The US has a moral responsibility to return Afghanistan’s seized assets, but morality doesn’t guide US policy, let alone under Trump 2.0 given its Hyper-Realist approach of declaring and then advancing national interests.
Andrew Korybko
Russia’s Permanent UN Representative Vasily Nebenzia gave a powerful speech about Afghanistan
in early March. He condemned the West’s “attempts to advance a
selective approach, with an emphasis on matters that Western donors are
willing to discuss”, which he expects “will not lead to the desired
result”. He told them that “if you truly want to help the women and
girls of Afghanistan not just with words but with deeds, then help
create conditions for them to live in a stable and developed country.”
This
dressing-down was timely since Nebenzia added that his policy
prescription is “especially important given a possible new wave of
refugees who will have to return from neighboring Iran amid armed aggression against it by the United States and Israel.” Estimates vary, but it’s thought that approximately 4-6 million Afghan refugees fled to Iran throughout the course of their country’s nearly half-century-long spree of conflicts, which also now includes the latest one with Pakistan.
Nebenzia
touched upon that too by declaring that “We are concerned about the
sharp escalation of armed clashes between Afghanistan and Pakistan, both
countries are friends of ours. We are convinced that it is imperative
to return the situation to the political and diplomatic track. We are
ready to provide our friends with assistance and support. We also look
forward to seeing a resumption of mutually beneficial interaction
between them, including on counterterrorism issues.”
He also
talked about Afghanistan’s terrorism and drug challenges, which he
applauded the Taliban for attempting to tackle, but reaffirmed that it
requires targeted support from the international community without any
of the preconditions that the West and its donors demand if it’s to
succeed. Therein lies the crux of Afghanistan’s post-occupation problems
since the US is reluctant to provide this and also still holds the
occupation-era government’s nearly $10 billion assets that it froze in late 2021.
Strings
are attached to releasing this, however, such as the Taliban complying
with its promise to assemble an ethno-regionally inclusive government
and uphold the Western conception of women’s rights. The Taliban isn’t
ready to do either, however, and its priority is to fight against the
abovementioned scourges and poverty. Russia’s and other countries’
pragmatic help like India’s in spite of the Taliban’s broken promises is appreciated, but it’s not enough, ergo the need for US support too.
The
US has a moral responsibility to return Afghanistan’s seized assets,
but morality doesn’t guide US policy, let alone under Trump 2.0 given
its Hyper-Realist approach of declaring and then advancing national
interests. Nebenzia didn’t say so, but he seemed to imply that the US is
advancing undeclared interests under the pretext of demanding
concessions from the Taliban in exchange for aid, which might be aimed
at prolonging and thus exacerbating Afghanistan’s instability till it
becomes a regional crisis.
Some form of strategic damage might
then be inflicted on Russia, China, and/or Iran, thus amounting to a
plot to turn Afghanistan into an incubator of chaos that can then be
exported for destabilizing US adversaries through unconventional means.
Russia is aware of this as proven by Nebenzia mentioning that “We are
committed to developing partnership ties with [Afghanistan] in all
areas, including in regional security”, but the form that their regional
security cooperation takes remains unclear for now.