Speaking in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Behrouz Ayaz, referred to the holding of two emergency sessions by the UN Security Council on the situation in Afghanistan on Friday, August 6 and Monday, August 16, and said: The meetings, chaired by India, followed by sharp speeches of the Afghanistan’s envoy against the Taliban and condemning the group by the UN Security Council and emphasis of the UN Secretary-General on supporting the Afghan people and denouncing violence.

Saying that at the August 6 meeting, the Afghan representative sharply criticized the Taliban’s measures and made six proposals, he added: Making a clear and unequivocal statement by the Security Council on the cessation of hostilities, emphasis of the participating countries in the session and negotiations on the ceasefire, travel exemptions for Taliban negotiating members, forcing the group to a ceasefire and respect for human rights by countries that are associated with this group, and holding the perpetrators of current situation accountable before the Security Council and the United Nations were among the issues emphasized at the meeting.

Inability of Security Council to take timely action

Recalling that the August 16 session of the participating countries emphasized support for the rights of women, children, civilians and ethnic and religious minorities, the expert on Asia affairs said: Examining those statements in the first place shows that the Security Council and the United Nations were unable or unwilling to take appropriate and timely action on the complex issue of Afghanistan. Late and relatively delayed meetings of this organization, in comparison with the transient developments in that country and only “expressing concern” and “expressing the hope for the observance of human rights by the Taliban” and not issuing an effective resolution in this regard, are clear evidence of such claim.

Saying that the Afghan government had no choice but to turn to legal authorities and international organizations, Ayaz added: This government not only had no hope of preventing the domino effect of its provinces from falling into the hands of the Taliban, but also considered the group victorious of the events ahead. Recourse to legal means and international organizations was the last attempt of the Kabul government to convey its message to the world and to protest the movements of that militant group.

Emphasizing that, as the 20-year military presence of the United States and Britain, as powerful members of the Security Council, did not stop the Taliban from advancing, and the Security Council statements and resolutions will bring no change, he continued: What distinguishes these two recent meetings and the resulting statements from other statements on the social-political situation in Afghanistan is the greater focus on the human rights situation and the future of women and ethnic and religious minorities.

Acceptance of full Taliban domination at Security Council

Ayaz considered the important point of those statements as the acceptance of the Taliban’s complete domination of Afghanistan and the defeat of Kabul government in the field of political power of that country and said: Another point that can be concluded from the statement made at the recent meeting is the possibility of forming a transitional government of Afghanistan against the Taliban, the implementation of which depends on the upcoming events and the consensus of Western governments.

The analyst of Asia affairs, recalling that the recent statements of the Security Council on Afghanistan are more formal and reflect the position of the countries and not their actual position, added: Today’s Taliban is stronger and more experienced in political and military affairs than the Taliban of the past 20 years. Over the years, the group has increased its diplomatic and military capabilities and seeks to connect with the world with a clearer view.

He stressed: Since the resolutions and statements of international organizations have always been subject to the existing political power and realities, it can be said that the strong position of the UN Secretary General and members of the Security Council in condemning the Taliban’s progress was more formal and temporary.

The expert on Asia affairs, stating that China and Russia, as the two powerful members of the Security Council, are reluctant to take coercive action against the Taliban, said: It seems that Western governments also make recognition of the Taliban government conditional on the establishment of security and human rights and recognize it in a short period of time.

A new phase of regional equations in South Asia

Ayaz reminded that the Taliban government will develop good relations with Pakistan, China and Russia, adding: China will move towards a relationship with the future government of Afghanistan with a strategic and economic view, which is in line with the grand plan of “One Belt One Road” and preventing Washington from re-infiltrating in Afghanistan, as well as exploiting the country’s vast natural resources. The Pakistani government will also re-establish extensive ties with the Taliban government to regain its strategic depth and remove India’s footprint in the country. Thus, regional equations in South Asia are expected to enter a new phase and change the current polarizations of countries at the regional level.

According to the analyst of Asia affairs, recent events indicate the failure of the United States in its nation-state building project, human rights, support for the rights of ethnic and religious minorities and women’s rights, implementation of democracy and establishment of a strong government in Afghanistan, and Washington’s intentional or unintentional investment on corrupt political figures to establish order, and to hand over large economic projects to corrupt economic contractors in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, Ayaz referred to the sudden and irresponsible withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan and questions about the real purpose of the US military presence in Afghanistan, and said: Was Washington, with its 20-year presence in Afghanistan, losing 2,000 people and having about 20,000 wounded troops, displacing more than 2 million Afghans and killing nearly 50,000 civilians in that country and spending more than 2 trillion dollars, seeking to establish order, security, respect for human rights and democracy in Afghanistan? Or was the presence aimed at being in one of the most sensitive and strategic regions of the world, being close to some of the big nuclear powers and to control them, especially China? Field data and the current situation in Afghanistan show that the US administration has been forced to leave the country in disgrace due to its failure in achieving its targets in Afghanistan.