Follow us on social

google cta
2010-09-14t120000z_237546757_gm1e69e1oml01_rtrmadp_3_afghanistan-bank-e1644856421174

Biden's $7 billion Afghan heist

The president's order diverting frozen funds to American families of 9/11 victims will only make the humanitarian and economic crises in Afghanistan worse.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

With his Executive Order redefining Afghanistan’s Fiscal Reserve as a slush fund to be disbursed on his whim and with the stroke of his pen, President Biden has taken what may well be the final step in an experiment gone amok. The U.S. first attempted to make Afghanistan into a Western democracy, instead installed a kleptocracy, made Afghans endure 20 years of violence and then left in a whirlwind of chaos. With Biden’s latest move to deprive Afghanistan of its monetary reserves, the nation is likely to come full circle, turning once again into a failed state that, in the absence of economic recovery, will become a breeding ground for extremism and the recruitment of terrorists.

Of the country’s reserves, $7 billion were “parked” in U.S. financial institutions. This is normal procedure for developing countries, with the, now in retrospect, very ironic purpose of keeping funds in a secure place. Watching this latest Biden debacle, Central Banks of multiple countries are now surely contemplating pulling their monies out of U.S. financial institutions to protect them against arbitrary dictatorial disposal.

After the Executive Order was issued, Da Afghanistan Bank — Afghanistan’s U.S.-built Central Bank — issued a statement that was both judicious and, to an American reader, embarrassing. It offered a measured, dumbed down 101 on what a monetary reserve is and what a Central Bank does. One might have hoped that a U.S. president, or at least his advisers, would know this, but evidently not.

From their tutorial: “As per the law and relevant regulations, Federal Exchange Reserves…are used to implement monetary policy, facilitate international trade and stabilize the financial sector. The real owners of these reserves are the people of Afghanistan. These reserves were not and are not the property of governments, parties or groups and are never used as per their demand and decisions…The Foreign Exchange Reserves are managed based on international practices.”

President Biden, however, announced that he was assigning half of the money, $3.5 billion, to settle ongoing claims by 9/11 families against the Taliban for hosting Al Qaeda. The other half will go to international NGOs that provide aid to Afghanistan, a move that was pitched as an act of amazing generosity. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that it shows America will always stand by Afghanistan.

But a closer look shows America is not standing by Afghanistan, but instead draining Afghan’s coffers. The current situation in Afghanistan is as follows. When the Taliban took power in August 2021, after the calamitous U.S. withdrawal and the instant caving of President Ghani and the Afghan National Army, Biden ordered the freezing of Afghan assets and accounts. Instead of experiencing a “peace dividend” now that active warfare had ceased, and being able to start slowly rebuilding houses, homes, businesses and lives, the Afghan economy went into freefall. 

With no cash in the Central Bank, savings could not be withdrawn and salaries could not be paid. Most trade ground to a halt. International agencies and NGOs were unable to help very much, because they, too, could not transfer money into the country and could not withdraw their deposits since there was not enough currency in circulation. The UN and humanitarian groups began to issue dire warnings about the severity of this year’s winter, the depleted food supplies as a result of an unusually long drought, and the inability to import food and fuel due to sanctions and frozen assets. While pledges were made by donors, almost always, the pledges fell well short of the enormous needs and only a fraction of pledges end up being fulfilled. Besides, delivery of aid by international institutions with their enormous overhead is a wasteful, expensive and inefficient method that does nothing to make recipients self-sufficient or give them hope for their future.

Once the United States decided to withdraw and leave Afghans to their fate, the right thing to do was to at least give them back their property and with it, a fighting chance. To allay concerns about possible Taliban misuse of the funds, banking professionals have proposed releasing the money in monthly tranches. Monitors would check exactly where that money goes and what is done with it. The moment anything seems improper, a freeze could instantly be reinstituted.

If their Central Bank could stabilize the currency and the exchange rate, inject liquidity into the system and get the banking system as a whole back on an even keel, organic economic recovery could commence.

But as it stands now, this man-made economic collapse is crushing a vulnerable population at the most vulnerable moment in its recent history. More than 40 percent of Afghans are below the age of 14. If there is no work to be had, their older brothers will be open to recruitment by ISIS, or will make their way across the borders into neighboring countries and from there, join the refugee stream towards Western Europe. 

It may satisfy the vindictive impulses of some to see the Taliban preside over a population sinking into misery and disorder, but let’s examine what we are actually doing here. We are punishing 40 million people because we don’t like the Taliban. We are holding responsible for 9/11 a population whose majority was not even born in 2001 and who certainly bear no blame. In the name of benefiting 9/11 families, we are seeding the ground for the next 9/11 and disgracing our own principles of justice. 

After World War II, the United States was remarkably generous towards a population that arguably could have been held more to blame for elevating, electing, and cheering for a genocidal dictator. A Marshall Plan allowed for Germany and Austria to rebuild their industries and economies, repair their devastated cities and bring their families back to good health. The Biden Plan, by contrast, aims to turn Afghanistan into a failed state and to turn its population into a nation of beggars. 

After the humiliating U.S. exit from Afghanistan, Biden’s decision to freeze and then redistribute the nation’s reserves was a political move designed to show his Republican opponents how tough he can be on the Taliban. But a political move that will lead to more starvation and chaos cannot be allowed to stand. Already, legal teams are looking at how to block the $3.5 billion from being awarded to 9/11 families.

The NGO Unfreeze Afghanistan has issued a call urging all NGOs not to accept any of the other $3.5 billion allocated for “humanitarian aid.” And people in both Afghanistan and the United States are organizing protests and petitions to rescind this order. Even 9/11 family members are weighing in. Barry Admunson, who lost his brother in the 9/11 attack and is part of the group called 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, is advocating against Biden’s decision. “We can’t bring our loved ones back,” he told us, “but we can save the lives of people in Afghanistan by advocating that the Biden Administration release this money to its rightful owners: the Afghan people.”


Afghan people walk past a Kabulbank branch in Kabul September 14, 2010. Afghanistan's central bank has stepped in to take control of the troubled Kabulbank, its governor said on Tuesday, after suspected irregularities raised concerns over the country's top private financial institution. REUTERS/Andrew Biraj (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: BUSINESS)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.