Most current Taliban officials aren’t subject to U.S. or U.N. sanctions and those that are routinely are granted waivers to travel – with foreign partners often covering the costs. As part of their Captured State project, the George W. Bush Institute recently launched a new report, Taliban Travel Tracker which lists in one place all the travel ban exemptions granted to sanction Taliban leaders.

In the following interview, Natalie Gonnella-Platts, director of global policy, and Albert Torres, a senior program manager of global policy at the Bush Institute, explain existing sanctions that target Taliban leadership, how these mechanisms are underutilized, and how regular exemptions undercut global efforts to affect change in Afghanistan.

“As Taliban officials jet set around the world, Afghan women and other marginalized populations are prohibited from freedom of movement, employment, education, and even public worship,” they write.

U.N. Resolution 1988 – adopted unanimously by the Security Council in 2011 – continues to impose an asset freeze, a travel ban, and an arms embargo on 135 individuals and five entities associated with the Taliban. What was the motivation behind the resolution?

Sanctions are usually imposed for human rights abuses, violations of international law, and violent activity that threatens the security of regions or the global community at large. Sanctions on the Taliban are no different. 

By freezing their assets and restricting their ability to travel, U.N. Resolution 1988 hopes to isolate the Taliban enough to compel them to abandon their behavior. If successful, the resolution will deter the Taliban from engaging in support for both internal and external terrorist activity and violating human rights and lead to peace, security, and stability for Afghanistan. At least in theory.

Over time, the restraints imposed by the U.N. will impose significant pressure on their operations, ideally undermining the Taliban and making them a pariah within the international community. These restrictions include cutting off the Taliban’s revenue streams, making their funds inaccessible, and preventing them from forging strong relationships that increase their support or enhance their image. 

The U.N. sanctions committee should tighten these measures, with member states implementing the restrictions, until the Taliban are incapable of fulfilling their objective of international recognition. This would either force them out of their position or force them to rectify the activity that the committee labels as sanctionable.

Before the August 2021 collapse of the Afghan Republic government, under what circumstances were listed Taliban officials granted exemptions from the travel ban, in particular? How common were such exemptions before the blanket waiver?

Circumstances then were very different than they are today, so it’s tricky to compare them. But the history is definitely important.

Approved exemptions weren’t common between 2012 and early 2019. Only a handful were listed in the 1988 Committee’s annual reports, including one in 2018 for an individual to travel to Moscow to participate in a regional........

© The Diplomat