Afghanistan

[Cosmic Yak]

A pretext of the US seizing the funds out of a spirit of safeguarding it from the Taliban collapses when the US announces they are going to steal half of it to pay out to American citizens.

Yes, but this is not an either/or situation. Just because the US may not be justified in keeping the money to give to US citizens does not mean that the Taliban is therefore entitled to that money. Both parties can be in the wrong here.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, but this is not an either/or situation. Just because the US may not be justified in keeping the money to give to US citizens does not mean that the Taliban is therefore entitled to that money. Both parties can be in the wrong here.

Sure.

Setting aside who "deserves" the money, allowing Afghanistan to become a nation of beggars seems like, from a realpolitik analysis, an extremely self-sabotaging move.

I can't see how intentionally casting the entire population into extreme poverty overnight is going to have anything but bad consequences for everyone.

 

[theprestige]

Sure.

Setting aside who "deserves" the money, allowing Afghanistan to become a nation of beggars seems like, from a realpolitik analysis, an extremely self-sabotaging move.

How is it self-sabotaging? From a realpolitik point of view, Afghanistan seems like exactly the kind of region that could be left to its own devices and deficiencies, without troubling the great powers' global plans one whit. The US especially loses nothing by Afghanistan being a ********.

Afghanistan doesn't sit astride any major trade routes. It controls no significant sources of any commodity. It poses no significant military threat to any of its neighbors. What's the realpolitik imperative to stabilize Afghanistan, in your mind?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

How is it self-sabotaging? From a realpolitik point of view, Afghanistan seems like exactly the kind of region that could be left to its own devices and deficiencies, without troubling the great powers' global plans one whit. The US especially loses nothing by Afghanistan being a ********.

Afghanistan doesn't sit astride any major trade routes. It controls no significant sources of any commodity. It poses no significant military threat to any of its neighbors. What's the realpolitik imperative to stabilize Afghanistan, in your mind?

Ostensibly the entire invasion of Afghanistan was predicated on the idea that a lawless backwater was the perfect place for terror cells to organize themselves and lash out at the Western world.

Seems this corner of the world is going to have no shortage of righteously aggrieved, desperate people for the foreseeable future.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ostensibly the entire invasion of Afghanistan was predicated on the idea that a lawless backwater was the perfect place for terror cells to organize themselves and lash out at the Western world.

Seems this corner of the world is going to have no shortage of righteously aggrieved, desperate people for the foreseeable future.

Except the people who attacked us were neither righteously aggrieved nor desperate. Al Qaeda used the instability in Afghanistan in order to protect itself, but it was not born from that instability. Neither the hijackers nor their masterminds were Afghani, nor were they poor. If there are future major terrorist attacks on the west from Afghanistan in the future, they will likely follow that same model.

 

[theprestige]

Ostensibly the entire invasion of Afghanistan was predicated on the idea that a lawless backwater was the perfect place for terror cells to organize themselves and lash out at the Western world.

"Ostensibly"? Some unnamed source says this, and you believe it, base your argument on it?

Seems this corner of the world is going to have no shortage of righteously aggrieved, desperate people for the foreseeable future.

And?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

"Ostensibly"? Some unnamed source says this, and you believe it, base your argument on it?

I think you misunderstand me. I'll be more plain. The 9/11 attacks were the reason why the US invaded Afghanistan. Ensuring that the Taliban controlled country would no longer be a viable host for international terror was one of the explicit goals of the invasion.

And?

Seems to me there is a high likelihood of blowback from allowing such a catastrophe to run its course. Do you think the troubles of Afghanistan will remain in Afghanistan?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Sure.

Setting aside who "deserves" the money, allowing Afghanistan to become a nation of beggars seems like, from a realpolitik analysis, an extremely self-sabotaging move.

I can't see how intentionally casting the entire population into extreme poverty overnight is going to have anything but bad consequences for everyone.

But, as I pointed out before, that money was not in Afghanistan before. It was not doing anything in Afghanistan before. It was sitting in banks outside of Afghanistan.
How does that unchanged situation- because the money is still not in Afghanistan- suddenly plunge the country into poverty overnight?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But, as I pointed out before, that money was not in Afghanistan before. It was not doing anything in Afghanistan before. It was sitting in banks outside of Afghanistan.
How does that unchanged situation- because the money is still not in Afghanistan- suddenly plunge the country into poverty overnight?

