Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Subscribe here. August 19, 2021 The Taliban and the World As the Taliban takes power, it is publicly "making nice"—downplaying the possibility that it will rule with brutality, as it did in the 1990s, in apparent hope of securing global recognition as a legitimate government, Max Fisher writes for The New York Times.
"The public relations push marks a new chapter in the Taliban's struggle, one nearly as high-stakes as any on the battlefield," Fisher writes. "It is also a strategy pursued by almost every modern rebel group to take power. ... Bait-and-switches are not unheard-of, especially when aimed at domestic audiences with less power to hold the leaders to account. ... Regardless of whether today's Taliban leaders have moderated ideologically, their grasp of diplomatic matters and concern with global standing appears to have deepened substantially."
How is the Taliban's PR effort going?
So far, China seems to be buying it. The IMF, not so much, Josh Lipsky and William F. Wechsler write for The Wall Street Journal, as $400 million worth of assistance have been held up.
But the Taliban may not really need the international community, anyway, Graeme Smith and David Mansfield suggest at The New York Times: "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." 'Known Unknowns' on Taliban Rule The world is watching and waiting to see how the Taliban will rule—and if it can consolidate power. Women have voiced fear; citizens have protested. At the World Politics Review, Frida Ghitis aptly sums up the "known unknowns."
"The first, most immediate question is how Taliban 2.0 compares to the version that ruled from 1996 until 2001," Ghitis writes. "Will today's rulers dismantle every bit of progress made in Afghanistan over the past 20 years on women's rights and individual freedoms?" It's also not clear whether refugee outflows will upset global politics, including in Europe and the US, where asylum-seekers have prompted nativist backlashes; whether Afghanistan will once again become a haven for international terrorism; whether US politics will turn on the images of chaos on Kabul; or how the region will be affected, as China and Russia will eye warily the possibility of jihadists organizing nearby. What's Next for the World Order? Many view Kabul's fall as an inflection point in the arc of US power, or even as its end. America's reliability, at least, is widely being called into question.
"The claim that America is showing itself to be a fickle ally by allowing the Afghan government to fall is … overblown, given the duration, scale and expense of the American deployment," The Economist writes. "The defunct regime in Kabul was not an ally in the way that Germany or Japan is. It was far weaker, more corrupt and completely dependent on America for its survival. ... But none of that absolved America of the responsibility to withdraw in an orderly fashion. ... America's power to deter its enemies and reassure its friends has diminished. Its intelligence was flawed, its planning rigid, its leaders capricious and its concern for allies minimal. That is likely to embolden jihadists everywhere, who will take the Taliban's victory as evidence that God is on their side. It will also encourage adventurism on the part of hostile governments such as Russia's or China's, and worry America's friends."
European leaders shouldn't be surprised by the US exit, Philip Stephens writes for the Financial Times, but they must now acknowledge that American actions are circumscribed by realpolitik, even after the end of Donald Trump's presidency.
At The Guardian, historian and commentator Timothy Garton Ash wonders if an era has ended. "Those scenes at Kabul airport will never be forgotten, but with time will fade into a new perspective," Ash writes. "Nonetheless, this is a moment to contemplate the alternative: that the US never makes it 'back' to a position of international leadership. What then?" China would press ahead as a geopolitical force, Ash supposes, while the European Union might seek to become the "leader of the free world." Has the Wind Changed for Biden? CNN's Stephen Collinson suggests that it has. President Joe Biden "is failing to adequately explain why he so badly failed to predict the swift collapse of the Afghan state," Collinson writes. "And his credibility has been sullied because his confident downplaying of the risks of the withdrawal has been repeatedly confounded by events. Seven months into his term, Biden no longer gets credit simply for not being Donald Trump. ... Events of the last few days have done more than damage Biden's reputation for competency. They have also exposed as never before the cold-eyed calculation behind a foreign policy that includes some elements of the 'America First' approach of Trump." |
