Table of Contents
The legal status of Taliban and U.S. funding
The ongoing debate surrounding U.S. financial assistance to Afghanistan has intensified since the Taliban’s takeover in 2021. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the Taliban lacks any legal claim to billions of dollars allocated for the country.
This is primarily due to their non-recognition as the legitimate government by the United States, coupled with the sanctions imposed on them. The SIGAR report highlights that the U.S. government must reassess the nearly $4 billion earmarked for Afghanistan, suggesting that these funds should remain under U.S.
control until a legitimate government is established.
Impact of frozen assets on Afghanistan’s economy
In 2022, the U.S. transferred $3.5 billion in Afghan central bank assets to the Swiss-based Fund for the Afghan People, which has since grown to nearly $4 billion.
However, despite the fund’s growth, no payments have been made to benefit the Afghan populace. The Afghan Economy Ministry has expressed concerns over the freezing of over $9 billion in foreign exchange reserves, warning that any U.S. actions regarding these funds are unacceptable.
They argue that the return of these assets is crucial for stabilizing the Afghan economy, which has been severely impacted by the ongoing sanctions and lack of international recognition.
The humanitarian crisis and U.S. aid effectiveness
While the U.S.
remains the largest donor to Afghanistan, the effectiveness of its humanitarian assistance has come under scrutiny. The SIGAR report indicates that nearly $3.71 billion has been spent since the U.S. withdrawal, primarily directed towards U.N. agencies. Although this aid may have prevented widespread famine, it has not deterred the Taliban from engaging in human rights abuses, including the oppression of women and girls and the targeting of former government officials.
Critics argue that the further aid travels from its source, the less transparent and effective it becomes, raising questions about the true impact of U.S. funding on the ground.
