Datasets:

justhungryman

/

fineweb_100000_test

like 0

Prime Minister Narendra Modi (L) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) at informal meeting in Sochi in May 2018 Within a week of National Security Advisor Ajit Doval’s consultations in Moscow on August 21, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar is travelling to the Russian capital for talks with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday. Prima facie, the heightened level of Russian-Indian interaction can be attributed to the forthcoming visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Russia as the chief guest at the fifth Eastern Economic Forum meet in Vladivostok (September 4-6) where he is expected to clock several hours of conversation with President Putin. From all appearance, however, Doval and Jaishankar are on a back-to-back mission to shore up Russian support for India as its time-tested friend and ally, which has become more crucial than ever today. The announcement by the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova on Jaishankar’s visit by comes against the backdrop of signals from Washington that in the run-up to a settlement with the Taliban in Afghanistan that is critically pivoted on Pakistani help, the US is shifting to an intrusive policy on the Kashmir issue to bolster its reviving alliance with Pakistan. In exceptionally frank terms, a senior US state department official put New Delhi on notice on Thursday that President Trump will seek explanations from Modi on the situation around J&K, voice human rights concerns when they meet in France on the sidelines of the G7 summit this weekend: “We do expect the issue of India-Pakistan relations to come up. The President will likely want to hear from Prime Minister Modi on how he plans to reduce regional tensions and uphold respect for human rights in Kashmir as part of India’s role as the world’s largest democracy. India’s decision to rescind Article 370 in Kashmir is an internal decision but certainly with regional implications. And President Trump will likely want to hear how Prime Minister Modi intends to calm regional tensions in light of this significant move… The President is likely to stress the need for dialogue among all sides of the conflict and it is hoped that India will lift the communications and movement restrictions in Kashmir and exercise the utmost restraint in dealing with potential protests.” A White House official separately added: “We note the broader implications of the developments in Kashmir and the potential for increased instability in the region. So the president is very focused on this situation. What he [Trump] has indicated is that he is ready to assist if both sides are interested in helping to reduce their tension. But we just know that India has not requested any formal mediation. The President will likely want to hear from Prime Minister Modi on how he plans to reduce regional tensions and uphold respect for human rights in Kashmir, as part of India’s role as the world’s largest democracy.” In nearly half a century since the era of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, an Indian PM is facing inquisition from an American president. Indeed, this becomes Modi’s “Indira Gandhi moment” in the shadows of the Bangladesh war. Once again, India is scrambling for Russian support. In essence, Delhi rejects a India-Pakistan reconciliation under US mediation and would rather go the John Wayne way. Our Sinophobes who celebrate that India-China ties may come under cloud due to J&K developments, should now realise they are barking up the wrong tree. Delhi understands perfectly well that it is not Beijing that is the problem today, but Washington. A rethink has become necessary on the entire matrix of Indian policies through the past decade or so largely predicated on the blithe assumption (or, article of faith) that India and the US are “natural allies”, locked into a “defining partnership of the 21st century.” The false assumption has been blown to smithereens once the Doha talks between the US and Taliban under Pakistani mediation / moderation / supervision began gaining traction and the regional alignments began shifting. The geopolitics of the entire swathe of Central and South Asia are poised for a phenomenal change that threatens to isolate India. Jaishankar’s talks in Moscow will give primacy to bilateral cooperation with focus on “the ways of further promoting bilateral cooperation and synchronise their watches for the schedule of upcoming contacts” — to quote Zakharova. Topping the agenda will be trade and investment, defence cooperation, “the use of national currencies in mutual payments” and “promising projects in the space and energy sphere, especially in the Arctic shelf and in Russia’s Far East.” Clearly, Modi is choreographing the next phase of his singular foreign policy achievement of reboot of India-Russia relationship, which was languishing under UPA rule and had atrophied due to Delhi’s policy of benign neglect. Both Jaishankar and Lavrov are ex-career diplomats who are intensely conscious of the personal bond between Modi and Putin and their commitment to expand and deepen India-Russia relations. The Russian-Indian Special and Privileged Strategic partnership always had a global character. The verve and larger-than-life impact of this unique partnership is directly proportional to the harmony in their worldview. In this regard, Zakharova characterised as “tough issues” the three key issues for discussion: India-Russia cooperation in the Asia-Pacific “as well as the UN”; Shanghai Cooperation forum and the Russia-India-China forum. In addition, the talks will dwell upon BRICS “and some regional scenarios, including the preservation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iran nuclear program and the situation in the Persian Gulf zone and in Afghanistan.” The Russian foreign policies are riveted on the “big picture” of global politics. Whereas, India tends to be ad-hoc — expedient, makeshift, improvised, extemporary, unscripted. The present crisis in Indian foreign policy is to be attributed almost entirely to this malaise, bordering on naïveté at times. Several tantalising questions arise: Why does India identify with the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy and ‘Quad’? Is China really a “rival”? What is India’s commitment to the Asian Century? Fundamentally, where do India’s medium and long term interests lie in a world in such historic transition, as the locus of global balance shifts away from the West after its centuries-long hegemony? India is silent on the US’s regime-change agenda toward Tehran and meekly succumbed to American sanctions against Iran. India’s West Asia policy increasingly shows a tilt toward the US-Israeli-Saudi axis, which may take a leap forward this weekend if during Modi’s visit to Bahrain, an agreement is signed committing India to support the Gulf state’s internal security — a horrifying spectacle of India consorting with the state suppression of the Shi’ite majority population of Bahrain clamouring for empowerment. And, of course, India’s Afghan policies are in shambles and the debris may fall on J&K. Jaishankar’s visit has the potential to revamp Russian-Indian relationship. There are low-hanging fruits and fruits that take time to mature when such pollinations occur. Modi’s meeting with Putin in about ten days from now will reveal the early picks.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Gareth Bayley, the UK Prime Minister’s Special Representative, convened a meeting in London of Special Envoys from the US and Europe to discuss peace in Afghanistan. Special Envoys of the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, France, Italy, Norway and the European Union met in London on 23 April 2019. “Respectful of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Afghanistan, participants discussed the Afghan people’s desire for a lasting peace”, statement by UK government said. The participants agreed on a number of things. They reiterated their affirmation that the future of Afghanistan is for Afghans to decide. “A return to practices from an earlier period that rolls back progress will invite international isolation of Afghanistan. Participants do not believe that the majority of the Afghan people desire that outcome. “, it said. Sustainable peace requires inclusive dialogue between the Taliban, Afghan government, and other Afghans that leads to intra-Afghan negotiations. The parties reaffirmed that intra-Afghan negotiations should begin as soon as possible, with the goal of reaching an agreement on a political roadmap for Afghanistan’s future. They also urged all sides to take immediate steps to reduce violence and end the killing, “The Afghan people deserve and want an end to violence. Calls for more fighting will not advance peace efforts, and will instead yield only more suffering and destruction”. The special representatives called on the Taliban to cut ties to Al-Qaeda, and other international terrorist groups, and to take concrete steps to ensure Al Qaeda, Daesh and other international terrorists do not use Afghan soil to threaten or attack any other country. They also reaffirmed their commitment to provide long-term support for implementation of any peace agreement that protects the rights of all Afghan women, men, children and minorities, responds to the Afghans’ strong desire to sustain the economic, social, and development gains they have achieved since 2001.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on U.S. soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the U.S., had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here? Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on U.S. soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values? Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of "promoting democracy." But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security. If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity, and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Moscow Peace Talks, one-day conference was hosted by Russia on November 9, and although the Afghan Foreign Ministry confirmed on Friday that they welcome any efforts at peace, the Afghan government did not send a delegation. Taliban representatives participated in the long-awaited Moscow Peace Talks, but continued to seal their stance that they would only hold direct talks on Afghanistan’s future with the United States, not with the government of Afghanistan. Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, Taliban’s representative at the talks expressed that “Considering our main demand is the withdrawal of foreign troops, we will discuss peaceful settlement with the Americans. We do not recognize the incumbent government as legitimate.” But representatives of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council attended the conference and they reiterated President Ghani’s offer of peace talks without pre-conditions. Their stance was clear-Afghan-led and owned peace process must be default. “We have [The Taliban] left the doors of understanding and negotiations open,” the Taliban insurgents said in a statement appreciating that both the Afghan government and US commanders in Afghanistan admit to the fact that solution for ending the war cannot be via military means, but only through negotiations. The statement also included a list of demands including the end of international sanctions and the release of detainees. The Taliban also reiterated their demand for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghan soil. The Moscow Talks according to experts is viewed by western officials and Ghani’s government with suspicion. Many believe that it is merely an attempt by Russia to seek its way into the region with respect to influence. “The government hopes that this meeting leads to direct talks between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban and that the Taliban are not allowed to instrumentalize this meeting,” the Afghan foreign ministry said in a statement. Indian Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar had earlier confirmed that New Delhi will only be present at the talks at ‘non-official’ level, adding that “India’s consistent policy has been that such efforts should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, and Afghan-controlled and with participation of the government of Afghanistan”. Meanwhile at the talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov played the roles of mediator and experienced hand in Afghanistan’s conflicts. “Russia stands for preserving the one and undivided Afghanistan, in which all of the ethnic groups that inhabit this country would live side by side peacefully and happily,” Lavrov said. Representatives of 11 countries, including regional countries like China, Iran and Pakistan participated in official capacity. A representative from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow attended, but only as an observer. A notable comment made in the conference was by Habiba Sarabi, the deputy chair of the High Peace Council and the only woman to take part in the talks: “I asked them, ‘When will you bring a woman to these talks?” Sarabi said. “They laughed and said, ‘Why don’t you represent us?’ ” Moscow Talks were previously scheduled to take place in September but experts believe that since the Afghan government outrightly refused to attend, and so did the United States, Russia postponed it.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

