As Afghanistan Sinks into Destitution, Some Sell Children to Survive
wsj.com
wsj.com
> Such is the starkness of deepening poverty in Afghanistan, a humanitarian crisis that is worsening fast after the Taliban seized power on Aug. 15, prompting the U.S. to freeze $9 billion in Afghan central-bank assets and causing a halt in most foreign aid.
So the cause is not so much any economic policies instituted by the Taliban, but the seizure of Afghan assets by the US, and the ambiguously worded "causing a halt in most foreign aid" - does this mean the US government stopped giving aid, or did the US stop others from giving aid? I'm assuming the US is also pressuring other countries to enact various sanctions? I'd appreciate it if someone could shed more light on this. It would not be the first time the media was very discreet about US sanctions (Venezuela comes to mind). On the other hand:
> The U.S. and other Western nations that spent the past two decades fighting in Afghanistan have a particular responsibility, some aid officials say.
This is a common sentiment, but how does that responsibility arise? Are they claiming that Afghanistan would be better off had the US not intervened? (I'm not informed enough about Afghanistan to discount this possibility, so I don't mean to imply the answer is "No".) If so, I'd prefer they phrased it that way, instead of this "You touched it last so anything that happens after is your fault" logic.