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand this liquidity crisis. Perhaps read any of the articles cited in this thread recently, or fire up the ole google box.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand this liquidity crisis. Perhaps read any of the articles cited in this thread recently, or fire up the ole google box.

I went back as far as September of last year in this thread, and found no articles explaining this problem.
Got links?

 

[Blue Mountain]

But, as I pointed out before, that money was not in Afghanistan before. It was not doing anything in Afghanistan before. It was sitting in banks outside of Afghanistan.
How does that unchanged situation- because the money is still not in Afghanistan- suddenly plunge the country into poverty overnight?

Just because the money isn't in Afghani banks doesn't mean it's inaccessible. Prior to the funds being frozen, the government could simply request a transfer from the foreign bank to whomever they wish to pay internationally, or to a bank within the country if they needed the money for domestic purposes.

It'd argue that even in normal times the money was probably safer there than in banks inside a notoriously unstable country. With the unfortunate side-effect that the countries where the banks are located can freeze the assets.

 

[Olmstead]

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand this liquidity crisis. Perhaps read any of the articles cited in this thread recently, or fire up the ole google box.

Most articles seem to offer few solutions. I guess the US could just deposit all the money to Taliban accounts. Is that it?

 

[Planigale]

Most articles seem to offer few solutions. I guess the US could just deposit all the money to Taliban accounts. Is that it?

I think you fail to understand the difference between a political party and the government. When the Democratic party took control of the US government, US bank accounts were not transferred to the Democratic party. The Taliban are the majority but not the only party forming the Afghan government. The functions of government continue. There are civil servants needing to be paid, schools and teachers to be paid for, health care, roads repaired, etc. I linked to the non-Taliban ex-minister of health pointing out the systems are exactly the same now as when he was the minister for health. Oil needs to be paid for for power generation.

This is a dollar account. Large numbers of developing world countries maintain dollar accounts because it provides some protection against fluctuations in exchange rates, things like oil need to be paid for in dollars.

See here for another reason to have the money in a non-Afghan bank account.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-afghan-bank-heist

So, no the money should not be transferred to the Taliban that is just silly. The money should do the same thing as it did last year. Pay salaries, buy vaccines, buy oil etc. Control measures should be in place to try and ensure that the money is distributed properly and not siphoned off. But the reality is the taliban are widely regarded as less corrupt than their predecessors on government and as the reference above shows, last year US aid likely went in part to the Taliban - indirectly.

It is in our interests to engage with the Taliban to have a supervised financial system. We do not want the Afghan government to rely on taxing the opium trade, on informal financial systems and the Chinese and Russian governments.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Just because the money isn't in Afghani banks doesn't mean it's inaccessible. Prior to the funds being frozen, the government could simply request a transfer from the foreign bank to whomever they wish to pay internationally, or to a bank within the country if they needed the money for domestic purposes.

It'd argue that even in normal times the money was probably safer there than in banks inside a notoriously unstable country. With the unfortunate side-effect that the countries where the banks are located can freeze the assets.

I didn't say it was inaccessible before the Taliban takeover: I said it wasn't being used.
Look, I freely admit to having only a layman's grasp of economics, and am happy to be educated on this topic. If this money was somehow keeping the Afghan economy afloat, then do please link to something that explains how.

I did a quick search myself yesterday, and learned that at least part of the liquidity crisis has been caused by Afghans themselves. They have withdrawn massive amounts of cash, and are basically hiding it under their mattresses.
https://www.reuters.com/business/fi...al-collapse-afghan-banking-system-2021-11-22/

Again, it would appear the Afghans are their own worst enemy here.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I didn't say it was inaccessible before the Taliban takeover: I said it wasn't being used.

Think of it as a savings account. The funds are there and perhaps are earning a small amount of interest income until they are needed. The former government was relying on them being available so they could do things like buy food, oil, electricity, and pay the civil service. Then the Taliban came to power and the funds were frozen. Now the new government can't buy food, oil, electricity, nor can they pay the civil service because they no longer have access to the money.