AfghanistanChinaCentral AsiaIndia-PakistanIndonesiaKoreaMyanmarNepalPhilippinesMicronesiaSri LankaThailand MaliNigeriaRwanda & BurundiSierra LeoneSomaliaUganda Top Ten Conflicts Along the Pakistan border, the Taliban took credit for a roadside bomb that killed an American soldier, and the assassination of a Moslem cleric who opposed the Taliban. Help Keep Us Soaring We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling. We need your help in reversing that trend. We would like to add 20 new subscribers this month. Each month we count on your subscriptions or contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghan officials continue negotiating with the Taliban and other factions as Qatar continues its mediation. Afghan government representatives and Taliban members have convened in Doha for the commencement of peace talks that would end 19 years of war and conflict. The talks come six months after the signing of a Qatari-mediated deal that mapped out a schedule for negotiations. Also attending the peace talks were US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Qatar’s Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, Abdullah Abdullah, chairperson of Afghanistan’s High Council for National Reconciliation, and Taliban deputy leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. “I hope you agree with me that today we must overcome the past and its pains … and focus on the future and the hope it brings us while surely drawing lessons from the past,” said Al-Thani. Al-thani also emphasised the importance of having an open mind during the talks and for all sides to “rise above all forms of divisions”. For his part, Baradar stated that the peace talks might face some difficulties but remained optimistic. “We want Afghanistan to be a free, independent, united and developed country, and to have an Islamic system in which all tribes and ethnicities of the country find themselves without any discrimination and live their lives in love and brotherhood,” said Baradar. “We believe firmly that protecting the rights of all Afghans is the best way for you to break the cycle of violence,” said Pompeo.The negotiations are set to begin on Monday, where parties will address issues, among them are disarming Taliban fighters and militias, maintaining a permanent ceasefire, and constitutional changes. “After decades of conflict, these talks are the best chance of peace. We have to embrace them wholeheartedly and keep in mind the ultimate goal: to end the violence,” said NATO secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Women’s rights are among the many key issues that are likely to be addressed in the negotiations. “I really wonder whether the Taliban have changed or not…. in the Taliban negotiating team there is not a single woman to be heard, which means that the Taliban do not believe in the participation of women and the position of women in all processes. This creates concerns for Afghan women,” said Mariam Tayee, Afghan women’s rights activist. This sentiment was echoed by UN envoy Deborah Lyons “An inclusive peace process, involving the meaningful participation of women, youth and victims, upholding the human rights of every Afghan is the only path to peace.”

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — As world leaders prepared to meet in Australia to continue looking at ways to improve the global economy, Pope Francis asked them “not to forget that many lives are at stake” behind their discussions and decisions. The measure of success of the Group of 20 heavily industrialized and emerging-market countries will not be found in statistics, but in “real improvements in the living conditions of poorer families and the reduction of all forms of unacceptable inequality,” the pope said in a message. The pope’s message to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, host of the Nov. 15-16 leaders’ summit, was released Nov. 11 at the Vatican. “Throughout the world, the G-20 countries included, there are far too many women and men suffering from severe malnutrition, a rise in the number of the unemployed, an extremely high percentage of young people without work and an increase in social exclusion which can lead to criminal activity and even the recruitment of terrorists,” the papal message said. The members of the G-20 are: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union. While the G-20 leaders’ summit first took place in the wake of the global financial crisis that began in 2008 and has focused on financial and economic questions, Pope Francis said that, given its membership, concerns about war and violence naturally arise and have, at times, meant disagreement among members. Working with the United Nations, he said, the world expects the G-20 countries to find a way to put “a definitive halt to the unjust aggression directed at different religious and ethnic groups, including minorities, in the Middle East.” The leaders also need to find ways to eliminate the “root causes of terrorism, which has reached proportions hitherto unimaginable,” the pope said. Those root causes include “poverty, underdevelopment and exclusion.” While the world generally agrees the international community has an obligation to stop unjust aggressors and the commission of crimes against humanity, Pope Francis urged the G-20 leaders to recognize an obligation “to protect citizens of all countries from forms of aggression that are less evident but equally real and serious. I am referring specifically to abuses in the financial system such as those transactions that led to the 2008 crisis, and more generally, to speculation lacking political or juridical constraints and the mentality that maximization of profits is the final criterion of all economic activity.” “A mindset in which individuals are ultimately discarded will never achieve peace or justice,” he said. Join the CatholicPhilly.com family CatholicPhilly.com works to strengthen the connections between people, families and communities every day by delivering the news people need to know about the Catholic Church, especially in the Philadelphia region, and the world in which we live. By your donation in any amount, you and hundreds of other people become part of our mission to inform, form in the Catholic faith and inspire the thousands of readers who visit every month. Here is how you can help: - A $100 gift allows us to present award-winning photos of Catholic life in our neighborhoods. - A $50 gift enables us to cover a news event in a local parish, school or Catholic institution. - A $20 gift lets us obtain solid faith formation resources that can deepen your spirituality and knowledge of the faith. - A small, automated monthly donation means you can support us continually and easily. Won't you consider making a gift today? Please join in the church's vital mission of communications by offering a gift in whatever amount that you can ― a single gift of $40, $50, $100, or more, or a monthly donation. Your gift will strengthen the fabric of our entire Catholic community and sustain CatholicPhilly.com as your trusted news source. Thank you in advance! Make your donation by credit card here: Or make your donation by check: 222 N. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen is considering equipping the German military with combat drones. The Bundeswehr has been after the weapons for some time, in the hope they will further protect soldiers in war zones. But Germany’s disastrous Euro Hawk drone debacle has made an already unpopular move even harder to sell to the public. Before von der Leyen took charge, the defence ministry ordered Euro Hawk drones which did not have permission to fly in German airspace. The scandal cost €600 million and left Germany without the remote-controlled weapons. The Euro Hawk project was cancelled last May by von der Leyen’s predecessor Thomas de Mazière, but that has not dampened the military’s enthusiasm. Armed forces commissioner Hellmut Königshaus put his argument for drones forward during Monday’s debate in the parliamentary defence committee. Minister von der Leyen is expected to state her position on Wednesday or Thursday. Lieutenant-Colonel André Wüstner from the armed forces association said: “Rejecting long-range weapons endangers the lives of our own soldiers.” But the Social Democrats (SPD), who sit in a coalition government with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative bloc, appear reluctant to sanction drones for the Bundeswehr. “I can’t say that we would necessarily support this,” SPD general secretary Yasmin Fahimi said on Monday in Berlin. Before the elections in September, the SPD came out against armed drones and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) said he did not expect a decision on them in this parliament. Steinmeier's party colleague and defence committee chairman Hans-Peter Bartels, told the Berliner Zeitung the SPD remained sceptical. “I can’t see any scenario in which the German military would need combat drones,” he said. The US military uses armed drones to target terrorist suspects in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, said Bartels. “We find what the Americans do unacceptable.” SEE ALSO: German army looks into wonky gun

