, etc., contained the specific names of extremist and terrorist organizations, making any cooperation with them impossible. Especially after the launch of the large-scale "Counter-Terrorism Coalition" operation in Afghanistan in 2001 and the joint defeat of ISIL in the Middle East in 2015, the official and collective political will of the world was expressed in denying and combating terrorism.
In this legal system and political will the Taliban was declared and recognized as a terrorist group which was undoubtedly at the forefront of the international, regional, and national lists of terrorist groups, that prohibited any cooperation with such groups. The names of Taliban leaders, including 17 members of their current government, were and still are on these lists.
With the beginning of formal and open cooperation between the governments and the Taliban, which had begun long before August 15, the fall of the concept and legal system of the fight against terrorism began, with their unofficial acceptance and the expansion of cooperation with this group after August 15, the global political will has also basically crashed.
Now, these principles and questions have been raised in the agenda "fight against terrorism" again:
- What is a terrorist group and on what grounds can it be considered terrorist?
- Where are the edges of the fight against terrorism and in what case should it be fought, and in what case should we cooperate with it?
- If a terrorist group comes to power in a country or region, is it no longer a terrorist group?
- Is governments’ cooperation with terrorist groups no longer considered as "cooperation with terrorism" and doesn’t it have international condemnation?
- Are international agreements on counterterrorism and international and regional joint lists of terrorist groups invalid?
- Do not regional organizations such as SCO, CSTO, etc., which considered the fight against terrorism and terrorist groups as their central task, face a severe internal and major crisis after the close cooperation of their senior members with the group officially recognized as a terrorist?
- Are the strategic partners, who have pursued extensive practical cooperation with the group officially recognized as a terrorist in pursuit of their interests, still considered "trustworthy partners in the fight against terrorism"?
- Do international standards and legislation in other areas, such as the fight against drugs, kidnapping, money laundering, etc., have force now, or, according to the new logic, if the “drug mafia” triumphs in the country, will it also be recognized?
- Or was the nature of the world, politics, and geopolitics as such from the very beginning, and we, as babies, sincerely believed in its commitment and games?
Etc...
Of course, all of these questions had their relative answers, and they still have their answers in the context of international law. But the behaviour of the countries of the region and the world after August 15th turned these answers into questions more.
The conceptual and interpretative evolution of the situation in this position is so profound that even the value and importance of a large collection of scientific and mental functions and experience of thousands of researchers, authors, analysts and think tanks in the region and the world is called into question: were all these works, studies, and materials necessary, correct and effective?
After all this anti-terrorist mind, environment, and value-building, how did the political world and the international community suddenly surrender to the "new situation" and practically put all beliefs, criteria, and values based on "reality"?
But the practical aspect of this mental transformation was even more serious, making it very difficult to function appropriately with the new situation. In the new space, the criterion of choosing time has become very difficult not only for the experts but also for the political apparatus of the countries.
For example, the concept of “countries collaborating with terrorism” has prevailed in international practice today, according to which, for example, the United States has subjected some countries, including Iran and Syria, to severe political and economic sanctions for many years. If this criterion is still valid, then is it possible today without hesitation to put the majority of our neighbours and partners on a par with "countries collaborating with terrorism", which should be subject to sanctions?
Is not the official meeting of the high-ranking officials of a country with the leaders of the terrorist group or the official visit of the official delegation of the terrorist group to another country considered as "cooperation with terrorism"?
With this explanation, we are talking not only about political ethics or political and civilizational values but also about comprehensive cooperation with a group that has so far been on the "black list" of the UN, regional and international treaties. The legislators of these countries themselves have officially recognized it as a terrorist group; at least formally they have not yet been removed from these lists.
For example, can these countries be sued in the International "Court of Justice" (another evolving and collapsing concept) as "terrorism partners"?
Tajikistan's position's experience of the recent crisis in Afghanistan has shown that today, even believing in and adhering to the officially accepted standards of international law in this area has become somewhat dangerous. Is it conceivable that today some of our neighbours, and especially some of our strategic partners, are deeply offended by us only for respecting international rights and standards in this area, that is, Tajikistan not cooperating with the terrorist group?
More precisely, can one imagine that these same countries that have concluded dozens of anti-terrorist agreements with us, including on the fight against the Taliban, emphasized and encouraged us to this, now are upset with us for refusing to recognize terrorism and cooperate with an officially and practically recognized terrorist group, and consider us the destroyer of their geopolitical plans?
Is it conceivable that in the last three or four months the Republic of Tajikistan was in international isolation only because it adhered to the internationally accepted standards on the fight against terrorism and only because it did not formally recognize the terrorist group?
