Have the Taliban Changed?

• Author: Ruttig, Thomas

The question of whether the Afghan Taliban (a) have changed their repressive pre-fall 2001 positions, particularly on rights and freedoms-or even their wider ideology, (b) and if so, how much and whether for good-is key to whether a potential peace settlement can create a social and political landscape in Afghanistan that is acceptable to the people of Afghanistan, as well as the United States and NATO allies. Soon after taking over as the United States' top diplomat, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that any peace settlement needed to preserve "the progress made over the last 20 years with regard to human rights, civil liberties, and the role of women in Afghan society." (1) This was preceded by similar calls from the European Union and European governments, and assurance by the Afghan government that protecting these rights and liberties is a "red line" for them. (2)

It has become clear that there is no way around negotiating with the Taliban if the 40 years of war in Afghanistan is to be stopped. Such negotiations resulted in the U.S.-Taliban agreement concluded in Doha in February 2020 and intra-Afghan (peace) negotiations also taking place, and now stalling, in Qatar. These talks have been happening under immense time pressure, following former President Donald Trump's reduction of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which resulted in the numbers dropping to 2,500 in mid-January 2021, their lowest since 2001. (3) These developments have weakened the Afghan government's position in Doha and strengthened that of the Taliban.

Around the beginning of March 2021, the Biden administration launched a new diplomatic effort to "accelerate" the peace process. In so doing, the U.S. government made clear that it had not decided whether to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by May 1 as stipulated, conditions-based, in the U.S. agreement with the Taliban. As part of this push, the United States circulated proposals to the Afghan government, the High Council for National Reconciliation (HCNR) chaired by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, and the Taliban. According to The New York Times, the proposals "included a road map for a future Afghan government with Taliban representation, a revised Afghan constitution using the current one as an 'initial template' and terms for a permanent and comprehensive cease-fire...national elections after the establishment of a 'transitional peace government of Afghanistan'...guaranteed rights for women and for religious and ethnic minorities, and protections for a free press...[as well as a] High Council for Islamic Jurisprudence to advise an independent judiciary to resolve conflicts over the interpretation of Islamic law." (4)

The first part of this article provides a historical overview of the evolution of the Taliban movement. Before examining whether the Taliban's approach has changed since the fall of 2001, the article examines the movement's decision-making approach and structure. It then scrutinizes the evolution of the Taliban's positions on several key policy areas that have been in focus ever since they took power in Kabul in 1996: women's rights, education, relations with non-governmental organizations, and their ideas about a future political system in Afghanistan. This article does not explore the Taliban's relations with key terror groups active in Afghanistan, the discontinuation of which represents one important set of obligations the Taliban committed to fulfill in the February 2020 agreement. Many observers, and not least the U.S. Department of Defense, have stated that key obligations have not been fulfilled. (5) Instead, this article is focused on other critical issues that are more important to the daily lives of Afghans.

A Historical Overview

By the end of the 1990s, the situation was clear for many in the West: the Taliban were a 'stone age' movement and the workings of their regime 'medieval.' They banned women from working and studying (not to mention political participation), confining them to their homes unless accompanied by a mahram (male relative) and wearing a burqa. They banned flying kites, playing soccer, and playing music, except for religious chants. Television sets were 'executed,' and music cassette tapes strung up at checkpoints. They tried to force NGOs to separate male from female staff in their offices and tried to establish control over foreign aid organizations by attempting (in vain) to move their accommodations to Kabul University's closed dormitory for women students. They held public executions.

