Taliban Warns All Foreign Troops Must Withdraw From Afghanistan

Tuesday, July 6, 2021

Lucas Leiroz, research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

The issue of foreign troops in Afghanistan continues to generate tensions and polemics. Once again, the Taliban made pronouncements pressuring international agents to speed up the process of withdrawing foreign troops from the country. The terrorist group has made it clear that no NATO soldiers should remain on Afghan soil – responding to the American interest in keeping special forces in the country to protect diplomatic missions. As a result, tensions rise again in the region.

In a recent statement to the BBC, Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said that any foreign troops remaining in Afghanistan after the withdrawal deadline would be seen as an occupier and would be “at risk”. The statement comes as a response to the possible stay of 1,000 Western soldiers in Afghanistan after the troops retreat in order to monitor diplomatic missions and airport security in Kabul (proposal presented by Washington and supported by the entire NATO), to which the Taliban shows strong opposition.

These are Shaheen’s words: “If they leave behind their forces against the Doha agreement then in that case it will be the decision of our leadership how we proceed (…) We would react and the final decision is with our leadership (…) We are against the foreign military forces, not diplomats, NGOs and workers and NGOs functioning and embassies functioning – that is something our people need. We will not pose any threat to them”.

The Taliban makes it clear that they do not intend to act violently against diplomatic missions and NGOs, but that they will respond promptly to any sign of a foreign military presence. Obviously, we cannot trust the promises of a terrorist group, but, in fact, the foreign presence in Afghanistan is a clear certainty of an exponential increase in violence, while the absence of such troops represents a possibility of violence against diplomats and international NGOs – something that may or may not happen.

The root of this problem is the very fact that there is an agreement to withdraw the troops. By negotiating with the Taliban, Washington created a very delicate precedent in international conflicts, moving from seeing terrorists as “global criminals” (with whom it is not possible to negotiate) to treating them as legal belligerent agents, as states (with whom it is possible to negotiate and establish agreements). When two legal belligerent agents establish an agreement, there is an express relationship of mutual trust and goodwill, which can never be violated. This is the complicated logic of the agreement with the Taliban: NATO must rely on the goodwill of a terrorist group to fulfill the agreement. This is the only possible outcome of the American choice – there is no alternative to it.

Indeed, it seems undeniable that the Taliban will boost its firepower and act violently in Afghanistan. In the same speech to the media, the spokesman described the current Afghan government as “moribund” and referred to the country as an “Islamic emirate”, which means that the terrorist group will act firmly to promote the formation of a radical theocratic government. It is certain that any increase in violence against the government will result in collateral violence against diplomats, NGOs, and civilians. This risk was taken by the West, which now must choose between breaking the agreement or waiting for more crimes to be committed by the Taliban.

Washington does not really seem interested in changing its previously announced stance on troop withdrawal. Biden continues to say that US forces have ensured the conditions necessary for Afghanistan not to become a jihadist base. But this speech sounds more like a public formality than the president’s actual thought. If Biden really thought that way, he would not be trying to keep troops in the region. In the same vein, the Afghan government claims to be strong enough to stop the terrorists from advancing, which does not seem to be true. The Afghan political structure is still weak and unstable, and no agreement has been reached in the few attempts of negotiation between the government and the jihadist militias. Indeed, not only does a drastic escalation in the civil war seem closer and closer, but real chances of the Taliban to win are growing day by day.

Amidst this complicated scenario, where in any case violence will rise and leave more victims, the one who loses the most is the Afghan people, who will continue to be a victim of the Taliban and of the serious mistakes made by international agents involved in the conflict. Hopefully, the West has at least understood that negotiating with terrorists is never an acceptable option.

Source: InfoBrics