灾难外交:阿富汗“和平进程”与塔利班占领喀布尔

IF 0.9 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Hague Journal of Diplomacy Pub Date : 2022-02-17 DOI:10.1163/1871191x-bja10089
W. Maley, Ahmad Shuja Jamal
{"title":"灾难外交:阿富汗“和平进程”与塔利班占领喀布尔","authors":"W. Maley, Ahmad Shuja Jamal","doi":"10.1163/1871191x-bja10089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nOn 29 February 2020 in Doha, the United States signed an ‘Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan’ with the extremist Taliban movement. Yet on 15 August 2021, the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul. This article argues that the Doha Agreement did not simply precede the Taliban takeover; in significant ways it contributed to it. In its negotiation, content and implementation, it created destructive incentives for domestic and international parties, and it had effects on mass psychology in Afghanistan that its creators seemed not to have anticipated or understood. In that sense, it serves as a cautionary tale about the danger of assuming that negotiated ‘diplomatic solutions’ are necessarily superior to messy alternatives. The closest 20th-century equivalent was the Munich Agreement of September 1938.","PeriodicalId":44787,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal of Diplomacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diplomacy of Disaster: The Afghanistan ‘Peace Process’ and the Taliban Occupation of Kabul\",\"authors\":\"W. Maley, Ahmad Shuja Jamal\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1871191x-bja10089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nOn 29 February 2020 in Doha, the United States signed an ‘Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan’ with the extremist Taliban movement. Yet on 15 August 2021, the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul. This article argues that the Doha Agreement did not simply precede the Taliban takeover; in significant ways it contributed to it. In its negotiation, content and implementation, it created destructive incentives for domestic and international parties, and it had effects on mass psychology in Afghanistan that its creators seemed not to have anticipated or understood. In that sense, it serves as a cautionary tale about the danger of assuming that negotiated ‘diplomatic solutions’ are necessarily superior to messy alternatives. The closest 20th-century equivalent was the Munich Agreement of September 1938.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44787,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hague Journal of Diplomacy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hague Journal of Diplomacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal of Diplomacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

2020年2月29日,美国与极端主义塔利班运动在多哈签署了“为阿富汗带来和平的协议”。然而,2021年8月15日,塔利班夺取了阿富汗首都喀布尔的控制权。本文认为,多哈协议并非简单地先于塔利班掌权;在很大程度上,它促成了它。在其谈判、内容和执行方面,它为国内和国际各方创造了破坏性的激励,并对阿富汗的大众心理产生了其创造者似乎没有预料到或理解的影响。从这个意义上说,它是一个警示故事,警示人们认为谈判的“外交解决方案”必然优于混乱的替代方案的危险。与20世纪最接近的是1938年9月的《慕尼黑协定》(Munich Agreement)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diplomacy of Disaster: The Afghanistan ‘Peace Process’ and the Taliban Occupation of Kabul
On 29 February 2020 in Doha, the United States signed an ‘Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan’ with the extremist Taliban movement. Yet on 15 August 2021, the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul. This article argues that the Doha Agreement did not simply precede the Taliban takeover; in significant ways it contributed to it. In its negotiation, content and implementation, it created destructive incentives for domestic and international parties, and it had effects on mass psychology in Afghanistan that its creators seemed not to have anticipated or understood. In that sense, it serves as a cautionary tale about the danger of assuming that negotiated ‘diplomatic solutions’ are necessarily superior to messy alternatives. The closest 20th-century equivalent was the Munich Agreement of September 1938.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hague Journal of Diplomacy
Hague Journal of Diplomacy INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
28.60%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Diplomats as Skilful Bricoleurs of the Digital Age: EU Foreign Policy Communications from the COREU to WhatsApp Domestic Digital Diplomacy: Digital Disruption at the Macro and Micro Levels Public Diplomacy in Vietnam: National Interests and Identities in the Public Sphere, written by Vu Lam Diversity and Women’s Representation in Small States’ Diplomacy: A Case Study of Lithuania Chinese Soft Power, written by Maria Repnikova
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1