But the reality was never that clear-cut. When the author visited Afghanistan as a journalist in late 1999, kids flew kites and Kabulis and Kandaharis played soccer. The author observed locals dodging the Taliban's religious police when they closed tea houses and restaurants during prayer time and tried to herd them into mosques. There was criticism against the restrictive anti-girls education policy, even among Taliban officials. Some tolerated or even protected home and NGO-run schools, warning those running them when hardliners planned to raid them. (6) There was open resistance in some government ranks and among Taliban fighters against the attempts of Pakistan and Taliban members originating from Pakistan (who held some positions in the Taliban regime) to set the movement's policies, even leading to shootouts. There was an underground resistance, some of whom were armed (and linked to late Ahmad Shah Massoud's 'Northern Alliance,' (c)) and others of whom, including pro-democracy groups, were political only. Even in the Pashtun countryside, some village communities occasionally resisted Taliban measures against local traditions and the ever-repeating Taliban campaigns of forced recruitment.

If these nuances were little understood in the West by the end of the 1990s, they all but vanished from the public policy debate after 9/11. The Taliban had hosted the al-Qa'ida leadership who had committed these atrocities, accepted their money, used their fighters, and continued to refuse to extradite Usama bin Ladin. From a U.S. perspective, the Taliban were in cahoots with terrorists.

But there were no Taliban-nor indeed Afghans-among the 9/11 hijackers. The Taliban had no part in the organization and implementation of the attack, and no prior knowledge. The Taliban were notably absent from bin Ladin's "World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," founded in February 1998 with groups from Bangladesh, Egypt, and Pakistan. The August 1998 terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies in East Africa had shown to the Taliban that al-Qa'ida intended and was capable of striking U.S. targets, but like others, the Taliban were unable to imagine 9/11. Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar tried to rein in bin Ladin several times. He demanded the Saudi refrain from activities abroad while being a 'guest' of the Taliban. But ultimately Mullah Omar was not prepared to give up a man who had fought with the mujahideen against the Soviets and had pledged allegiance to him. (7) (d)

Considered defeated after their regime collapsed faster than expected in the fall of 2001, the Taliban were not invited to the Bonn conference late that year. Attempts to include individual members in the institution-building process that followed, for example during the 2002 Emergency Loya Jirga, were not successful. Another opportunity was squandered when several prominent former high-level figures, including ex-foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, returned to Afghanistan and tried to act within the new political system. However, President Karzai and the United States did not allow them to formally set up a 'moderate' Taliban 'party.' (8) Some ran unsuccessfully for parliament; others later joined Karzai's High Peace Council.

The Taliban staged their military comeback starting from areas in Afghanistan's 'dusty districts' where groups had survived after their defeat in 2001 and safe havens in Pakistan. Their revival was supported and legitimized by widespread corruption in the new government, the wholesale persecution of Pashtun communities for their real or alleged pro-Taliban stance by the victorious U.S. supported, Northern Alliance-dominated Afghan government forces, and perceived and real political exclusion of Pashtuns at the national, regional, and provincial levels. (9) This stood in the way of the government setting up an effective administration in Taliban influenced areas and drove whole communities into the Taliban's arms. (10)

In June 2003, Mullah Omar formed a new Taliban Leadership Council to bring all the new or reemerged Taliban groups under one umbrella. (11) By 2005-2006, the Taliban were a force to be reckoned with again in the southern half of Afghanistan. Starting in 20092010, they expanded into the north and widened their influence into areas where they never had been strong, as well as building up influence among non-Pashtun religious leaders and fighters. (12)

As the Taliban again grew in strength, for years the United States continued to try to defeat them militarily rather than seek a negotiated end to the insurgency. When President Barack Obama's troop 'surge' in 2009-2011 failed to force the Taliban to the negotiating table, the United States reconsidered this approach. (13) This led to a first series of talks (subsequently referred to as 'Doha 1') from 2009-2014 and the establishment of the Taliban political office in Doha, Qatar. When the 'Doha 2' direct talks between the United States and the Taliban started in 2018, the Taliban had de facto been diplomatically accepted as a key party to the conflict. This came at the expense of the Afghan government, which was sidelined due to the Taliban insisting and the United States conceding that direct Afghan government-Taliban talks could not come before a signed bilateral U.S.-Taliban agreement concerning U.S. troop withdrawal. (e) One thing is clear: when the negotiations for this agreement started in...