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghanistan’s new Taliban rulers are set to announced their new government today as the country faces economic collapse and food shortages. This comes more than two weeks after the Islamist militia captured Kabul and brought a deadly end to 20 years of war, with the Taliban now back in control of the country as they were from 1996 to 2001. Taliban official Ahmadullah Muttaqi said on social media a ceremony is being put in place at the presidential palace in Kabul after the US withdrawal, while private broadcaster TOLONews said an announcement on a new government was imminent. Meanwhile, one-third of the country is facing food insecurity and is in desperate need of funds, according to the World Food Programme amid warnings of a humanitarian crisis in the country. The Taliban are unlikely to get quick access to around $10 billion of assets held abroad by the Afghan central bank, and are struggling to reassure banks that the economy under the group will be fully functional. It is expected that the Taliban’s supreme leader, Haibatullah Akhundzada, will have ultimate power over a new governing council, with a president below him, a senior Taliban official told Reuters news agency last month. The supreme Taliban leader has three deputies: Mawlavi Yaqoob, son of the movement’s late founder Mullah Omar; Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the powerful Haqqani network who the FBI have offered a $5 million reward for finding; and Abdul Ghani Baradar, who founded the group along with Mullah Omar in 1994. In a new development, the Taliban trying to present a more moderate face to the world since theyreturned to power last month, promising to protect human rights and refrain from reprisals against old enemies. But the United States, the European Union and others have cast doubt on such assurances, saying formal recognition of the new government and the economic aid that would flow from that – is contingent on action. ‘We’re not going to take them at their word, we’re going to take them at their deeds,’ U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland told a news briefing on Wednesday September 1. ‘So they’ve got a lot to prove based on their own track record … now they also have a lot to gain, if they can run Afghanistan, far, far differently than they did the last time they were in power.’ Gunnar Wiegand, the European Commission’s managing director for Asia and the Pacific, said the European Union would not formally recognise the Islamist group until it met conditions including the formation of an inclusive government, respect for human rights and unfettered access for aid workers. Speaking to the BBC, Akhundzada said on Wednesday: ‘All ethnic groups that are living in Afghanistan – they’re Afghans – they have a right to be in the government. ‘But future government – the next government – they will be selected as per [their] merit. All those Afghans who have the ability, capacity and capability to work according to their profession – they will be in the government,’ he claimed.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

New Delhi: Moscow is now planning to organise a Russia-India-China (RIC) summit on the sidelines of the G20 meeting, scheduled to be held in Riyadh in November, even as tensions refuse to abate between India and China, ThePrint has learnt. The plan to hold the RIC summit, between Russian President Vladimir Putin, his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was discussed during the virtual video-conference between the RIC foreign ministers on 23 June, diplomatic sources told ThePrint. The G20 meeting is expected to take place in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh on 21-22 November. The trilateral format of the RIC and strengthening it with a summit meeting is “important to promote regional cooperation for sustainable development and stability,” said a source, who refused to be identified. According to the sources, however, neither India nor China has confirmed participation in the summit. “The RIC summit has not yet been raised by Russia officially… RIC defence ministers meeting is agreeable in principle but no dates have been fixed,” said an official on condition of anonymity. RIC defence ministers’ meeting Sources also said when Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had gone to Moscow for the ‘Victory Day’ parade in June, it was planned then that a defence ministries’ track could be launched at the end of the year to understand the security apparatus and enhance defence cooperation between Russia, India and China. The main aim behind making the RIC grouping multi-pronged is to streamline a unified agenda while upholding the central role of the UN and international law. This, the sources said, would also help to expand a “common ground” between the participants. Launching of the defence ministries’ track was also discussed during the RIC ministerial video conference. The trilateral defence ministries’ track could be launched this year under the Russian chairmanship in Moscow, the sources said. As of now, the plan is to establish a dialogue mechanism under the RIC between the defence ministers of Russia, India and China. While Russia has denied publicly that it is not playing the role of a mediator even as tensions between India and China increases across the Ladakh sector of the LAC, Moscow has been urging both New Delhi and Beijing to mitigate the issue and look forward to an amicable solution on the issue, the sources said. During the RIC meeting, which was also attended by Chinese Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had stated that the “world has changed”, and thus, there is a need for “coming to terms with contemporary reality”.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important : Prelims level : SEATO and SENTO Mains level : Paper 2- India-Pak relations The article explains evolution of Pakistan’s approach towards forming alliances and maintaining strategic autonomy against the backdrop of U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. New dynamic Pakistan has to face - As the US withdraws its troops from Afghanistan, Pakistan is eager to build a relationship with Washington that is not tied to US stakes in Afghanistan. - Pakistan does not want to be totally alienated from U.S. in the new geopolitical jousting between the US and China. - How Pakistan copes with the new dynamic between the US and China as well as manages the deepening crisis in Afghanistan would be of great interest to India. Striking the balance between autonomy and alliance - Autonomy is about the basic impulse for enhancing the degree of one’s freedom. - Alliances are about coping with real or perceived threats to one’s security. - Both are natural trends in international politics. - Joining an alliance does not mean ceding one’s sovereignty. - Within every alliance, there is a perennial tension between seeking more commitments from the partner in return for limiting one’s own. Explaining Pakistan’s approach to alliances - Pakistan’s insecurities in relation to India meant it was eager for alliances. - And as the Anglo-Americans scouted for partners in the crusade against global communism, Pakistan signed a bilateral security treaty with the US and joined the South East Asia Treaty Organisation and Central Treaty Organisation in the mid-1950s. - Rather than target Pakistan’s alliance with a West that was intensely hostile to Beijing in the 1950s, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai saw room to exploit Pakistan’s insecurities on India. - While Pakistan’s ties with the US went up and down, its relationship with China has seen steady expansion. - Pakistan’s relations with the US flourished after the Soviet Union sent its troops into Afghanistan at the end of 1979. - The US and Pakistan reconnected in 2001 as Washington sought physical access and intelligence support to sustain its intervention in Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11. - Now the US wants Pakistan to persuade the Taliban to accept a peaceful transition to a new political order in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s ability to adapt to shifting geopolitical trends - Pakistan worries that its leverage in U.S. will diminish once the US turns its back on Afghanistan and towards the Indo-Pacific. - Pakistan does not want to get in the Indo-Pacific crossfire between the US and China. - It would also like to dent India’s growing importance in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy. - India should not underestimate Pakistan’s agency in adapting to the shifting global currents. - Pakistan has been good at using its great power alliances to its own benefit. Three problems that complicates Pakistan’s strategic autonomy - 1) Relative economic decline: Pakistan’s expected aggregate GDP at around $300 billion in 2021 is 10 times smaller than India’s. - 2) Obsession with Kashmir: Pakistan’s enduring obsessions with separating Kashmir from India, and extending its political sway over Afghanistan; both look elusive despite massive political investments by the Pakistan army. - Unsurprisingly, there is a recognition that Pakistan needs reorientation — from geopolitics to geoeconomics and permanent war with neighbours to peace of some sorts. - 3) Using religion as political instrument: Turning Islam into a political instrument and empowering religious extremism seemed clever a few decades ago. - However, today those forces have acquired a life of their own and severely constrain the capacity of the Pakistani state to build internal coherence and widen international options. It will be unwise to rule out Pakistan’s positive reinvention; no country has a bigger stake in it than India. For now, though, Pakistan offers a cautionary tale on the dangers of squandering a nation’s strategic advantages — including a critical geopolitical location that it had inherited and the powerful partnerships that came its way.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

