atlanticcouncil.org

In the thorny world of intra-Afghan talks, new challenges and opportunities emerge

MENASource April 3, 2025 • 3:45 pm ET Print this page

By Omar Samad

The 2021 collapse of the US-backed government in Afghanistan derailed the Doha, Qatar-hosted talks between the Taliban and the republic’s disjointed delegation.

But despite a convenient loss of interest by Taliban rulers, who have been in power-consolidation mode ever since their Kabul takeover, the prospect for practical intra-Afghan talks is not dead.

In fact, February saw a blitz of conferences from the highly diversified Afghan diaspora and more moderate voices representing Afghan civil society. There are also signs of renewed interest on the part of the United Nations in adopting a more comprehensive trust-building approach rather than single-item agendas as a precondition for wider engagement and recognition.

Paired with a new US administration at the helm, which appears willing to break from diplomatic norms to drive results—as recently seen in the case of back-channel facilitations leading to the release of two American detainees in Kabul—there is a renewed urgency in achieving a streamlined vision for a dialogue framework.

The international community now has an opportunity to pursue a two-track policy of ad hoc engagement on issues that are of interest to key stakeholders, while supporting a UN-led effort to address key recommendations as part of Security Council resolutions 2721 and 2777.

A fractioned diaspora, emerging talks

A slew of Afghan dialogues have emerged in recent months. The focus of the talks is as expansive as the diverse range of perspectives participating in them, and they address devastating cuts in humanitarian funding, deteriorating economic and environmental conditions, new regime restrictions on female education, and a lack of recognition compounded by governance weaknesses.

On the diaspora side, three factions emerge. One, those who oppose any type of engagement, under any circumstances, involving the Taliban. This group is subdivided into those who support a military option using force to bring about radical change, and those who favor sanctions and the isolation of the current regime. Two, those who favor nonviolent engagement, but with softer conditions or practical objectives that would bring about policy reform or modifications**,** but also minimize the economic impact felt by more than 90 percent of the population as a result of sanctions and aid cutoff. The range of expectations within this group varies from lifting bans on female education and work to improving governance and widening political participation. And three, Taliban supporters and defenders—in much smaller numbers—who see no harm and generally agree with the regime’s policies.

Several intra-Afghan initiatives took place in February across various Afghan and international centers. A “dialogue forum” held in Istanbul brought together a number of former officials as well as diaspora and Kabul-based civil society participants. They expected Taliban de facto government members or associates to attend the event, but none were present. Two other meetings took place in Qatar. Among them, the Afghanistan Future Thought Forum (AFTF), involving regime sympathizers, civil society and non-Taliban Afghans, held its 10th session in Doha, during which pressing issues such as the evolving regional and international scene, women and girls’ access to education and health, and livelihood and ecological challenges facing Afghans, were discussed.

Another gathering sponsored by the National Resistance Front was held in Vienna. At this gathering, anti-Taliban figures from the republic era and diaspora representatives discussed adopting a program to pursue armed resistance while simultaneously bringing like-minded fractious groupings under a single umbrella.

Two cross-continental structured dialogue groups, the Salaam Center for Dialogue based in the US and the Intra-Afghan Dialogue in Australia, are among active groups merging research and dialogue facilitation methods with external expertise aimed at studying root causes of conflict and bridging the divide between civil societies and other stakeholders inside and outside Afghanistan. Another group, the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies , held a pro-democracy event in Madrid that included opposition figures and select foreign commentators focusing, mainly, on a post-Taliban future.

Other forms of sporadic interactive online chats involve former factional party members and remnants of 1980s and 1990s-era mujahideen groups, primarily based in Turkey, the Gulf States, and Western countries, and ad hoc groups of human rights and ethno-political advocates. Most of the former factional platforms are divided between the idea of fighting the Taliban and the desire to pursue power-sharing negotiations—an idea shunned by the ruling faction in Kabul.

