Is Washington Softening its Stance Towards the Taliban as a "Terrorist" Group?

The US State Department has reaffirmed that it continues to classify the Taliban as a "terrorist organisation”.

A spokesperson for the department told Afghanistan International that the United States, alongside its allies, does not recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Until there are discernible changes in the Taliban’s behaviour, meaningful engagement between the US government and the group remains unlikely.

Over the past three years, US efforts have focused on humanitarian aid, securing the release of American hostages held by the Taliban, forging global consensus to improve the situation in Afghanistan, and managing threats from groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS-Khorasan.

However, this raises the question: does Washington’s continued emphasis on labelling the Taliban as a "terrorist" group signal a harder stance, or is it indicative of increasing flexibility in addressing the evolving situation in Afghanistan?

Why Does the US Still Consider the Taliban a "Terrorist Group"?

When US officials describe the Taliban as an international terrorist organisation, they are referencing legal provisions established by former President George W Bush.

Following the September 11 attacks, Bush signed Executive Order 13224 on 23 September 2001, which officially designated the Taliban as an international terrorist group. This order remains in force, meaning that under US law, both the Taliban and the Haqqani network continue to be recognised as international terrorist entities.

At the time, President Bush emphasised that Executive Order 13224 was intended to disrupt the financing of terrorism and reaffirmed America’s commitment to lead international efforts in combatting terrorism. This order, issued under powers including the National Emergencies Act, directed US agencies to take necessary actions to address extraordinary threats to national security, foreign policy, and the US economy posed by acts and threats of terrorism.

Moreover, the executive order granted the US government tools to dismantle the Taliban’s financial networks, freeze the assets of Taliban leaders, and target foreign entities associated with them.

What is a U.S. Presidential Executive Order?

One of the critical powers vested in the U.S. President is the ability to issue executive orders, which are utilised across various domains such as economic policy, national security, and foreign relations. Executive orders possess distinct characteristics. Firstly, these orders must comply with the U.S. Constitution and federal laws; they cannot contravene legislation enacted by Congress. While executive orders do not require Congressional approval, Congress does have the authority to review them and, if necessary, pass laws to limit or revoke them.

Another significant aspect of executive orders is that each new president has the authority to rescind or amend the executive orders of their predecessors, a process that often occurs at the beginning of a new presidential term.

Under Executive Order 13224, issued by President George W. Bush in 2001, the Taliban has been officially designated as a terrorist organisation. This order remains in effect and has not been repealed. Removing the Taliban from the list of terrorist groups is a complex and protracted process. It is unlikely that President Joe Biden, who has faced substantial criticism over the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, will issue an executive order to repeal Bush’s order and remove the Taliban from the terrorist list.

This decision is more likely to fall to the next president. Regardless of who the next president may be, it is improbable that Afghanistan will be high on their list of priorities. Consequently, no major changes in U.S. policy towards the Taliban are expected for at least a year after the next presidential election. The next president could potentially rescind George Bush’s executive order, which would remove the Taliban from the list of terrorist organisations and open the door to new diplomatic or economic engagements. However, this process would be time-consuming, as such a move would likely face opposition from lawmakers in Congress.

Executive Orders and Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan

While Executive Order 13224 sanctions the Taliban and the Haqqani network, it does not impede the delivery of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. The export of agricultural goods, medicines, and medical equipment to Afghanistan is not prohibited. The US Treasury Department has clarified that the sanctions allow US citizens to export goods and services to Afghanistan, provided that such transactions do not involve individuals or entities subject to sanctions.

In addition, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued several general licences related to Afghanistan, specifically aimed at facilitating the provision of humanitarian aid. These licences provide guidance on the permissible transactions under the existing sanctions and highlight that humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan can be delivered without breaching U.S. regulations.

As a result, U.S. government humanitarian aid to Afghanistan is provided in accordance with the licences issued by the Treasury Department, which are designed to ease the process of delivering such aid. However, any direct economic assistance or commercial transactions between the U.S. government and any entity affiliated with the Taliban could lead to legal consequences under Executive Order 13224. Until this order, which designates the Taliban as a terrorist organisation, is formally rescinded by the U.S. President, any official economic dealings or trade with the Taliban remain illegal under U.S. law and could result in severe repercussions.

Why Did the US Sign An Agreement With a "Terrorist" Group?

A key question that arises is: if the Taliban is officially considered a terrorist group, why did the US engage in negotiations with them and sign the Doha Agreement?

This action can be understood in the context of the United Nations’ approach, which permits negotiations with groups such as the Taliban and Hamas to "secure peace”. Since the 1980s, the UN has engaged in talks with various groups officially designated as terrorist organisations.

Following the September 11 attacks, engaging with the Taliban became even more complicated after the UN Security Council also designated the Taliban as a terrorist group. However, in 2008, the appointment of Kai Eide as the UN Special Representative for Afghanistan marked a shift in this approach. Eide underscored the "importance of engaging with the Taliban to establish peace in Afghanistan," justifying this stance based on the UN’s "principle of neutrality”. He argued that avoiding dialogue could undermine peace-building efforts, and engagement with all parties is essential.

After this shift, the US government began secret negotiations with the Taliban.

From the US government’s perspective, direct talks with the Taliban, culminating in the signing of the Doha Agreement, were in pursuit of "securing peace" and had the support of the United Nations. These negotiations were not considered a violation of any legal framework.