U.S Cutting Off All Funding To Taliban

[Path-Finder]

This is where China will step in and offer rebuilding infrastructure. since nation building was abandoned by NATO shortly after arriving in afghani land.

 

[Wood]

US will not openly move against Taliban until all their evacuation activities in Afghanistan is complete. I suspect that after the evac, US may keep milder economic sanctions on Taliban. They do not yet have clear reasons to keep sanctions (on Taliban) like that on Iran or Russia.

 

[mb444]

US has been outplayed comprehensively.... this is just a childish reaction.

Talibans unlikely to care, if there is one group that thrives on adversity its them.

 

[Meengla]

Visibly and functionally inclusive government (they should consider giving Abdullah Abdullah a high position in the new government, maybe maybe also Karzai)

That Abdullah and Karzai were there around the fall of Kabul on Aug. 15 gives strong indication that a 'transition' was planned in advance and I think Ghani had 'two weeks' to implement that. Think about it: Both Abdullah and Karzai had killed so many Taliban and so why would they be in Kabul had 'assurance' were not given, knowing what happened to Najibullah in 1996??
Anyway, you are correct: An 'inclusive' govt with two prominent members of the previous Kabul govt (Karzai and Abdullah) would send a strong signal to the world about the new Taliban-led govt and for the Biden adm to 'sell' it to the Americans.
And the rest of your post is also spot on: Allowing women and girls their rights is of paramount importance!

 

[FuturePAF]

Getting the money has a lot to do with a successful PR campaign on top of real reforms. The most high risk high reward move the Talibs could make would be to do a Fox News interview. While Liberal Left wing CNN and the other MSM will push their liberal cultural values. More conservative westerners will be ok with a religious point of view; especially if they point out the kind of Social engineer that was being done in Afghanistan (and the parallels that draws to the US population)

secondly, Fox News viewers don’t want refugees coming from Afghanistan, so appealing for the release of the Afghans own money to take care of their own food, education, medical needs and preventing a massive refugee crisis into America will appeal to them.

pointing out their “country boy” credentials may go a long way in convincing the bubbas in America to not be as dismissive of the Talibs promises.

A Fox News interview, first with a male reporter then a female one (that doesn’t have to wear an abaya like the CNN stunt, perhaps following the dress code like the female journalist on TOLO news that interviewed the Taliban), or both at the same time maybe the most gutsy move they could pull as they seek global recognition and acceptance. Selling it to the Trump crowd maybe their best move (nearly half the Us Population and poised to take back Congress in next years elections)

they might want to end the interview with the extension of an olive branch and to say they might welcome US investment into the mining sector and other sectors. No sense to leave all these minerals to just Chinese investors. similar to how the Saudi orthodox government has good relations with the US primarily due to the natural resources.

for the domestic Afghan audience, if they have money they should quickly compensate their fighters, and pay for losses in the recent fighting including injury and loss of life. They should show they can manage social services and utilities and pay people to get back to work and get the IDPs back home. They should pay people to clean up the country so make life as much back to normal as possible; and air it on all the Afghan and international news channels. This way people know the money is spent well.

 

[Meengla]

Getting the money has a lot to do with a successful PR campaign on top of real reforms. The most high risk high reward move the Talibs could make would be to do a Fox News interview. While Liberal Left wing CNN and the other MSM will push their liberal cultural values. More conservative westerners will be ok with a religious point of view;

It's interesting you brought up the conservative Americans. As I mentioned, Saturday night wife and I hosted some Gorays who are from very conservative / rural background in Deep South. I had the un-enviable task to explain Taliban to them--you know, the next day Taliban took over Kabul. Anyway, while I strongly disapprove of Taliban handling women/girls freedom/education, I had to explain what drives the Taliban in their fundamentalist approach. A lady guest startled me by saying something like 'well, we may need a faith based approach here to control runaway kids, adultery, homosexuality because God doesn't approve of those things'.

 

[FuturePAF]

It's interesting you brought up the conservative Americans. As I mentioned, Saturday night wife and I hosted some Gorays who are from very conservative / rural background in Deep South. I had the un-enviable task to explain Taliban to them--you know, the next day Taliban took over Kabul. Anyway, while I strongly disapprove of Taliban handling women/girls freedom/education, I had to explain what drives the Taliban in their fundamentalist approach. A lady guest startled me by saying something like 'well, we may need a faith based approach here to control runaway kids, adultery, homosexuality because God doesn't approve of those things'.

That’s right, They (the Conservative western audience) have a perspective that may lean them to understand in their own way, a culture not all that different then their own. This is my understanding after having lived in the south for 4 years.

this may also be their fear after all thesebyears of the threat of “migrant caravans”

 

[Prince Kassad]

taliban can always borrow from its blood brother pakistan?

 

[nang2]

Where is their concern for humanity now?? Knowing full well this is not going to hurt Taliban as much as it is going to hurt the Afghan common folk. What impact will this have on women that West cries so much about??

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/08/17/treasury-taliban-money-afghanistan/

If Afghan common folks need US dollar funding to survive, Taliban would have never gained any ground. The funding cut may hurt rich Afghan folks but let's not raise that suffering to the level of humanity.

