Recent remarks of the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in regard to Afghanistan should end any attempt to legitimize Taliban government as a normal government. When Washington defines Taliban as a nation which engages in the illegal arrests, he is not speaking in the typical diplomacy speech. It is making an arduous deduction about the nature of the regime in general. It is significant because, during the past several years the Taliban tried to build the false image of order, tourism and stability. They have sought to establish their legitimacy abroad and they have governed by terror back home. The quote by Rubio cuts this picture and takes away the world of that perception where Afghanistan under the Taliban rule is still a country where the authority is exercised without law, without accountability, and without the fundamental respect of the human life.

The most significant thing about the American position is that the Taliban is still detaining the US citizens to allow them to be given some political concessions. In the instance where this is so and there is not so much to challenge the anxiety being portrayed by the high-ranking officials in America, then it is not merely a matter of security. It is hostage politics. It shows that there is a regime that does not regard human beings as persons with rights, but as points of exchange. Such kind of behaviour is not a form of a state that tries to establish responsible relations to the outside world. It is the response of a military action, which still thinks in the terms of pressure, bargains and coercion. Embassies may be reopened, sanctions may be removed, diplomatic position may be enhanced but the Taliban may never expect a serious nation to be on such path if foreign nationals are being used as leverage tool.

The only righteous position is that of Rubio who insists on freeing the American citizens without conditions and as soon as possible. This is not the place where there should be some ambiguity, some moral confusion, or even some mild language. It is the truth, period since it is a government that acts to push the civilians into taking benefits. It cannot be a matter of diplomacy and how. It is also a test of principle. If the Taliban is allowed to claim whatever through such arrests, then the lesson will be dangerous. It will open their eyes and possibly those of others on the fact that illegal arrests can yield fruits. That would not discourage the same but on the contrary encourage it. United States has a point when it sets release as the first and the only condition.

Another worthy addition is the comments of the Assistant Secretary of State, Mora Namdar. She has clarified it very clear that despite what Taliban might claim, American citizens in Afghanistan are seriously faced with threats. That fact is to be quoted far more than Washington. Months after it, the Taliban officials and its supporters have been promoting the notion that Afghanistan is business friendly and even tourism friendly. The content in social media video has been smiling foreigners, crowded markets, picturesque valleys, and some sort of enforced normality. But the US government is cautioning against that. It is even said that people can hardly guarantee the security of foreign nationals in Afghanistan, which remains not safe, unstable, and intact. This view is much more probable than the PR campaign by the Taliban.

The other powerful message is the travel ban of Afghanistan by US which remains in force. Travel advice is not a nominal text. They reflect an actual assessment of threat, which includes imprisonment, violence, and poor state security. They are not referring to a political slogan when American authorities state that there is no single safe place in Afghanistan although Taliban talks about tourism. They are retelling a reality that is dictated by arbitrary rule, feeble institutions, belligerent actors, and a justice that lacks the term. It does not just plunge the idea of informal international travelling in a disgraceful context. It is detached from facts.

This issue also reveals a higher mistake that has been tempted to be committed by specific members of the international community. There are quarters that have been attempting to justify the Taliban covertly without necessarily having to necessitate any transformation. The first reason is likely to sound in the following manner: engagement is a necessity, solitude was not effective, and practical cooperation is better than ethical detachment. The involvement is relatively true in the measure of supporting the Afghan people. The condition-free involvement can easily be turned into the capitulation of norms. The Taliban has not been able to depict the action of a government that has embarked on moderation. They have shown, the inclinations of a movement still founded on control, intimidation and ideological chastisement. Women still cannot be given a role in the social life and education, and revolt is repressed and basic freedoms are denied. The best example of such a trend is the foreign national’s detention. It is not an exception. It is part of the system.

© Eurasia Review