A new regional dynamism on peace and conflict led by Russia and China has emerged. With the presence of armed groups and the emergence of new terrorist bands such as Daesh there, Afghanistan remains at the core of these new developments. The third session of a trilateral “working group” comprising Russia, China and Pakistan held on December 27 in Moscow also underscores what is playing out in the region. Following the rare meeting, the group announced that Kabul will be invited to participate in future meetings on the threat posed by Islamic State (IS) militants in Afghanistan. The decision appeared to be a response to Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Ahmad Shekib Mostaghani who, in a note of disapproval, had asserted that “regardless of the good intentions of the participants, the Moscow talks would not help the situation in Afghanistan.” In a joint statement the three nations also reiterated their interest in facilitating peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban. The most striking in the statement was the collective “particular concern” over “increased activities of extremist groups including the IS (Daesh) affiliates in the embattled country.” A cursory look as to what is driving the new developments and guiding the Moscow-Beijing-Islamabad consultations entails some worrying as well as encouraging realities. Firstly, the stalemate on ground in Afghanistan, with 2016 having been the bloodiest year in over a decade of conflict between Taliban insurgents and Kabul. Secondly, the realisation that only a regionally-led and coordinated solution might work following failure of international, US-led efforts to normalise Afghanistan. This might also result in the cooption of Iran, one of the two strategic neighbours of Afghanistan, into the dialogue, which should serve as a big facilitating factor. Third, the birth of Daesh, which most regional players view with extreme skepticism, resonated also by Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, in a rather dramatic way only days before the Moscow meeting. Speaking during the quarterly review of the Afghan situation at the Security Council on December 19, Churkin said elimination of Taliban leader Mullah Mansoor only strengthened the influence of irreconcilable radicals which only compounds the current situation in the country. The most startling was Churkin’s revelations on the expansion/activities of the IS/Daesh influence in Afghanistan. Some excerpts from his statement are quite alarming. He stated that “There is also information about the presence in Afghanistan of IS camps and safe harbors where people from Central Asian states and Northern Caucus’ republics are being trained and where 700 terrorist families from Syria have already arrived. The intensive nature of hostilities in Syria and Iraq make fighters look at Afghanistan increasingly frequently because they can find refuge there and can find a new platform for expanding their influence to Central Asia and Russia as well as China. Some of our partners are not averse to contacts with the extremist and terrorist groups existing in Afghanistan. We know many events when ISIL fighters were re-deployed into northern provinces of Afghanistan by helicopters without any identification signs”. Raising serious, intriguing questions on the US-NATO “attempts to diminish the threat of IS in Afghanistan,” he also quoted the US- NATO forces Commander General John Nicholson who had “stated that the terrorist organisation IS had set itself the goal of creating Caliphate in Afghanistan and the fighters Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan joined in with so-called Khorasan Velayat.” Churkin also spoke of combat helicopters being used for the transfer of terrorists from one place to the other within Afghanistan, resonating similar apprehensions by Afghan law-makers in recent months. Fourth, the increasing craving for regional trade connectivity — epitomised by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Fifth, despite the stated intent to help the Afghan peace process delisting Afghan individuals from the UN sanctions lists. The joint statement said that China and Russia, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, had confirmed their “flexible approach to delisting Afghan individuals from the UN sanctions lists” as a contribution to peace efforts in Afghanistan. The Taliban has identified removal of international travel and financial restrictions on its leaders as one of its conditions for engaging in reconciliation talks. Keeping in view these aspects, one wonders whether the new regional group will eventually trump the Quadrilateral Contact Group comprising China-Pakistan-USA-Afghanistan that was created on the sidelines of the Heart of Asia conference at Islamabad on December 9, 2016. Or is the beginning of a new geo-political game between two obvious blocs (Indo-Afghan-USA and Moscow-Beijing-Pakistan-Iran) divided by conflicting views on sources of terrorism and shared interests in regional peace and development?

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

On July 9, the Taliban spokesman stated that they have made territorial gains and secured 85 percent of the region in Afghanistan. They also see China as a friend and welcome China to return to invest in Afghanistan. In response to the comment, Hu Xijin, the Chief Editor of Global Times, published a post on weibo boasting that the Taliban and China are friends. Hu wrote in the post: “Now you understand how stable and powerful China’s diplomacy is. The United States has been fighting in Afghanistan for 20 years. More than 2,000 soldiers have been killed. It cost the U.S. one trillion U.S. dollars. The Taliban sees the U.S. as an enemy, and the Afghan government sees the U.S. as a selfish escapee. China’s approach, however, makes us friends with both Kabul and the Taliban. What’s important is that we will always be friends with Afghanistan.” People posted comments trashing Hu’s post. One person wrote, “Who agrees that you and the Taliban are friends?” “Are we at a point that we need to be friends with the Taliban and use it as an achievement to show off?” “My views of the world, life and values are completely destroyed.” “Do we have no friends?” “It turns out that terrorists are also politically correct. Those who commit so-called terrorist attacks in Hong Kong must be killed without mercy! Meanwhile, Taliban terrorists can be friends. As a person and a country, you really have no bottom line. ” Source: 163.Com, July 12, 2012

