Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2145842625

Have the Afghan people been forgotten?

20 million are going hungry as frozen funds and equally frozen diplomacy keep this country in a frightening state of limbo.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

While most eyes are turned elsewhere, the situation in Afghanistan continues to worsen. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is indeed a tragedy, but the laser focus with which the United States and its European allies have trained on the Ukrainian cause underscores their double standards when it comes to addressing humanitarian crises around the world, particularly in cases where they bear considerable responsibility — be it in Yemen, Syria, or indeed, Afghanistan.

Today, millions of Afghans lack food and financial means, with the country unable to feed itself or provide essential services, largely due to the roughly $7 billion dollars of Afghan central bank funds currently sitting in U.S. banks, plus more at the World Bank, frozen by sanctions.

The U.S. funds are in part being held up in legal limbo due to lawsuits against the Taliban by families of 9/11 victims, and countersuits by Afghan advocates to give back all of the money to the country.  A recent article by the New York Times cites some of the legal obstacles facing the release of these funds, including a pair of laws from 1978 and 2002 which place restrictions on money linked to organizations designated as “terrorists” — like the Taliban — further complicating the matter since they are the de-facto government of Afghanistan.

With that being said, it was still largely a political decision to block the funds, as indicated by the Biden administration’s controversial announcement back in February that it would allot half the frozen money for the 9/11 families, and the other half for humanitarian aid. Now it is all in a federal judge's hands.

Biden's decision has sparked significant pushback, as some 40 organizations (including some eligible 9/11 claimants) have called on the president to unfreeze all funds being held in the U.S. financial institutions and the World Bank. One such group is Unfreeze Afghanistan, a women-led advocacy organization which has also highlighted other issues facing Afghan civil society, including Afghan teachers and healthcare workers, who have gone unpaid since the collapse of the government and Taliban takeover. 

The group has also suggested alternative payment mechanisms, such as direct payment of salaries to individuals by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), or for finances to be coordinated with non-governmental organizations within Afghan society to ensure transparent delivery and avoid the direct aiding and abetting of Taliban abuses.

On that matter, with their recent slate of government decrees ranging from restrictions on women’s dress and travel, to the segregation of men and women in public venues such as restaurants and parks, it’s clear that this “moderated” version of the Taliban is keen on resuming business as usual when it comes to human rights and tightening its iron-fisted rule in Afghanistan. It’s also an indicator of the continued failure of the U.S.-led policy to isolate the country economically and politically as a means of influencing Taliban attitudes.

This all ties into the broader humanitarian crisis faced by the country, with growing food insecurity, a devastating healthcare shortage, economic ruin, and escalating militant violence. From the Pakistani airstrike of April 16 in the country’s eastern provinces of Khost and Kunar, which reportedly killed up to 47 people, to the multiple separate bombings targeting ethnic Hazaras and members of various religious minorities in the days since, the security situation in the country is becoming increasingly unstable.

What’s needed is the release of money that belongs to the Afghan people, as well as a thoughtfully planned international financial and security arrangement (without military intervention) that will help Afghan society function and strengthen what institutions currently exist in the country.

As far as financial aid, any package provided to the Taliban government should rightly emphasize respect for human rights. Despite the recent crackdown on women’s freedoms, however, there seems to be opposing views within the Taliban movement over issues such as women’s education, as a recent decision by the leadership to close down girl’s secondary schools was reportedly met with disagreement by other Taliban members, according to reports. This, along with other protests within the country show that it won’t be easy for the Taliban’s heavy-handed rule to continue without some checks, however marginal these hopes appear.

But we know now that isolating the country will not contribute to future peace and prosperity for its people, and dialogue should be reopened by the world. Regional neighbors (i.e., Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, India, China) should also be engaged in good faith to help promote Afghan economic development and security guarantees against outside terrorist activity or militant violence internally (ISIS-K, a local ISIS affiliate, has claimed responsibility for several recent attacks).

The tangled geopolitical rivalry at play in Ukraine further complicates all these peripheral matters, as the U.S.-Russia-China triangular dance continues to play itself out in different areas, be it in Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, Taiwan, or otherwise. All this emphasizes the need for international diplomacy more broadly, and Afghanistan offers an opportunity for positive cooperation between powers like China and the U.S.

Those familiar with the U.S. embargo against Iraq in the 1990s know the devastation wrought by that cynical policy, with an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children perishing due to a lack of food and essential supplies that the nation was unable to import. 

The near-future outlook for Afghans isn’t very bright, either. A recent announcement that the U.S. is sending another $204 million to Afghanistan for emergency assistance (bringing the total to $720 million since August 2021) is welcome, but a drop in the bucket of what it has sent to Ukraine in just two months. Plus, the Afghans need money to pay salaries and restart the economy. They need their own funds, and not just a band-aid.


Afghans in Herat wait for aid, February 2022. (Shutterstock/afad tuncay)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

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.