The New Afghanistan, with an Old Taliban

What happened?
On 4 September, Kabul airport became functional, and news reports mention the first domestic flight taking off. 

On 4 September, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar told Al Jazeera, "I assure the people that we strive to improve their living conditions and that the government will be responsible to everyone and will provide security because it is necessary for economic development, not just in Afghanistan but in the whole world… If we are able to provide security, we will overcome other problems, and from here the wheel of progress and advancement will begin."

On 4 September, Amrullah Saleh, former Vice-President, released a video informing that he is staying in the Panjshir valley and organizing a resistance against the Taliban. There have been contradicting reports from the Taliban and the National Resistance Front, about the capture of the Panjshir Valley by the former.

On 4 September, a group of women marched in Kabul. According to an Al Jazeera report, "dozens of women took to the streets of the capital on Saturday to demand their right to work, a role in any future government, and a seat at the table in discussions with the Taliban."

On 31 August, President Biden made a lengthy statement after completing what he considered as the "biggest airlifts in history, with more than 120,000 people evacuated to safety." And he said: "This is a new world. The terror threat has metastasized across the world, well beyond Afghanistan. We face threats from al-Shabaab in Somalia; al Qaeda affiliates in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula; and ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, and establishing affiliates across Africa and Asia. The fundamental obligation of a President, in my opinion, is to defend and protect America — not against threats of 2001, but against the threats of 2021 and tomorrow. That is the guiding principle behind my decisions about Afghanistan. I simply do not believe that the safety and security of America is enhanced by continuing to deploy thousands of American troops and spending billions of dollars a year in Afghanistan."

On 30 August, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Afghanistan. According to the press release from the UNSC, the resolution was "adopted by a vote of 13 in favour with two abstentions (Russian Federation and China), the 15-member organ demanded that Afghan territory not be used to threaten or attack any country and reiterated the importance of combating terrorism in Afghanistan."

What is the background?
First the new normal in Afghanistan. While the Taliban is trying to form a government, the people are getting ready to live with the new government. With the frantic evacuation by the international community over by 31 August and the windows of escaping the Taliban over, people are getting ready to face their future with the Taliban. The primary emphasis for them is the daily economy; with the banks closed and no work, how to manage their lives and provide for the family has become an important question than the form of the Afghan government. The rest of the world is also getting ready to face the new reality in Afghanistan.

Second, the delay in the Taliban announcing the formation of a new government and the reasons behind it. The Taliban occupied Kabul and took over the Presidential Palace on16 August. Three weeks later, it is yet to announce the government. While it is easier for the Taliban to wage guerrilla warfare and run down provinces and cities until 15 August, governing Afghanistan would be a more significant challenge. The delay in announcing the government underlines the background discussion within the Taliban and with other leaders like Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. Who would lead the Taliban government, and who all will become its public face, seem to be the focus of an internal debate. The Taliban would need to showcase a façade of an inclusive government to attract international aid. While their supporters outside the borders would have supported the Taliban war machine, helping them to run Afghanistan would need larger global assistance.

Third, the global confusion on what to do with the Taliban Afghanistan. While for the first two weeks after 16 August, the international community was busy witnessing the evacuation and the return of the Taliban, now the question is – should they recognize the new government or not. How to respond to humanitarian aid to the Afghan people and how to channel it without supporting the Taliban are two primary questions.

Fourth, the resistance against the Taliban. Though there were a few oppositions in the eastern provinces, including a group of women in Kabul marching with a set of demands, the Taliban is yet to witness a serious resistance against it. The only exception is whether the National Resistance Front in the Panjshir Valley. While the Taliban is trying to recapture the valley and crush the NRF, the latter is trying to find space and keep floating. Their first priority would be survival before any counterattack. For any meaningful resistance against the Taliban, it is a long road to Kabul.

What does it mean?
The Taliban is back in Afghanistan. Though they are yet to announce the new government, the people are adjusting to the new normal in Afghanistan. Until 31 August, those countries that were engaged in Afghanistan, including the US, were preoccupied with the evacuation. Now the exit is complete, the international community is assessing their likely interests in Afghanistan, and exploring options to deal with the Taliban. 

The UN Security Council stands divided, with Russia and China backing the Taliban; will the rest of the UNSC members leave the fate of Afghanistan to these two countries, along with Iran and Pakistan, or will they continue to invest?

Biden's recent statement is vital in the above context: "I respectfully suggest you ask yourself this question: If we had been attacked on 11 September 2001, from Yemen instead of Afghanistan, would we have ever gone to war in Afghanistan — even though the Taliban controlled Afghanistan in 2001? I believe the honest answer is "no." That's because we had no vital national interest in Afghanistan other than to prevent an attack on America's homeland and their our friends. And that's true today." Emphasis added.