The UN Security Council had previously used the term “de facto authorities” of Afghanistan when referring to the Taliban in its official texts.
According to Andisha, the international community is gradually and legally changing its approach towards what he described as “illegitimate regimes”.
He said reducing the Taliban’s status from “de facto authorities” to “relevant authorities” deprives the group of the gradual legal legitimacy it seeks to obtain.
Writing on X on Monday, June 15, Andisha said the development could be significant for the future of democratic resistance movements in Afghanistan and Myanmar.
He argued that the change may appear minor, but in international law, terminology is closely linked to questions of sovereignty.
The Taliban refers to its system of government as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but apart from Russia, no country has formally recognised it.
Andisha also pointed to the UN’s approach towards Myanmar, noting that the Human Rights Council, at its 62nd session, maintained its decision not to seat a representative of Myanmar’s military government.
He wrote that both the Taliban and Myanmar’s military have relied on what analysts describe as hostage diplomacy.
According to Andisha, for years the main argument for engaging with such regimes has been pragmatism. He said authoritarian rulers have argued that because they control the capital and possess military power, the world should treat them as legitimate governments.
Afghanistan’s ambassador in Geneva said recent UN actions show that the international community is increasingly separating territorial control from diplomatic recognition.
He also called on the European Union to reconsider its diplomatic approach towards the Taliban.
The European Commission has invited Taliban officials to Brussels for technical talks on the return of Afghan migrants who lack legal residency status in Europe.
The invitation has drawn criticism from human rights organisations and Afghan activists.
