Even prior to the Taliban’s conquest of Kabul, many European leaders began contemplating future relations with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
British Defense Minister Ben Wallace, for example, suggested that the United Kingdom would work with the Taliban if they abide by international norms. He added that London would reconsider that relationship “if they behave in a way that is seriously against human rights.” Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the Taliban that while the EU had yet to recognize their regime officially, she would propose tens of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Provided, that is, that the Taliban respect human rights. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also tied German assistance to human rights, stating, “We will not give another cent if the Taliban takes over the country and introduces Sharia law.”
No one should believe European leaders are willing to allow human rights to stand in the way of commercial interests, no matter how odious the regime.
When Klaus Kinkel became Germany’s foreign minister almost three decades ago, he promised to tie German foreign policy to human rights. Not long after, the EU endorsed Germany’s proposed “critical dialogue” with Iran. The idea was simple: European governments would calibrate trade to Iran’s respect for human rights and norms of behavior (for example, no terrorism). The following year, European Commissioner Hans van den Broek met with British Indian author Salman Rushdie to assure him that Iran had lifted the fatwa calling for his death (it has not).
Iranian leaders proceeded to test Germany, taking several German citizens hostage. Rather than back away from trade, German leaders pressed ahead. Within three years, German exports to Iran had increased to $1.4 billion, more than doubling the amount of any other country’s involvement in the Iranian market. Nor was Germany alone. By 1996, trade relations between the EU and Iran reached $29 billion. Even when European leaders suspended diplomatic ties — for example, when Iranian security forces threatened to overrun the German Embassy in Tehran — trade continued. It was during a diplomatic suspension when Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi sent a trade delegation to Tehran with promises of $3 billion credits. That same year, the French oil company Total signed a $2 billion agreement to develop Iran’s oil fields.
The French were especially cynical. After paying to spring their last hostage from Iran, the French Foreign Ministry simply denied that any evidence of Iranian terror sponsorship existed. “There is no evidence,” French Foreign Ministry spokesman Yves Doutriaux remarked during an August 1996 television interview.
Iran’s 1994 attack on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires? Its well-documented support for Hezbollah and Hamas? A string of assassinations of Iranian dissidents in Europe? Inconveniences to ignore when real money was at stake. During this same period, Iranian persecution of religious minorities increased, and Tehran refused to allow the U.N. rapporteur for human rights to step foot in the Islamic Republic. As for Maas, he has repeatedly feted the Iranian regime.
Simply put, while European leaders relished the reputation of taking human rights seriously, they dispensed with any pretense of caring about human rights when Iranian officials dangled contracts.
Back to Afghanistan: The Taliban are odious, but there are potentially billions of dollars in profits for those seeking to tap Afghanistan’s natural resources or build pipelines across its territory. All they need to do is turn a blind eye to Taliban abuses. Don’t be surprised if European states are the first in line.
Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