Likewise, the situation posed many puzzles, where the questions far outweighed the answers. In general, this situation caused a crisis and a great challenge to both the standard international legal system on the fight against terrorism and the global value environment and political will in this area. The new situation removed the beautiful and deceptive mask of hypocrisy used in the names of international law, the fight against terrorism, human rights, etc... Countries "fighting terrorism" are now competing to cooperate with the group officially recognized as a terrorist, each in its way joining this "reality" and "making contact" ...
Naturally, in such a complex and uncertain situation, it will be very difficult and costly for the Republic of Tajikistan to pursue a stable and timely policy. Because most countries in the region, contrary to their treaty obligations, prioritized their interests and traded with a clear threat of terrorism. Larger powers threw Afghanistan and the region into the hands of international terrorist groups, effectively betraying the security of the region and its republics, including the security and national interests of the Republic of Tajikistan...
Analyzing the depth and scope of these events, it can be predicted that situations such as a conceptual crisis and legal instability due to terrorism and an imbalance of interests in the region will persist for at least another five years, leaving the political and security situation in the region fragile. That is, the countries of the region should be ready for trials and fundamental medium- and long-term measures.
If this situation persists and the Taliban rule in Afghanistan is established, this "reality" will become a permanent factor and model influencing the political, security, informational and ideological situation in the region. It reinforces the spectrum of extremism throughout Central and South Asia and gives a strong impetus for the spread of extremist views and circles in neighbouring countries. Its impact on our region, albeit on a much more limited scale and force, would be something like the impact of the Islamic Revolution of Iran (1979) on activating the environment of political religiosity and religious circles in the Middle East.
This impact does not make the people of the region more Islamist and religious in the positive sense, but rather expands the possibility of information, makes religious beliefs more political, and religious and social attitudes more violent.
The Republic of Tajikistan is more vulnerable to such influence than any other country, where the complex of national interests and values, civil rights and freedoms, and in general, modern values and way of life are under serious threat. This danger goes beyond the “probable attack of terrorist groups on the borders”, it may lie in the rapid spread of extremism among certain groups of the population and even the dominance of this mindset in society as a whole. The influence of this open threat will be greater, especially in the current conditions, given the inefficiency of the state ideological apparatus.
In other words, If the rise of the “Taliban” government in Afghanistan has eroded the "achievements of the last 20 years", in the case of Tajikistan the rise of extremist thinking in society could jeopardize the achievements of the last 100 years.
In general, the dominance of extremist thinking poses a serious threat not only to the value complex and interests but also to the Tajik national existence and Tajik national statehood...
In connection with Tajikistan, two other factors double the mentioned risk to national values, national and secular governance:
- Firstly, if modern religious extremism in the Middle East is closely intertwined with radical Arab nationalism, and Taliban extremism with Pashtun extremist nationalism, then most evidence shows that Tajik religious extremism is based primarily on the influence of external ideology and national self-destruction;
- Secondly, having gone through a difficult and long phase of deep poverty and all-pervasive violence and not having found the social application characteristic of the period of conflicts, our remained intelligentsia is also fundamentally discouraged, marginalized, and politicized. The intellectual and information space shows that the intelligentsia does not show responsibility in political and national issues, problems of security, and statehood. With such indicators, such a layer does not act as a national shield in the face of crises;
In short, the new situation in the countries of the region, which in recent years have made every effort to prevent "color revolutions", now faces greater danger – the "black revolution". A black day that can happen even under the watchful eye of strategic partners and their recognition of "reality", what is observed on the other side of the Amu Darya ...
This situation requires conscious governments, without further ado, to strengthen their legitimacy within the country as soon as possible, to change their approach to the complex of political, social, and value problems of society, to ensure the ideological, psychological, and social stability of their internal political system by rapprochement with the people. The new situation also requires a pragmatic revision of foreign policy, which is a separate sensitive issue. Such work in the field of domestic and foreign policy requires both a new, realistic outlook and an informed, competent and realistic working team.
Of course, in the medium term, from the depths of this conceptual and practical crisis of approach to security and terrorism in the region, a new system of understanding and criteria is being formed that defines a new situation and rules of international behavior where conflict, terrorism, and extremist ideas will be rejected surely. Therefore, because of their vulnerability and impact, the main task of the countries of the region at this critical stage is to prevent the spread of disorder to their borders and safely exit this critical passage.
And the central question of this process will be: what will be chosen by the "world", "world community", countries and their influential circles: criteria, values, civilization, rights or their interests and "reality" and recognition and coexistence with the practical power of the "Taliban" and the other Talibs? Now science, law, politics, values, ideology, and humanity itself are powerless to find a way out of this crisis. In the context of this general uncertainty, the fate of the post-Soviet values, experiences, societies, and political systems of the region is unclear, and they face a new stage of challenges and ambiguities.