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

In the latest conflict between Obama and his military commanders, the senior US general in Afghanistan is opposing administration plans for troop withdrawals from the US-occupied country. General John Allen has given briefings to US Congressional delegations visiting Afghanistan in which he and other officers opposed administration proposals for a continuing drawdown of US troops, up to the formal transfer of security operations to Afghan forces at the end of 2014. Obama put forward his withdrawal plan last June, announcing that the 33,000 US troops that he had ordered into Afghanistan—as part of a military “surge” aimed at quashing growing resistance to the US-led occupation—would leave the country by next summer. Some 10,000 soldiers and Marines are supposed to be out of Afghanistan by the end of this year, and another 23,000 by the summer of 2012. In announcing the plan, Obama insisted that the US forces would continue leaving Afghanistan at a “steady pace” between 2012 and 2014, with US-trained Afghan puppet forces taking over operations now conducted by American units. It is this second phase—the gradual withdrawal of the 68,000 US troops that will remain in Afghanistan after the “surge” force leaves—that has provoked opposition in the military brass. Allen and other commanders insist that the 68,000-strong force remain intact until 2014, when the Afghan National Army and police will supposedly be ready to take over the decade-old war. According to the Wall Street Journal, this position is supported by an “internal assessment” by NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which Allen leads. Citing unnamed officials, the Journal reported that the assessment “warns that cutting US troop levels below 68,000 would make it harder to clear and hold insurgent havens, and would complicate efforts to protect supply lines and bases ahead of the scheduled 2014 handover.” The US military is preparing for another major offensive in eastern Afghanistan, drawing forces from the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar to areas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which have been a focus of resistance. Plans for this new escalation reportedly include stepped-up drone attacks and even cross-border raids into Pakistan by US Special Operations forces. Allen was tapped by Obama to command US and NATO forces in Afghanistan when his predecessor, Gen. David Petraeus, was named by the White House as CIA director. He is only the latest top military commander to publicly oppose Obama’s decisions. Gen. Stanley McChrystal was replaced by General Petraeus in 2010 as senior Afghan commander following the appearance of a magazine article quoting him and senior members of his staff making contemptuous remarks relating to President Barack Obama and other senior administration officials. In a speech delivered in London the previous year, he had all but demanded publicly that the Obama administration accept his proposal for a larger “surge”. He also used the speech to deride Vice President Joe Biden’s calls for a “counter-terrorism” strategy that would have cut troop deployments and relied more on drone missile strikes and special forces operations to assassinate opponents of the US-led occupation. More recently, the outgoing head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, publicly stated his reservations about Obama’s withdrawal plan, saying the White House plans were “more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept.” The controversy has a directly political component, with senior military officers reportedly concerned that Obama will push for a significant drawdown of US troops in the period before the November 2012 election. This would be a desperate attempt to rally support in a large section of the electorate who voted for Obama in 2008, based on illusions that he was an antiwar candidate. The British daily Telegraph cited a senior official in Kabul: “NATO top brass wanted to keep troop levels constant for at least a year, but predicted that Mr. Obama would seek to promise a further withdrawal before November’s US elections.” According to the Wall Street Journal report, “Some officials in Washington are critical of what they sometimes see as commanders circumventing decision makers back home.” However, the Journal also predicted, with ample justification, that Obama would likely “be wary of a public scrape with top military commanders, which could fuel unified Republican attacks.” A preview of the kind of press campaign which would be waged against Obama if he overrules his Afghan commander was provided by Frederick Kagan. A leading figure in the right-wing American Enterprise Institute think tank, Kagan advised General Petraeus during the 2007 “surge” in Iraq. In an article titled “The President & the generals” in the right-wing journal The Weekly Standard, Kagan writes: “The situation has become very dangerous for an administration that has overruled its commanders dramatically and frequently and is reportedly considering doing so again by announcing accelerations of the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan beyond what military commanders have recommended.” Arguing that senior US military officers should have wide autonomy once they are assigned to their command, Kagan continues: “if a president finds himself repeatedly overruling or rejecting the advice of commanders he himself has selected, his own judgment must start to come into question.” As the US military has been granted unprecedented powers to wage a never-ending and global “war on terrorism,” and the officer corps has become more politicized, it seems likely this conflict over the Afghan war will intensify in the run-up to the elections. This conflict is unfolding as Washington attempts to negotiate a “strategic partnership” agreement with President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. Such a pact would involve tens of thousands of US troops remaining in Afghanistan after NATO’s 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of “combat forces.” These troops would be rebranded as “trainers” and “advisers,” while continuing to fight. US imperialism is determined to keep permanent bases in Afghanistan, to have a beachhead in strategic, energy-rich Central Asia and a potential launching pad for wars against Iran or China. In this context, the sectarian bombing attacks that killed at least 60 Shi’ite Muslims—including women and children—and wounded over 100 during religious processions in Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif Tuesday assume a particularly sinister character. While the US occupation command tried to blame the killings on the Taliban—with General Allen publicly demanding that Taliban leader Mullah Omar condemn the atrocity—the Taliban denied any involvement, promptly denouncing the bombings. A statement by Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid read: “We strongly condemn this wild and inhuman act by our enemies, who are trying to blame us and trying to divide Afghans by doing such attacks on Muslims.” It blamed the massacres on the “invading enemy,” suggesting that US-led forces had orchestrated them to create a pretext to continue occupying the country. Indeed, the Taliban has nothing to gain from such sectarian provocations. While in power in the 1990s, it repressed the Shia population, but in recent years it has presented itself as an Afghan nationalist force. It increasingly organizes resistance to the US-led occupation among populations outside of its strongholds in ethnic-Pashtun areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan. Meanwhile, a Pakistani Islamist group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, claimed responsibility for the mass killing in a call to Radio Free Europe. The group has a history of massacring Shi’a Muslims in Pakistan, but this would be the first time that it carried out an attack in Afghanistan. There are doubts that it could have mounted coordinated operations in separate Afghan cities without help from forces in the country. From the standpoint of who benefits from these killings, there is cause to question whether the US or sections of Afghan ruling circles favorable to a continued US occupation had a hand in the attacks. Just as sectarian violence in Iraq, prepared by violence unleashed by the US military, provided a pretext for the “surge” in that country, similar conflicts could be used to bolster arguments in favor of keeping large numbers of US troops in Afghanistan. At the same time, blaming the attacks on Islamist extremists tied to Pakistani military intelligence puts additional pressure on Islamabad. This would be welcome in Washington, as the November 26 US raid that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers and the resulting boycott by Pakistan of the Bonn conference on Afghanistan, have provoked unprecedented US-Pakistani tensions. In an Asia Times Online article, former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar concludes that “US interests are, paradoxically, very well served in the current scenario if sectarian tensions escalate in Afghanistan and Western troops become the only credible provider of security.” He added that “any number of forces could be interested in indirectly buttressing the US’s regional strategies.” It is worth recalling that after arresting CIA employee Raymond Davis for gunning down two Pakistani youth in Lahore last January, Pakistani police reviewed the call records of Davis’s cellphone, establishing that he had been in contact with elements within Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, the group that claimed credit for the massacre of Shi’a Muslims in Afghanistan.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghanistan's Economy is on the Brink of Collapse, Predicts the Economist By: Pragya Singh The freezing of international aid to Afghanistan by western countries such as the USA and Germany following the Taliban takeover compounded with the pandemic’s market slowdown and the alleged theft of the national treasury by former president Ashraf Ghani and his allies are now pushing the afghan economy towards a ‘triple shock’ crisis, The Economist predicted. Even before the Taliban had begun its war, Afghanistan was already witnessing one of the worst droughts in its history. Agriculture and crop exports to neighbouring countries have been one of the nation’s stable sources, but the double whammy of the drought and the pandemic has slowed down the sector almost to a halt. Adding to that, the Taliban’s scorched earth policy, which, according to CNN and NYT reports, sees the organisation burn down farms of villages opposing them, and the agriculture sector has completely stopped. The civil war had also displaced many thousands of rural farmers, starting an internal migration of those ruined by violence towards the capital city of Kabul. As per an Al-Jazeera report, all the western banks in Afghanistan were shuttered as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Deutsch Bank, and the US Central Bank suspended the country’s access to any international funds. “Any Central Bank assets the Afghan government have in the United States will not be made available to the Taliban,” the Biden administration confirmed to the BBC. According to The Economist’s intelligence department, three-fourths of the Afghan economy was dependent on foreign aid. A slightly less harsh estimation by the World Bank put the dependency at 40%. By the World Bank definition, any nation whose GDP comprises 10% or more of foreign aid is considered an ‘aid dependant nation’. “The government had employed hundreds of thousands,” said the unit’s chief journalist Sebb Stratford-Bloor who had been ground reporting from Kabul till last week, “but now that those once powerful have vanished with millions of dollars, former government employees are on the streets trying to sell their belongings. Local businesses are expected to suffer the worst considering they are mainly cash-based and citizens are finding it increasingly difficult to access cash and savings.” On Monday, the Taliban head of the Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Investment’s (ACCI), Yusuf Mohammad, called for the US and its allies to release frozen assets, which according to the Taliban, “belongs to the people of Afghanistan”, warning that should the country be pushed into an economic crisis, the diplomatic blame would be put on America. The governments of Qatar and Pakistan supported the Taliban’s request with the Qatar foreign ministry saying, “Humanitarian situation and humanitarian assistance should be independent of any political progress because we believe that the Afghan people deserve to be helped, deserve to be supported despite what’s happening in the political landscape.” India too had a major role to play in supplying foreign aid and infrastructure development in Afghanistan, Without Indian investment and technology, the powerlines along the eastern region of the country have been frayed, and entire grids went offline for days till the Chinese fired them back up. This brings us to Afghanistan’s immediate future. Taking heed of the western media’s grim predictions, the Taliban administration has joined hands with the west’s current favourite boogiemen: China and Pakistan. The Xi Jinping government has already managed to convince the Taliban to join its Belt and Road Initiative, much to India’s consternation. Beijing has also taken over many of Delhi’s projects and even a couple of American airbases as it establishes itself in the region. Meanwhile, the UN, backed by the US, India and others, is opening an investigation into Pakistan’s role in arming and training the insurgents. Afghanistan is also a hub of illegal opium production and home to large deposits of minerals, including lithium, uranium, mercury and bauxite. If the western world and its allies refuse to recognise the Taliban, chances are it could just begin operating an alternate economy on the global grey market just as its rival Iran had for a decade and a half. Join India’s only non-profit Student Journalism platform and put your students ahead in the race. For more information, write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

