Let us assume we respect the internal sovereignty of all countries, and by extension accept that they may do as they please within their borders. Along with this we also accept all countries’ external sovereignty, and accord them the same respect as all others in the global political economy.
It all sounds so simple and somehow proper ... but it isn’t. What has been happening in Afghanistan over the past week or so will shatter remaining illusions of sovereignty and the idea that what happens in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan, or any other country for that matter.
Afghanistan is not as isolated as, say, North Korea, or as heavily sanctioned as Cuba or Iran. It has dynamic, though imperfect, contagion mechanisms with the global political economy. The standout example is Afghanistan’s membership of the World Trade Organization — foreign trade is probably the finest example of a contagion mechanism.
As the putative new rulers of Afghanistan, the Taliban are strict adherents to an austere set of basic religious beliefs that span the globe. There are an estimated 1.8-billion people — mainly in North Africa, west, central, east and Southeast Asia — who are Muslim, and to whom the Koran is a sacred text.
We cannot rule out the possibility that like-minded groups may seek to emulate the Taliban, from Boko Haram or al-Shabaab in West and East Africa, to Abu Sayyaf in the southern islands of the Philippines. Add to this that the Taliban has explicitly said Afghanistan will not be a democracy, and that it will be guided by Quranic principles as they shape Sharia law. Should the Taliban grow in strength and authority in Afghanistan other radical groups may feel emboldened to emulate it.
So, as much as we would like to recognise the internal and external sovereignty of countries and abide by international convention or “international law” — such as it is — this is not the type of world most of us want to live in. To be sure, there are reasons (however spurious) to ignore or “accept” what is taking shape in Afghanistan, but there are many more reasons to be outraged and concerned.
Most notable among these are reasons of cosmopolitanism, transnational and intergenerational justice, those intangibles that economic rationalism cannot quite reach. Already some governments in the world have established a sliding scale of who may have greater access to justice than others (such as the ANC).
This notwithstanding, there may be other more toxic global outcomes of the Taliban’s return. The first, almost immediate, images and reports that emerged from Afghanistan (apart from reminders of the liberation of Saigon in April 1975) were of bearded men bearing high-powered arms making proclamations. Swift reports followed — first-hand accounts in the mainstream and social media — of women fearing for their lives and retreating into their homes, hiding under burkas, burning their identity documents and certificates of educational qualifications attained over the past two decades.
According to the US military brass, at one time Washington wanted to bomb Afghanistan “back to the stone age”. Now it would appear the Taliban is doing the job for them. Without any sense of compunction, and emboldened by their religious texts, they want most women out of the public eye, and to govern Afghanistan strictly according to a book that was written 1,400 years ago.
Almost immediately after the Taliban walked into Kabul the institutions of global economic governance (including Washington) shut down access to desperately needed finance. The US, now in charge of a foreign country’s finances (so much for sovereignty) immediately froze Afghanistan’s billions in reserves. Afghanistan reportedly held about $9.5bn abroad. By stopping the flow of foreign currency to Afghanistan Washington has in effect stopped the salaries of government employees, many of whom have been paid in dollars.
The IMF, a five-minute walk from the White House, said last week that Afghanistan would not be able to access IMF resources. The fund also cut off new allocations of special drawing rights (SDR) reserves because of uncertainty about the Taliban’s control of Afghanistan. “There is currently a lack of clarity within the international community regarding recognition of a government in Afghanistan, as a consequence of which the country cannot access SDRs or other IMF resources,” the fund said in a statement.
At the time of the Taliban’s return international aid already accounted for 75% of the government’s budget, a huge 43% of the economy, and 47% of the population were living below the poverty line, according to the World Bank. Before the Taliban’s return Afghanistan was expected to receive an estimated $370m from the IMF.
What will happen next is anyone’s guess. What we do know is that the Taliban are back and they are stripping Afghanis of basic democratic rights. Indian economist Amartya Sen reminded us that this is disastrous for human welfare and destroys the capability of a population to improve their wellbeing. We can only hope that the Taliban’s return does not embolden other radical and fundamentalist groups around the world.
• Lagardien, a visiting professor at the Wits University School of Governance, has worked in the office of the chief economist of the World Bank, as well as the secretariat of the National Planning Commission.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.