Look, I freely admit to having only a layman's grasp of economics, and am happy to be educated on this topic. If this money was somehow keeping the Afghan economy afloat, then do please link to something that explains how.

Here's one: Afghanistan’s frozen funds: leverage over the Taliban or the cause of an economic crisis? [princeton.edu]

Afghanistan is experiencing a liquidity crisis caused by the freezing of funds and pausing of foreign aid by the United States, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. As the international community considers how the withheld funds can be used as leverage when negotiating with the Taliban, the country’s economy is on the verge of collapse.

“The Afghan banking system has ground to a halt because they don’t have any cash,” said Antonio Donini, former Director of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan. “Even if agencies and NGOs have a budget to do particular projects, they can’t get the money out of the banks, so they can’t pay their staff.”

I did a quick search myself yesterday, and learned that at least part of the liquidity crisis has been caused by Afghans themselves. They have withdrawn massive amounts of cash, and are basically hiding it under their mattresses.
https://www.reuters.com/business/fi...al-collapse-afghan-banking-system-2021-11-22/

Again, it would appear the Afghans are their own worst enemy here.

True, a bank run doesn't help the banks. But the banks themselves aren't able to bring in any new cash thanks to the frozen assets and a ban on sending money to the country.


I really feel for the larger population of Afghanistan, especially those living in the cities who can't farm their own food. They had no say in whether or not they wanted the Taliban in power; the group simply roared into the country and took over the former government by force. Yes, said former government was incredibly corrupt and largely ineffective, but at least it had the backing of the international community, which meant some semblance of a stable economy.

I'm very saddened to see large numbers of people suddenly displaced and driven into poverty because a group of fanatics with a very narrow worldview took over. That's true not only of Afghanistan, but of all people forced to live under governments who have little care for the people of the counties they're supposed to be running.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, but this is not an either/or situation. Just because the US may not be justified in keeping the money to give to US citizens does not mean that the Taliban is therefore entitled to that money. Both parties can be in the wrong here.

Clearly it belongs to the previous government officials so they can steal it.

 

[dudalb]

I think you fail to understand the difference between a political party and the government. When the Democratic party took control of the US government, US bank accounts were not transferred to the Democratic party. The Taliban are the majority but not the only party forming the Afghan government. The functions of government continue. There are civil servants needing to be paid, schools and teachers to be paid for, health care, roads repaired, etc. I linked to the non-Taliban ex-minister of health pointing out the systems are exactly the same now as when he was the minister for health. Oil needs to be paid for for power generation.

This is a dollar account. Large numbers of developing world countries maintain dollar accounts because it provides some protection against fluctuations in exchange rates, things like oil need to be paid for in dollars.

See here for another reason to have the money in a non-Afghan bank account.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-afghan-bank-heist

So, no the money should not be transferred to the Taliban that is just silly. The money should do the same thing as it did last year. Pay salaries, buy vaccines, buy oil etc. Control measures should be in place to try and ensure that the money is distributed properly and not siphoned off. But the reality is the taliban are widely regarded as less corrupt than their predecessors on government and as the reference above shows, last year US aid likely went in part to the Taliban - indirectly.

It is in our interests to engage with the Taliban to have a supervised financial system. We do not want the Afghan government to rely on taxing the opium trade, on informal financial systems and the Chinese and Russian governments.

You are under the delusion that the Taliban is capable of governing a countryi in a human manner. It is just that...a delusion.

 

[dudalb]

I am still amazed by how some "Progressives" seem to have a love affair with a Islamic FUndy theocracy.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Clearly it belongs to the previous government officials so they can steal it.

You have an astonishing knack of saying something that cannot in any way follow from the post you were responding to.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You have an astonishing knack of saying something that cannot in any way follow from the post you were responding to.

War on Terror cargo cult. Wasn't that long ago that any idiotic idea could be justified so long as it was pitched as opposing international terror and Islamic fundamentalism, which is how you end up where we are now. I don't think everyone has yet caught on that saying these words don't have quite the same magic effect on the public anymore.

It's sad to see, but even more pathetic are the Cold War cargo cult types that are still around these days.