AFGHAN embassies in Britain and Norway loyal to the pro-Western authorities ousted by the Taliban in 2021 discreetly shut down this autumn, as the West seeks a more pragmatic approach to the country's Islamic rulers.
The Afghan embassy in London closed on Sept 27, following the mission in Oslo, which shut down on Sept 12.
Both were run by staff loyal to former authorities of the country, who were ejected from Kabul in the Taliban's lightning offensive in Aug 2021, a defeat seen as one of the biggest military debacles for the West.
And now a senior Taliban official is even attending the COP29 United Nations climate talks in Baku.
Analysts say such moves represent acceptance of the de-facto political reality in Afghanistan and the need to work with its rulers on issues, including migration, the fight against drugs and security.
Embassies like those in London and Oslo, in something of a diplomatic quirk, had carried on their work after the Taliban takeover, issuing visas and carrying out other consular work in the name of the Afghan state.
But this summer the Taliban government announced that it "no longer took responsibility" for such passports and visas, adding that it had cut all ties with these embassies.
In mid-September, the Taliban government's foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi also accused them of "enormous corruption" and issuing "false documents" with increased prices.
With the notable exceptions of Britain and Norway, most Western governments, which still do not recognise Taliban rule, did not budge.
"Norway acknowledges that it is the authorities who de facto control the state apparatus in Afghanistan and who, according to international law, can recall personnel from Afghan missions abroad," the Norwegian Foreign Ministry said.
Afghan ambassador to the UK Zalmai Rassoul said on social media in September the embassy would close "at the official request of the host country".
"This decision was not made by the UK government," a spokes-person for the UK Foreign Office said.
"The state of Afghanistan decided to close the Afghan embassy in London and dismiss its staff."
London acknowledges that there is "no alternative to engaging pragmatically with the administration of Afghanistan", added the spokesperson.
But the move by London was still surprising, coming from the country, which after the United States formed the second-largest contingent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation coalition that drove the Taliban from power at the end of 2001 in the wake of the Sept 11, 2001, attacks on the US.
In 20 years of deployment, 457 British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. Ten soldiers from Norway, also a member of this coalition, were killed.
"The word we use is betrayal," said Nazifullah Salarzai, president of an association representing Afghan ambassadors who worked for the former authorities.
But a European diplomat, who previously worked in Kabul, said a change in strategy by the West towards the Taliban authorities was necessary.
"Confrontation led nowhere," said the diplomat, adding that the only outcome had been a "deterioration" of relations accompanied by a severe erosion of rights of Afghan women.
Afghans opposed to the Taliban fear that Germany, where more than 500,000 Afghans live, will follow in the footsteps of London and Oslo.
"The federal government has made no changes to the status of Afghan representations in Germany" and does not consider the Taliban regime to be "legitimate", a German diplomatic source said.
Meanwhile, Matiul Haq Khalis, director general of Afghanistan's National Environmental Protection Agency, said in Baku his team was invited to attend the UN climate talks by Azerbaijani authorities.
The Afghan delegation is in Baku as guests of the hosts, not as a party directly involved in the negotiations.
"When you lose wars, you only have bad solutions," said Gilles Dorronsoro, an expert on Afghan-istan.
"The decision of London and Oslo is a gift for the Taliban but also based on reality. There is no alternative to the Taliban regime."
*The writers are from AFP
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times