The US left Afghanistan in a state of dangerous and monumental disorder in 2021. Soon after, it made matters still worse by confiscating the meager foreign exchange reserves of one of the world’s most deprived countries — shamelessly claiming that they were advancing certain (American) human rights as they did so. Subsequently, someone sharply noted that: It took America 20 years and over $1 trillion to replace the Taliban in Afghanistan — with the Taliban.

Afghanistan remains in terrible difficulty. The Economist newspaper reported that the economy was collapsing in 2021, with widespread death by starvation. By mid-2022, two-thirds of the population could not afford food and other basic items, according to the World Bank. The Taliban government has continued to oppress and persecute women, among others, according to many reports.

This massive level of deadly poverty excuses none of the continuing violence and grimly distorted governance. But it does help explain the enduring intensity of the severe problems of basic survival faced in Afghanistan.

Let’s shift our gaze from this harsh reality, however, and review a map of Asia as we consider a relevant, massive project, which also promises immense potential benefits.

China’s most westerly rail service extends to Kashgar, in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, China’s largest provincial-level jurisdiction. The distance from Kashgar to Shanghai, as the crow flies, is 4,200 kilometers. The distance from Kashgar to Damascus in Syria is around 3,580 km. Remarkable as it may seem, Kashgar is significantly closer to the Mediterranean Sea than it is to the East China Sea.

Next, the direct distance from Kasghar to Mashad, Iran’s second-largest city, which lies relatively close to the border with Afghanistan in eastern Iran, is less than 1,500 km (not much farther than the distance from Kashgar to Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang). The extensive rail system in Iran uses standard gauge tracks (1,435 millimeters), as China does. Moreover, western Iran shares a border with Türkiye, which also has a standard gauge rail system, that is connected through to the standard gauge European Union (EU) — think of the Orient Express train, which ran from Paris to Istanbul.

There is a prima facie, enticing possibility that China might one day be connected from Beijing to Paris by a standard-gauge rail link all the way, via Afghanistan, Iran and Türkiye. Currently, all the China-EU rail links are more northerly and involve at least two (on and off) rail-gauge changes as they encounter the extensive, Russian broad-gauge (1,520 mm) system, which covers Russia and much of Central Asia.

When you consult that map of Asia, you discover that China does have a contiguous border with Afghanistan. This is, however, distinctly elevated and unsuited for any sort of rail transit, so an alternative is needed. An extended southern route via Pakistan also presents major geographical difficulties for a new primary, intercontinental rail connection. Also, Pakistan’s existing rail system uses different broad-gauge tracks (1,676 mm) for most of its aging rail network.

As it happens, significant planning within the Five Nations Railway Corridor project has already mapped out a route from China to Iran for a standard gauge rail-link. Under this plan (on which little work has progressed), the line would extend from Khaf, in Iran (close to Mashad) into Afghanistan and then through Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan into China. Around half of this new railway would pass through northern Afghanistan.

This remains a huge and difficult undertaking. And there are further challenges. In Türkiye, for example, the current link with Iran relies on a ferry system to cross Lake Van in eastern Türkiye. A land-based link around that lake is needed, but the terrain is difficult.

Once built, however, this planned new southern, standard-gauge link from China to the EU would not only offer Afghanistan transit income; it would greatly relieve that country’s landlocked status by providing robust rail access to Iran’s southern ports on the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Next, a southern link within Afghanistan could link Kabul and major natural resource deposits to this new line.

This project also opens up the extraordinary possibility of one day traveling on a new, standard-gauge “Orient Express” from London to Hong Kong.

Much extremely difficult geopolitical negotiating is still needed to advance this project. Additionally, there are formidable political obstacles to overcome, above all related to the horrific poverty, criminal corruption, entrenched political violence and alarming insufficiency of good governance that still plague Afghanistan.

Still, several broad factors indicate that this ambitious project could ultimately proceed. First, it proffers the possibility of creating desperately needed, economy-building infrastructure to help, long-term, with the task of relieving Afghanistan’s multidecade misery and violent instability. Second, it offers conspicuous long-term economic and political-stability benefits for all the countries involved, not least China.

Next, the US has determined that a key aspect of its global project to contain the rise of China is to throw sand into every major Chinese economic gearbox it can find. Now, however, America can no longer do this from within Afghanistan itself. It is, thus, an unhappy but cogent fact that having the US out of Afghanistan removes a significant likely impediment to securing real progress.

Finally, and most importantly, China’s can-do track record in completing major, very difficult infrastructure projects is simply unmatched. Over the last several decades, China has transformed itself into the most globally important constructor of roads, railroads and bridges, for example. Today, it is also the leading global manufacturer of 5G equipment, motorcars, commercial shipping — and railway rolling stock.

Meanwhile, although the US continues to maintain a global lead in delivering bombs and bullets to various afflicted jurisdictions, it increasingly looks to be about as useful as “pocket in sock”, as they say in Australia, when it comes to delivering major infrastructure development, where it is most desperately needed, worldwide. This malformed geopolitical perspective was well-summarized recently by Joseph Camilleri when he observed that: “We are seeing the emergence of a global military strategy designed to preserve a fraying US-led neo-liberal order.”

Russia has, of course, long been highly influential in Central Asia, so this is a project that would matter to Moscow. But as two leading researchers at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin lately argued, whatever rivalry exists between China and Russia in this area, “it is far outweighed by overlapping interests and avenues for cooperation”.

There are two contemporary, fundamental commandments to achieve better governance, which surely should be observed: Say no to war, and yes to eliminating extreme poverty. China acts on both these precepts. America does not. And the results are clear to see in each case. We must hope that China’s exceptional track record — built on adherence to these precepts — will ultimately allow it to offer crucial remedial assistance to Afghanistan in the manner outlined above.

The author is an adjunct professor in the Faculty of Law, Hong Kong University.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.