The Case Against Reopening U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan
The plight of Afghanistan under the Taliban's rule since 2021 has been a cause of global concern. The extremist group has been maintaining public order through force and coercion, with their atrocities ranging from extrajudicial killings to the suppression of free speech and the kidnapping of teenage girls.
On February 18-19, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres will convene a meeting in Qatar with special envoys for Afghanistan from over 20 countries, the European Union, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. This meeting aims to bring unified international pressure to alleviate the human rights and security disaster that is Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
The UN is also working on the nomination of a new special envoy for Afghanistan, who will be tasked with focusing global attention on supporting a united non-Taliban Afghan populace to participate in intra-Afghan talks. This envoy will also be responsible for withholding formal recognition from the Taliban until it tangibly implements the international human rights obligations of the Afghan state.
There have been suggestions that the U.S. should "go back to Afghanistan" by reopening an embassy, arguing that this would lead to a deeper understanding of the Taliban and therefore improve foreign policy. However, this move could have a strongly negative impact on wider strategic policy goals.
Reopening the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan without any concessions from the Taliban would not be a neutral act. An embassy is not merely a bureau of independent foreign correspondents; it is an ecosystem of diplomats whose presence would confer unearned legitimacy on the Taliban and necessitate a strengthening of ties.
Given the ongoing security threats, U.S. diplomats would require Taliban guards on the compound and armed Taliban escorts to move around. Their meetings with Afghans would be as honest as a visit to a Soviet-era Potemkin village. A reopened U.S. embassy could lead to the normalization of an inexcusable gender-apartheid regime and inspire other countries to open their missions, thereby endorsing the Taliban.
Instead of conceding to the Taliban, the U.S. and like-minded countries should strengthen their commitment to the Afghan people. Diplomats should meet with various Afghan constituencies, particularly women, business and professional sectors, and the youth. Contact with the Taliban should be downgraded to the lowest possible technical level, without allowing photographs in official settings.
International humanitarian relief should continue, but donors need full disclosure of Taliban budget, income, and expenditures. The future UN Special Envoy’s nearly impossible job is to be the voice of a unitary international position challenging the Taliban’s flagrant violations of human rights. Opening a bilateral embassy — or in any way upgrading U.S. contact with the Taliban — undermines that envoy, negatively affects American security interests, and betrays those in Afghanistan still struggling for their rights.
News Agencies