 

[Meengla]

Indeed, no amount of 'sanctions' could change the Taliban to budge on matters they would never budge otherwise. Before even the recent Taliban takeover, large number, if not a majority of Afghans were already living below poverty. With such a 'low base', the expectations are also low! I hate to say it: Afghan have gotten used to wars and destitution more than any other country in the world, notwithstanding the recent 'gains' in larger cities.

Opinion | The Taliban Have Claimed Afghanistan’s Real Economic Prize (Published 2021)

And there’s very little the West can do about it.

www.nytimes.com

The Taliban Has Claimed Afghanistan’s Real Economic Prize


After their stunning capture of Kabul, the Taliban have tried to convey a sense of calm. Only days after Afghanistan’s top officials scrambled onto military flights and desperate Afghans clung to the fuselage of departing planes, the Taliban coolly went on inspection tours of government facilities. In the control room of the state electrical utility, a delegation of the Taliban stood in front of the blinking display panels and promised to keep the lights on.

How exactly the Taliban plan to keep all systems running, in one of the poorest countries of the world that depends on more than $4 billion a year in official aid and where foreign donors have been covering 75 percent of government spending, is an urgent question. The state’s bankruptcy has tempted some Western donors into thinking that financial pressure — in the form of threats to withhold humanitarian and development funding — could be brought to bear on the new rulers of Afghanistan. Germany already warned it would cut off financial support to the country if the Taliban “introduce Shariah law.”

But those hopes are misplaced. Even before their blitz into the capital over the weekend, the Taliban had claimed the country’s real economic prize: the trade routes — comprising highways, bridges and footpaths — that serve as strategic choke points for trade across South Asia. With their hands on these highly profitable revenue sources and with neighboring countries, like China and Pakistan, willing to do business, the Taliban are surprisingly insulated from the decisions of international donors. What comes next in the country is uncertain — but it’s likely to unfold without a meaningful exertion of Western power.

One reason foreign donors inflate their own importance in Afghanistan is that they do not understand the informal economy, and the vast amounts of hidden money in the war zone. Trafficking in opium, hashish, methamphetamines and other narcotics is not the biggest kind of trade that happens off the books: The real money comes from the illegal movement of ordinary goods, like fuel and consumer imports. In size and sum, the informal economy dwarfs international aid.


For example, our study of the border province of Nimruz, published this month by the Overseas Development Institute, estimated that informal taxation — the collection of fees by armed personnel to allow safe passage of goods — raised about $235 million annually for the Taliban and pro-government figures. By contrast, the province received less than $20 million a year in foreign aid.

A southern province in the heartland of Taliban supporters, Nimruz is the sort of place that might serve as a basis for Taliban thinking about how the economy works. This summer, they set about taking it over. In June, they captured Ghorghory, the administrative center of Khashrud District, followed by the town of Delaram, on the main highway, in July. These two towns alone could be worth $18.6 million a year for the Taliban if they maintain the previous systems of informal taxation, including $5.4 million from the fuel trade and $13 million from transit goods.

A bigger prize was the customs house in Zaranj, a city bordering Iran and the first provincial capital to fall during the Taliban’s August offensive. Though the city officially provided the government with $43.2 million in annual duties — with an additional $50 million in direct taxes in 2020 — there was, we found, a significant amount of undeclared trade, particularly of fuel, taking the true total revenues from the border crossing to at least $176 million a year.

The Taliban’s advance forced a dilemma on neighboring countries: They could either continue to trade, giving the Taliban more power and legitimacy, or deny themselves trade revenues and accept the financial pain. Though they have sometimes opted for the latter, it’s unclear — as pressure mounts to officially recognize the Taliban government — how much longer that will last.


Take Iran, for example. We estimated that the Taliban earned $84 million last year by taxing Afghans who trade with Iran — and that was before the insurgents captured all three of Afghanistan’s major border crossings with Iran. Tehran, unwilling to legitimize the Taliban, halted all trade with Afghanistan in early August. But the economic imperative to reopen to commercial traffic is strong. More than $2 billion in trade passed through those crossings last year, according to official figures, and our research suggests that the actual numbers, once informal trade is included, could be twice as high. Early reports suggest the border crossings are open again, though trade remains slow and disrupted.

The Biden administration, yet to come to a formal position on how to respond economically to the Taliban’s takeover, reportedly froze Afghan government reserves held in U.S. bank accounts on Sunday — while the president’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, suggested this week that American leverage over the Taliban could come from “issues related to sanctions.”

But the windfalls from cross-border commerce — a single border crossing to Pakistan, captured in July, brings in tens of millions of dollars a year in illegal revenues — are making the Taliban, now ruling the Afghan state, into major players in South Asia’s regional trade. That means, crucially, that the usual methods by which recalcitrant regimes are subjected to international pressure — sanctions, isolation — are less applicable to today’s Afghanistan.

This is only one of the many ways the West, now forced to reckon with a Taliban-run Afghanistan, has been humbled by recent events. But it may be among the most consequential.