Arbitrary Detention of Foreigners in Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan

In early February 2025, news broke that British nationals Peter and Barbie Reynolds had been detained in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. The couple, both in their seventies, had lived and worked in the country for nearly two decades, running education and training programmes for mothers and children. They had engaged with local Taliban authorities, even receiving a certificate of appreciation for their work. Yet, without warning, they were arrested on their return home, separated, and transferred to a detention facility in Kabul.

No formal charges were ever made public. Their health quickly deteriorated, with Mr Reynolds suffering from tremors, infections, and convulsions, while Mrs Reynolds became visibly malnourished and weak. The UK has no diplomatic representation in Afghanistan, leaving their children to issue public appeals and United Nations human rights experts to warn that they were at risk of irreparable harm. Their plight is not unique. It reflects a broader, disturbing pattern that has emerged since the Taliban’s takeover of power in August 2021.

Scope and Nature of the Detentions

From 15 August 2021 to the present day, credible sources have documented a pattern of wrongful detention of foreign nationals by the Taliban’s de facto authorities. These cases are rarely accompanied by clear charges or legal justification. Individuals are often denied access to legal counsel, prevented from contacting family, and held incommunicado for extended periods.

The true scale of the problem is difficult to determine. The Taliban do not publish official figures and independent verification is hampered by restricted media access and fear of reprisal among witnesses. However, the continuous flow of reports from rights groups, foreign governments, and former detainees indicates that the number of detentions may be significantly higher than is publicly acknowledged.

Those detained come from a wide range of backgrounds. Journalists, aid workers, businesspeople, educators, and former contractors for the previous Afghan government have all been held. Many have long-standing ties to Afghanistan, often spanning years or decades.

The profile of those targeted has widened over time. Initially, foreign journalists and humanitarian workers appeared most at risk, particularly those working in sensitive areas such as women’s rights or education. Over the past two years, however, detentions have also involved foreign entrepreneurs, religious figures, and even individuals travelling for personal or family reasons. Dual nationals are especially vulnerable, as are those whose work brings them into direct contact with local communities or provincial Taliban authorities.

Motives

Multiple Taliban bodies carry out these detentions, with overlapping and sometimes competing mandates. The General Directorate of Intelligence (GDI) is most frequently cited, with detainees often held in GDI-run facilities or transferred to Kabul Central Prison, also known as Pul-e-Charkhi. Other actors include the so-called morality police and provincial police forces.

The involvement of different Taliban authorities creates an unpredictable and dangerous environment. Actions taken by one branch are not always consistent with the movement’s public statements or stated policies. What is tolerated in one province may be punished in another, leaving foreigners exposed to arbitrary enforcement.

The Taliban provide a variety of explanations for these detentions, ranging from espionage and illegal entry to cultural offences and “activities contrary to Afghan values.” In practice, these allegations are often vague, lack supporting evidence, or remain entirely unstated.

Analysts point to a strong link between the detention of foreign nationals and the Taliban’s wider diplomatic objectives. Arbitrary detention is used as a tool to exert pressure, extract concessions, or secure political recognition. In some cases, detainees have been used in prisoner exchanges or released as part of broader negotiations on aid, sanctions relief, or asset unfreezing.

This tactic has been described by rights groups as the “systematic abduction of foreign nationals” and a form of “strategic hostage-taking.” While the Taliban deny engaging in hostage diplomacy, the timing and circumstances of certain arrests and releases suggest otherwise.

Conditions of Detention

Reports from the United Nations, human rights organisations, and former detainees paint a consistent picture of harsh and sometimes life-threatening conditions across Taliban detention sites. Cells are frequently overcrowded, with little natural light, poor sanitation, and limited access to clean water or adequate food. Medical care is either absent or grossly inadequate, even for detainees with serious pre-existing conditions.

Incommunicado detention is common, leaving prisoners isolated from family, legal representatives, and the outside world. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment have been documented, including physical abuse, threats, and prolonged solitary confinement. For older detainees, such as the Reynolds, the physical and psychological toll can be catastrophic.

The Role of Intermediaries and Negotiation Channels

Most documented cases of foreign nationals detained since August 2021 have been resolved through one of three channels: mediated negotiations leading to a quiet release, direct diplomatic appeals, or prisoner swaps. In many cases, detainees are freed without ever facing formal charges or trial, reinforcing the perception that they were being held for leverage rather than legitimate legal reasons.

The lack of a standardised process means outcomes are inconsistent. High-profile cases or those backed by governments with strong negotiating leverage tend to be resolved more quickly. Others, particularly where the detainee has limited public visibility or is from a country with minimal influence in Kabul, can drag on indefinitely.

With most Western nations lacking direct diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, third-party states and entities have become essential to securing the release of detainees. Qatar has emerged as the most significant intermediary, leveraging its established relationship with the Taliban to facilitate discussions. Other states, including Pakistan and Oman, have played a role in individual cases.

Governments such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom have engaged directly or through intermediaries, sometimes quietly and sometimes under public pressure from families and advocacy groups. These negotiations are often conducted discreetly to avoid provoking harder Taliban positions, although public campaigns can occasionally accelerate resolution by increasing political costs.

Implications for Foreigners Travelling to Afghanistan

Arbitrary detention in Afghanistan since the Taliban’s return to power is marked by an absence of legal basis, transparency, and due process. Multiple Taliban authorities are involved, yet their actions are frequently inconsistent with their own stated policies and with international human rights standards. The environment is highly unpredictable and dangerous, particularly for foreign nationals, who face detention for reasons that are often unstated or politically motivated.

Detentions are not random in their utility. They serve as a calculated tool within the Taliban’s broader strategic framework, used to apply pressure in diplomatic engagements and, in some cases, to secure tangible concessions from other states. This deliberate use of detention as political leverage sits at the heart of why such cases persist, despite international condemnation.

For anyone considering travel to Afghanistan, the risks are severe. Even individuals with long-standing local ties, cultural awareness, and government-issued visas have been detained without warning. The absence of reliable legal protections, combined with the limited capacity of home governments to intervene directly, means that detention can result in prolonged and uncertain captivity.

In the current environment, foreigners in Afghanistan must accept that the risk of arbitrary detention is high and that the consequences can be life-threatening. Risk assessments should take into account not only physical security threats but also the possibility of being used as a pawn in larger political negotiations. Without systemic changes in how the Taliban administer justice and handle foreign nationals, the threat will remain persistent and acute.