While the primary objective of these gatherings is ostensibly to serve as discussion hubs, some act as ad hoc think tanks or advocacy movements. Notably, a few of these initiatives are for the first time trying to adopt a comprehensive approach to dialogue by bringing together individuals from diverse backgrounds, both men and women, from Afghanistan and beyond. None of these platforms claim explicit political affiliation with current or former governments, highlighting their independent or semi-impartial nature. Furthermore, the majority of these initiatives rely on external funding to meet their logistical needs, highlighting the importance of external support in sustaining these dialogues.

Inside Afghanistan: Taliban posturing and limited dissent

Since their return to power, the resurgent Taliban have characterized the pre-August 2021 talks as suspended due to the collapse of the “republic”, instead encouraging non-political talks within the country. They have at times tolerated a minimal level of Afghan participation on platforms that denounce violence and focus on soft political agendas, either on technical matters or as part of non-confrontational, civil society-led dialogues.

Intra-Taliban dissent—a potent subject—also has its own modalities and limitations, as recently demonstrated by the distancing of several high-ranking officials who are critical of policy strands on female education and more engagement. Despite a government-run commission set up to receive ex-officials who opt to return to the country, serious consultations on improving governance standards or using technocrats have yet to be formalized.

Suffice it to say that it is now evident that some Taliban favor female access to education and are not opposed to preliminary trust-building consultations with other Afghans, while another grouping – smaller yet influential – opposes lifting education curbs or any interaction that might lead to more serious talks on a participatory system or restructuring the existing governance model.

Non-Taliban Afghans inside Afghanistan bring a diversity of views, too. While politically muted and non-provocative criticism of certain policies —particularly those concerning women’s access to education and employment, salaries and pensions, and economic hardship—is tolerated to some extent in public or in the media, the space for overt political dissent within the country has shrunk**.**

There are also reports of small-scale, non-political civil society interactions taking place in Afghanistan itself, yet media outlets underreport these.

Enduring challenges

A significant gap exists in the absence of an umbrella organization capable of bridging the two divergent paths of diplomatic and nonviolent engagement versus conflict. Partisanship in academia, the media, and advocacy movements highlights the complex interplay between research and activism.

The polarization of approaches and diversity of views has also made it more difficult for international intermediaries such as the UN to pursue a path that ties Afghan dialogues to intra-Afghan talks on governance and fundamental rights.

Following the Security Council’s March debates on Afghanistan, the UN-sponsored Doha process plans to consider all issues dividing the current de facto Afghan regime and the international community as valid talking points for an Afghan roadmap as suggested in UN resolutions 2721 and 2777.

The UN process will need to make use of structured trust-building thematic engagement as a precursor to addressing legitimacy and normalization objectives. Some agenda-driven diaspora groups are opposed to UN efforts seeking consensus on a roadmap, while others see it as a credible option to negotiate on reforms and prevent further isolation and impoverishment of the country.

Looking at the evolving intra-Afghan landscape, it’s apparent that the diversity of platforms, networks**,** and agendas that drive advocacy and dialogue processes face ideological, political, representation, structural**,** and funding challenges. Some also offer lessons-learned opportunities for addressing pressing issues, connecting diverse communities, and engaging in results-oriented exchanges that build trust and seek common ground. They are, nonetheless, valuable tools and incubators of thoughts and ideas at a time when both the international community and the Afghan population are looking for practical answers and solutions to the country’s five decades-long ordeal. How Washington, the UN**,** and especially, the de facto regime make use of the intra-Afghan opportunities will depend on political will and strategic foresight.

Omar Samad is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. He is also the founder and president of Silkroad Consulting, LLC. Prior to joining the Atlantic Council, Samad was a senior Afghan expert in residence with the Center for Conflict Management at the US Institute of Peace from January 2012 to January 2013. He also served as Ambassador of Afghanistan to France from 2009 to 2011 and Ambassador to Canada from 2004 to 2009.