10 Reasons Why the Taliban Will Not Win in Afghanistan Bad news from Afghanistan almost each day. Again a bomb killed many civilians in Kabul: 90 died and 400 were wounded at the Zanbaq Square in the diplomatic quarter near the German and other embassies in the morning of May 31, 2017. Will the Taliban take the country back? Was everything in vain, a lost victory? Thousands of lives and billions of dollar, just for nothing? Many fear the worst and most media write just the negative. This is my true real Afghanistan: - Good and friendly people. - They want to live just like many of us do in peace, with regular jobs and surrounded by their families - Only a small minority of maybe five percent are radicals. Many are conservative, but not radicals. After 30 years of involvement in Afghanistan – supporting the Mudjahedin in 1985 and with the expertise of the World Security Network in Afghanistan, Pakistan and FATA since 2002 and visits in Afghanistan in 2011 and 2013 , I can predict the following: - Even after the ISAF mission ended in 2014, the Taliban cannot win the country, nevertheless the gained more support the last years. For them to conquer the country is a mission impossible. - They control more provinces, but not the nerve center of Afghanistan, the larger cities. - It it very easy for them to place bombs and kill people in the cities. But they cannot overrun them easy, as they did once in Kunduz in the north. - It is easy for them to control larger parts in the country side, supported by drug money. - Still the government in Kabul is weak and corrupt and radical reforms are necessary. - What is needed most is much more regional autonomy. Only this fits to the tribal structure of the country. America pressed the country in an unstable central structure- the main strategic mistake by the West after 9/11. General John Nicholson, the commander of the Resolute Support Mission and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, gave a clear picture about the gains of the Taliban to the US Senate Armed Services Committee just recently. We met at the Munich Security Conference 2016 and discussed strategy, including the wisdom of my biography of Pentagon strategist Dr Fritz Kraemer, a book his father has given to him. His main facts on the ground: - The war is a stalemate. - The Afghan government controls today just 57 percent of the country, down from 72 percent a year earlier. A success would be they control 80 percent. - Heavy casualties for the Afghan forces. - Thousand of more troops are needed for more training, especially special forces in need. It is different from Iraq, where the Shiite government pushed the Sunni tribes into the hands of Daesh (ISIS) with a deadly wrong exclusive power-policy. For me the glass is about three quarters full. Here are my 10 reasons why the Taliban cannot win in Afghanistan: - The Taliban lack the support of the people and have no viable vision for the future of the country. - More bombs just drive the people away from them. - The Afghan Army and police are fighting them considerably well. They are not perfect and sometimes weak, but strong enough to deny the Taliban a victory. - The U.S. and NATO will continue their support for training and not repeat the mistake of Iraq to go out with all troops too soon, leaving a vacuum. - The foreign troops have left with only a limited training mission still in the country. Now the battle is between the Afghans and not against a foreign invader. - A new young generation with smartphones is in charge, with better educations, including the girls. - There are many media outlets reporting. - The elections showed broad interest and support for the political process. - After 13 years the Afghans have emancipated themselves from the Taliban past. - The Taliban lost long-time support from Pakistan, the ISI and safe havens in FATA. Too many in the Pakistani military used the option to influence the neighbor in the West versus India by the Afghan-Taliban. For too long they ignored it as a deadly threat for stability inside Pakistan as well. The bombing of an Army school in Peshawar and too many attacks by the Pakistani Taliban and other radicals on military installations in Pakistan pushed this misperception away. Make no mistake, you will hear bad news from Afghanistan. Each week for the next years. It is fairly easy for the Taliban to detonate bombs anywhere – but it is not possible to win the country, the north or large cities back in their favour. Afghanistan is still dangerous – but peace will prevail at the end. I also predict that ISIS/Daesh will not have success in Afghanistan, as it does in Iraq. I would like to thank the brave U.S. soldiers, ISAF and all the soldiers from Afghanistan and foreign countries involved in making this turnaround possible. Their many losses since 2001 will not be forgotten. What can be done now? - The containment of the Taliban will proceed with financial support. - Corruption must be fought tirelessly with real reconciliation as well as peace-talks with the Taliban involving Pakistan are necessary. - The young people need jobs and a perspective for the future. - Around 8,000 more US soldiers are needed to stabilize the country, as requested by Gen. Nicholson. Photo: Globalo-Founder Dr Hubertus Hoffmann meeting the future of Afghanistan on the market of Kabul and meeting ISAF commander Gen. Petraeus in Mazar-e-Sharif in 2011.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

On January 27, a round table “Protecting the Rights of Public Activists: Current Issues and Possible Solutions” was held in Kyiv. During the event, they presented an analytical report “The situation of human rights defenders and civic activists in Ukraine in 2019”. Human rights activists are convinced that the potential of the Verkhovna Rada committees should be harnessed in order to strengthen monitoring of human rights observance and direct it to the protection of human rights defenders and civic activists. Authorities should pay constant attention to investigations by law enforcement agencies against activists in order to facilitate the effectiveness of such investigations. In addition, the establishment of permanent platforms for cooperation in these matters with the public could increase the level of communication that is currently insufficient, and public condemnation of persecution and recognition of the importance of human rights activists and public activists – influence the formation of public opinion on the inadmissibility of such persecution. The report was prepared by the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, ZMINA and Truth Hounds with the support of Freedom House.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Millions of dollars in US rebuilding funds have been wasted in Iraq, US auditors say in a report which warns corruption in the country is rife. Iraqi reconstruction has seen limited progress, the audit says A never-used camp in Baghdad for police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool is one of the examples highlighted in the quarterly audit. Billions of budgeted dollars meanwhile remain unspent by Iraq's government. The report comes as President Bush is urging Congress to approve $1.2bn (£600m) in further reconstruction aid. The audit by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (Sigir), is the latest in a regular series of updates to Congress. "The security situation continue to deteriorate, hindering progress in all reconstruction sectors and threatening the overall reconstruction effort," says his 579-page report, which is due to be released later on Wednesday. Among the wide-ranging findings, the audit says that corruption continues to plague Iraq and infrastructure security remains vulnerable. Auditors express "significant concern" about the Iraqi government's record in managing and spending budgets. Billions of dollars budgeted for capital projects remained unspent at the end of 2006, the report says. As well as not spending funds, the audit also highlights ways in which money has been used either improperly or wastefully. US FUNDS IN IRAQ Security and justice 34% Economic, societal development 12% Oil and gas 9% Health care 4% Source: Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction One case involved a payment by the US State Department of $43.8m to a contractor, DynCorp International, for a residential camp for police trainers outside the Adnan Palace grounds in Baghdad. The camp has never been used. The Iraqi Interior Ministry ordered $4.2m of work there, never authorised by the State Department, that included 20 trailers for important visitors and an Olympic-size swimming pool. The State Department has said that it is working to improve controls. Another example cited in the report is $36.4m spent by US officials on armoured vehicles, body armour and communications equipment that cannot be accounted for because invoices were vague and there was no back-up documentation. Generator sales have boomed given Baghdad's frequent power cuts Contracts have been awarded for virtually all of the $21bn earmarked by the US government for Iraqi reconstruction, and some 80% has been spent. Democrats, who now control the US Congress, have expressed concern at the prospect of devoting more funds to rebuilding efforts in Iraq. Rep Henry Waxman is planning in-depth hearings next week into charges of waste and fraud in Iraq. Since 2003, the way reconstruction aid is used has changed, with money originally destined for infrastructure programmes cut and more spent on areas like security and democracy projects. Electricity output remains below pre-war levels, while funds initially earmarked for water and sewerage have been cut by 50%, the audit says. The report also points to continuing high unemployment, put at 18% but widely believed to be under-reported, as a contributing factor in the insurgency. It concludes that the Iraqi government's "most significant challenge" continues to be strengthening the judiciary, prisons and the police. "The United States has spent billions of dollars in this area, with limited success to date." Mr Bowen's audit office began operations in March 2004 and is currently conducting 78 investigations, of which 23 have been referred to the US Department of Justice. There have so far been four convictions. His office, which was nearly closed down last year by Republicans, is now due to carry on its oversight work through 2008.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

The most important issue, MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE AND MACEDONIAN IDENTITY ARE INSURED AND GUARANTEED IN THE NEGOTIATION FRAMEWORK AND THEREFORE RECOGNIZED AND ACCEPTED BY THE EU. That is first and absolute most important. The protocol that would be signed by the Macedonian Government and the Bulgarian Government explains the way to overcome open issues that are solvable. Building good and friendly relations with neighbors is essential for the peace, stability and prosperity of a region such as the Western Balkans. Therefore, we on the Macedonian side and our colleagues on the Bulgarian side must work together to close open issues. It is very important to fully preserve the national dignity of both sides in the talks. Friendship is created and built when two sides take care of each other while resolving open issues. The Macedonian side has politicians that I am sure will take guarantees and commitments throughout those talks in the future to fully represent our national interests with dignity and constructively. Good relations with all our neighbors strengthen the Western Balkans, and cooperation makes us a serious factor as a region ahead of Europe and the World. We have seen that through friendship and good neighbourliness, issues that have been open and unresolved for decades, but also centuries, such as the progress we made with the Prespa Treaty, NATO membership, but also the realization of the Autocephaly of our father Macedonian Orthodox Church – Archbishopric of Ohrid. In all three cases we have a direct confirmation of our indigenous Macedonian identity.\n By starting negotiations with a verified and indisputable Macedonian language within the European Union we will gain another identity victory of Macedonianism. When it comes to topics related to non-discrimination and the elimination of hate speech, it is important to know that they apply to all communities in our multicultural society and I don’t see a problem with that at all, on the contrary I think we can still let’s improve and without the EU to require it from us, to strive for a more successful ONE AND EQUAL SOCIETY FOR ALL.\n We have achieved a lot in this field so far and without the EU demanding it from us. For multicultural coexistence and building a single and equal society for all we are already an example both in the region and Europe and we should continue to develop such policies, remain leaders in that field as it brings only good to our pary from and for all nations of The Balkans. When it comes to fulfillment of the Neighborhood Agreement with Bulgaria and the Prespa Agreement with Greece, I am convinced that it is much better for us to sit at the table in the European institutions and be the ones to look for in our Macedonian language is full fulfillment of both contracts in which are not disputed but confirmed by both the Macedonian language and the Macedonian people. We are witnesses that Europe shows understanding of Macedonianism and our historical right to self-determination. Given that this is not the last challenge before our EU accession and that they do not await closures of many negotiating chapters, I consider it very important for us at this point that Bulgaria confirms that new bilateral problems will not o future skunk and what accepts to be committed together to build friendship and good neighborhood. Through friendship and good neighbourliness, even the most complex problems were easier to solve. On the contrary, when there is a hostile atmosphere the number of problems only increases. Another essential part of the French proposal is the introduction of Bulgarians, Croats and Montenegrins in the Constitution. It is a step we should take and which will in no way harm the state, society or any of the communities in our country. We already have seven ethnic communities in our Constitution. With constitutional changes there will be 10 ethnic communities.\n Only out of spite, bad intention or personal political gain can one be against the introduction of three new ethnic communities in the Constitution. Opposing multiculturalism is opposing the European integration of our homeland. Members of the three ethnic communities, although significantly fewer, are still equal citizens of Northern Macedonia who were born and live here together with all of us and have the right to self-determination, something we are proud of as a state that he’s reading that right. That challenge should be accepted and continue the path to full EU membership. I expect constructive consultation and support of this proposal from every single responsible politician and citizen in the country.\n This proposal has already been supported by all over Europe, and experience teaches us that every new proposal will probably be harder to accept. If we are sincere about EU membership then the battlefield is now, now we need to show it in action and class sooner to complete this process. And everyone knows, our Macedonian people have never gotten anything easily, for their state and spiritual independence they fought and fought with smart and wise decisions. Let’s be smart and wise and continue to move forward as Macedonians with a recognized Macedonian language and identity, with our Macedonian state integrated in the Euro-Atlantic unions as a strategic determination of all our people, all ethnically united icy.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

