Video summary
Former US Ambassador Ronald Neumann suggests that the American flag could once again fly over the US Embassy in Kabul, even under Taliban rule, though this would require significant policy shifts from the group. He argues that while the Taliban might eventually agree to reopen diplomatic relations, they would likely need to make changes regarding their treatment of women to avoid severe domestic political backlash in the United States. Currently, some level of pragmatic engagement is already occurring, with US officials traveling to Kabul for talks on critical issues such as the release of American hostages and counterterrorism cooperation, indicating that maintaining a relationship has never been entirely off the table despite the chaotic departure in 2021.
However, Neumann emphasizes that returning to Afghanistan is fraught with challenges, as the Taliban's governance remains deeply problematic due to its extreme restrictions on women and the continued presence of radical militant groups like al-Qaeda. He warns against repeating past mistakes where massive financial aid was poured into the country too quickly once it appeared stable, which ultimately led to corruption and a dependent Afghan state that could not survive without American protection. Instead of offering grand promises or unconditional concessions in hopes of future change, any new approach must be grounded in a step-by-step process where real actions are exchanged for real actions to rebuild mutual confidence between the two sides.
The potential for re-engagement is also linked to Afghanistan's vast mineral resources, which could provide Washington with a long-term strategic interest, but developing these resources requires a stable security environment and rule of law that do not currently exist. While neighbors like Russia and China have already established formal or close ties with the Taliban, Neumann cautions that abandoning Afghanistan entirely often leads to negative consequences elsewhere, as seen in historical precedents where turning away resulted in getting "bitten" in sensitive areas later. Therefore, while the idea of reopening the embassy is no longer unthinkable, it must be pursued carefully to ensure that the US does not simply bow to demands without securing specific, tangible commitments from the Taliban in return.
Ultimately, if the United States decides to return to Kabul, it must do so on its own terms rather than accepting the Taliban's conditions unconditionally. Neumann insists that there is currently no basis for trust between the two parties, and any diplomatic move must be structured to prevent sending a message that the US will change its position without receiving something of equal value in return. By avoiding the pattern of rapid, unchecked investment that fueled corruption in the past, Washington can potentially establish a more sustainable relationship that addresses specific interests while holding the Taliban accountable for their actions, ensuring that future engagement is both strategic and principled.
Read the full video transcript
Could an American flag fly over the US
Embassy in Kabul again, this time with
the Taliban in power? Former US
Ambassador Ronald Neumann says yes.
>> Yes, I can imagine that. I think the
Taliban would have to make some policy
changes, mostly because the domestic
American political backlash
to just ignoring what they are doing to
women, particularly. I think that would
be very strong. But, there are reasons
to reopen,
uh and I can well imagine the United
States doing it.
>> Despite the images of Americans
scrambling to leave Kabul in 2021,
maintaining some kind of relationship
with Washington was never necessarily
off the table for the Taliban.
>> The Taliban made clear even during the
negotiations in Doha that they wanted a
political relationship to remain. They
wanted the military to go.
>> In fact, some engagement is already
happening. US officials have traveled to
Kabul for talks, while Washington still
has practical reasons to deal with the
Taliban where their interests overlap.
>> The United States is already dealing
with Taliban pragmatically
uh in certain areas. There have been
missions to Kabul, particularly
concerning the release of American
hostages that are held in Afghanistan,
and also uh counterterrorism.
>> But, the Taliban itself remains deeply
problematic. Its treatment of women has
become even more extreme, while serious
questions remain over al-Qaeda and other
radical militant groups operating in
Afghanistan.
>> In some ways, the answer is yes, and in
other ways, it is troublingly no.
Um certainly, it has not changed. It has
gotten worse in terms of being an almost
medieval view of Islam not shared by
most Muslim states.
>> But, staying away also has consequences.
Russia has already formally recognized
the Taliban government. China has built
close ties without formally doing so.
And Afghanistan's neighbors are steadily
expanding trade and political relations.
>> First of all, we've stayed out of
Afghanistan several times in the past.
And I would say whenever we turn our
back on Afghanistan, we end up getting
bitten in some sensitive place.
>> Afghanistan's vast mineral resources
could eventually give Washington another
reason to re-engage. The potential is
real, but for now, it remains a very
long-term prospect.
>> It is potentially interesting if you
understand that potentially is years
away. Because to develop mineral
resources, companies have to invest.
That requires a certain amount of
security. Companies have to believe the
security will last. There has to be a
certain amount of rule of law. None of
that exists now. It could in theory all
be created.
Until it is created, I don't think this
is a serious idea.
>> If Washington does return to Kabul, the
former ambassador there says it cannot
repeat the pattern that helped undermine
its 20 years in Afghanistan. Too little
investment when the country was
relatively stable, then billions poured
in too quickly. An Afghan state that
became dependent on American protection
and never built enough public confidence
to survive without it.
>> When I was there, for instance, was just
beginning to get bad.
And I asked for a what now seems a small
amount, it seemed very big then, $600
million in additional economic support.
I got 43
out of the 600 that I asked for because
Iraq was soaking up everything else.
Later on, we put in billions.
But when we put in big money,
we put it in too fast. And we put it in
too very limited parts of the country
in a effort to get quick stabilization.
And the Afghan political system could
not absorb that money. When it can't
absorb it, it bleeds it off in
corruption.
>> So, if Ambassador Newman were sent back
to Kabul today, his approach would be
very different. No grand promises, no
trust, and no concessions simply in the
hope that the Taliban might change
later.
>> You should only trade real actions for
real actions.
So, if
opening an embassy is something the
Afghans want, might be in our interest.
But,
there are a variety of things we want.
We should have something specific that
they do at the same time in return, not
just maybe we'll do it later.
And that has to be step-by-step
because there is no confidence, there's
no from either side, and there's no
reason for either side to have any
confidence or trust.
And if you
do things like opening an embassy
without getting anything in return, you
simply leave the message that the
Afghans don't have to move.
They They just stay put and the United
States will bow and change his position.
>> For Washington, going back to
Afghanistan may no longer be an
unthinkable idea. But, the former
ambassador's message is clear. If
America returns to Kabul, it should not
be on the Taliban's terms.