In terms of content, however, there was little indication of any change from the core polices pursued by the Bush administration. Quite the opposite—his “charm offensive” (Süddeutsche Zeitung)—was bound up with an appeal for the Europeans to ally themselves even more closely with the US, while at the same time, taking on more responsibility for supporting Washington’s interventions abroad. In the speech that he gave last summer in Berlin, the Democratic presidential candidate Obama had already called on European countries to throw aside their “pacifist misgivings” and send more troops to Afghanistan. At the beginning of his speech in Munich, the US vice president announced a new era of collaboration between Washington and the world’s other states. “I come to Europe on behalf of a new administration...that’s determined to set a new tone not only in Washington but in America’s relations around the world”, he said. This new tone, he continued, is not a “luxury” but rather an “absolute necessity” in order to tackle joint challenges on the basis of a strong partnership. In light of the huge problems confronting them, the world’s states have a responsibility to their citizens to “put aside the petty and political notions—to reject the zero sum mentalities and rigid ideologies and to listen and to learn from one another”. While many European news outlets praised Biden’s words, a number of more thoughtful commentaries pointed out that in fact the vice president offered little in the way of change in the content of US foreign policy. In its on-line edition on Saturday, for example, the New York Times noted that the American vice president stressed that his government does not recognize the conception of a “Russian sphere of influence”. In other words, the government that declares it has the right to regard the entire planet as its sphere of influence and is prepared to pursue its interests through force of arms in the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Caspian Basin, is not prepared to countenance other countries having any “sphere of influence” at all. Biden emphasized: “We will not agree with Russia in everything. For example the US will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states”. On this issue, Biden declared his support for Georgia. At the same time, when questioned by a journalist as to whether his government was keen to see Georgia enter NATO, Biden answered that that was an issue for the Georgian government itself to decide, thereby making clear that the Obama administration may be less insistent on granting NATO membership for the country, while still reserving its right to carry out such a provocative action. With regard to the issue of the controversial missile system that the US wants to install in Eastern Europe, Biden remained vague but insisted his government wanted to continue to develop the system when it was technically feasible and not too expensive. On the issue of Iran, Biden maintained a hard-line course. Unlike Bush, Biden stated that the Obama administration was prepared to negotiate with Teheran; however he linked such negotiations with America’s well-known ultimatum. Those holding power in Iran have the following choice, he said: “Continue down the current course, and there will be continued pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism, and there will be meaningful incentives”. His comments were immediately condemned by members of the Iranian delegation at the conference, who could detect no change in the US stance. In his remarks on the Middle East conflict, Biden made no reference to the Israeli massacre in the Gaza Strip and thereby continued the policy of tacit support for the mass murder expressed earlier by Obama himself. In light of the latest Israeli terror against the Palestinians, Biden’s call for a two-state solution in the region was utterly cynical. At the same time, Biden stressed that any reconstruction effort in Gaza should be subordinated to an effort to strengthen the Palestinian Authority at the expense of Hamas. Biden’s repeated calls for collaboration were greeted almost euphorically by conference participants, who preferred to ignore the actions already taken by the Obama government on the international stage. Without consulting any of its allies the new US government has undertaken vigorous attacks against China, linked its economic stimulus programme with protectionist measures and begun the process of doubling its troops in Afghanistan in preparation for a new military intervention in Pakistan. Nevertheless, Biden arrogantly demanded that “the allies” not only contribute their own ideas, but also rethink their policies...“including your readiness to use violence when all other measures fail”. A new concept for the war in Afghanistan demands an extensive strategy that draws together the civil and military capabilities of all partners to achieve solutions for which all bear responsibility. In order to prevent the border region of Pakistan from becoming a safe haven for extremists, Pakistan must be included in the strategic planning, Biden said. At the conference, NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer also demanded more involvement on the part of European powers in the alliance. The new US government expected not just good advice, but more equitable burden sharing. The transatlantic alliance was based on mutual collaboration and was not just a “two-track road”. The general secretary referred in particular to the intervention in Afghanistan, which is a top priority for NATO. He was concerned that the US was planning to increase its involvement in Afghanistan, while “other countries have already ruled out doing more”. This was not good for the alliance, he said, and would inevitably lead to a reduction of Europe’s influence in Washington. In talks held last Friday, the new US special advisor in Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, had already appealed to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier for increased German involvement in Afghanistan. Despite the diplomatic overtures employed by the new US vice president, this year’s Munich Security Conference took place under conditions of growing tensions developing in various regions around the world. Just a few days before the conference, the government in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan announced plans to close a strategic US military base in the country. The US base situated close to the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek is of crucial importance for supplying the US-led occupation in Afghanistan. According to media reports, Russia had applied pressure for the closure of the base, promising Kyrgyzstan in return credits and investments totalling more than two billion dollars. Biden’s comments that his government would never recognize and accept a “Russian sphere of influence” was a response to this development and contained a direct threat to Moscow. In light of the economic and financial crisis, together with a growing series of military setbacks in Afghanistan, the Obama government is under enormous pressure. However, weakened governments often respond with drastic and unexpected measures. In this respect, the current diplomatic offensive launched by Washington could soon be revealed as the cover for new and violent actions. European governments are reacting to Washington’s weakened position with a mixture of undisguised relief and fear. Leading European politicians are stressing that US dominance in world politics has ended, and Europe must now play a greater role. In this connection, former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD) published an article in the current edition of Spiegel headlined “On the future of the German deployment in Afghanistan”. In the article, Schröder stresses that with its deployment in Afghanistan as part of NATO, Germany has not only carried out its obligations, but has also won rights. Schröder declares that the intervention by the German army in Afghanistan is an “expression of the complete sovereignty of Germany with regard to foreign and security policy”. He points out that the security situation has clearly worsened in Afghanistan during the past three years and blames Washington’s war policy. The problems in Afghanistan, according to Schröder, can only be resolved in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the situation in Iraq and the dispute over the Iranian nuclear programme. “None of the conflicts can be considered in isolation”, he writes. In order to arrive at a solution, a regional dialogue is necessary, which would include countries like Syria and Iran. In other words, in return for increased participation of the German army in Afghanistan, Schröder is demanding an increased role for German imperialism in the Middle East and Iran. As chairman of the pipeline consortium that plans to supply huge amounts of energy from Russia to Europe, Schröder has long appealed for a new improved relationship with Russia. On all of these issues Schröder is warning the ruling elite that any concessions to the US regarding increased deployments in Afghanistan can only be struck on the basis of demanding a “new deal” for Europe—and Germany in particular—on a host of other pressing international issues. Behind the mutual backslapping and diplomatic niceties in Munich, conflicts between the major powers are growing rapidly.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Almost everyone agrees that what’s happening in Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster. There is no way to whitewash it, and few are trying. The scenes from Kabul speak for themselves, casting shame and embarrassment on the world’s greatest superpower. There is plenty of blame being passed around, including to the “neocons,” the generals and the Afghans themselves. But what got us here was the widespread belief that American foreign policy should be dictated by a simple slogan: “No more endless wars.” The current spokesman for that belief is President Biden. The argument for bringing the troops home is an emotional one, arising from exhaustion with overseas conflict. Most people don’t understand the situation in Afghanistan, and that causes distrust and anger. Few deny we needed to take action after 9/11, but few understood what our strategy would be after we got there. Leaders failed to explain that simply leaving would allow the Taliban to re-emerge and again provide safe haven for terrorists. Americans felt stuck and became exhausted over the years with the vast sums of money spent and lives lost, seemingly in a futile attempt to build democracy. GoPro Student Discount: 20% off all cameras and accessories 30% off smartphones + free shipping - Samsung promo code Save up to 30% + free shipping with Dell coupons HP student discount - up to 35% Off Save 20% off + additional $5 off using Newegg Coupon TigerDirect coupon code - 10% off first order

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

In a historic agreement signed with the United States earlier this year, the Taliban made certain counterterrorism guarantees in return for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. However, the fact that officially the Taliban continue to outright deny credible and detailed reports on the presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan — even reports that The Diplomat has exclusively obtained from Taliban fighters on the ground — raises questions about their commitment to these counterterrorism pledges. The Counterterrorism Guarantees of the Doha Agreement On February 29, after more than 19 years of being at war, the United States and the Taliban signed the “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan“ in Doha, Qatar. At its core, the agreement foresees that the United States will withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in return for counterterrorism guarantees provided by the Taliban. The key guarantees pledged by the Taliban are that the group will: - “not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al-Qa’ida, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.” - “send a clear message that those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies have no place in Afghanistan, and will instruct [its] members (…) not to cooperate with groups or individuals threatening the security of the United States and its allies;” and - “prevent any group or individual in Afghanistan from threatening the security of the United States and its allies, and will prevent them from recruiting, training, and fundraising and will not host them in accordance with the commitments in this agreement.” Contrary to other parts of the Doha Agreement — first and foremost the first phase of the U.S. troop drawdown and the release of prisoners by the Taliban and the Afghan government — the counterterrorism guarantees have received little publicity and there are conflicting views about the status of their implementation. “On the day the agreement was signed, our emir [i.e. the Taliban leader] issued a statement. In this statement he ordered the implementation of all commitments of the agreement. All our mujahideen [fighters] were ordered to not allow anyone to use Afghan soil to threaten other countries and no one will come to harm from [a threat emanating from] here, inshallah. This statement was also the clear message [against terrorists mentioned in the agreement],” official Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told The Diplomat via telephone on July 19. “According to our information, there are also no foreign fighters in areas under our control,” he added after having been asked about such fighters. In other words, Mujahid insisted that the Taliban have already sufficiently implemented the pledged counterterrorism guarantees. Later, in a statement released on July 28, Taliban leader Haibatullah Akhundzada explicitly confirmed this by declaring that the Taliban have “fulfilled [their] obligations” under the Doha Agreement. This, however, stands at odds with the U.S. position. Asked for a comment on Mujahid’s above statements as well as the general status of the implementation of the counterterrorism guarantees by the Taliban, a spokesperson of the U.S. Department of State replied that “[a]s [U.S.] Special Representative Khalilzad has said in a recent tweet thread marking 135 days since the signing of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, more progress is needed on counter-terrorism,” indicating that the United States does not yet see the counterterrorism guarantees as implemented. The Taliban’s Doubtful Assertions on Foreign Fighters The main reason for these contradicting views is that the Taliban deny the presence of foreign fighters in areas under their control, while Washington claims that not only there are such fighters in Afghanistan but that they collaborate with the Taliban. While the latter is not clearly stated the text of the Doha Agreement, it is mentioned in numerous official U.S. reports (see for one of many examples this report of the U.S. Department of Defense from June 2020). The Taliban have regularly rejected such U.S. reports as well as others, namely from the U.N., as “false,” “propaganda,” and “unsubstantiated” and displayed them as malign attempts by their enemies to sabotage the peace process (see, for example, recent official Taliban statements here and here). However, it is not only the Taliban’s “enemies” who assert that foreign fighters are indeed present in Afghanistan. In July, The Diplomat reached out to Taliban fighters on the ground in areas where the presence of foreign fighters had been reported. Some of the contacted Taliban openly and immediately admitted that foreign fighters operate on Afghan soil. “There are many Punjabis [from Pakistan] in Marawara and in Ghaziabad [both districts in the eastern Afghan Province of Kunar]. In Marawara, the Punjabis work together with Din Mohammad, who is a local Taliban commander. I have seen them myself,” a Talib from Marawara declared. “In Shirzad [a district in the eastern Afghan province of Nangarhar], there are a number of Punjabis and Uyghurs [from China]. The Punjabis used to be members of Jaish-e Mohammad and Lashkar-e Taiba [both Pakistani extremist groups] but currently operate completely within the Taliban. The Uyghurs are in a separate group but also work together with the Taliban,” another Talib from Nangarhar told The Diplomat. In yet another example, a source of this author is in direct contact with a Pakistani national who is currently in the Afghan province of Ghazni. The Pakistani admits that he is waging jihad together with the Taliban, by building detonators for improvised explosive devices among other actions. There are also detailed reports on the presence of foreign fighters in Taliban-controlled parts of the northeastern Afghan province of Badakhshan, including videos of such fighters and a photo of their leader Haji Furqan. All these reports can hardly be termed “unsubstantiated” and each case has been corroborated by more than one non-governmental source who had no motive to distort facts for propaganda purposes. In addition, this author has, as late as early July 2020, himself met members of the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, in eastern Afghanistan. That said, the TTP presence in eastern Afghanistan is a peculiar example as at least in Kunar members of the TTP and the Afghan Taliban stand at odds with each other. Confronted with these reports, the official Taliban spokesman Mujahid again waved them away as false or enemy propaganda — without asking for time to check the various detailed allegations. With respect to border areas in Nangarhar and Kunar, Mujahid admitted, though, that there are “some problems with local [Pashtun] tribes.” “Some of these [tribesmen] are armed and have influence. One such man is called Mangal Bagh, another Abdul Wali. They are Pakistanis from the tribal areas and there are sometimes on this side and sometimes on the other side of the disputed border,” Mujahid continued. Mangal Bagh is the leader of Lashkar-i Islam, an extremist group that originated in the Pakistani Khyber valley, but has been present in Afghan areas near Khyber, namely parts of Nangarhar’s Nazian District, since at least 2008. Abdul Wali is the name of the leader of Jamaat ul-Ahrar, a UN-sanctioned TTP splinter group. “In this context, it has to be noted that we [the Afghan Taliban] don’t have these areas under our control; we also don’t have any border force that would allow us to do something against this,” Mujahid added. He also described these tribesmen as “not coming from other countries,” as they are “just from across the Durand Line [the disputed Afghan-Pakistani border],” exemplifying that many Afghans do not perceive Pakistani Pashtuns from the border areas as foreigners. Mujahid seemingly chose to overlook that the reports with which The Diplomat confronted him mainly indicated the presence of Punjabi — not Pashtun — Pakistanis, who hail from far away from the border and that some reports also mentioned Uyghurs. Pressed for comment on such foreigners, Mujahid curtly rejected the claims as wrong without further elaborating. With respect to reports on relations or contacts between al-Qaida and the Taliban, Mujahid told The Diplomat that no such contacts exist. “They [al-Qaida] are not in Afghanistan now. When the war started in 2001 they all left. Later came the Arab Spring. They left for Tunis, Iraq, Syria, Somalia. We don’t have any contacts with them now,” he explained. That assertion was later reissued in an official Taliban communiqué. When asked why the Taliban did not reject the pledge of allegiance by al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to the current Taliban emir Haibatullah, or why they have not rejected it now after the signing of the Doha Agreement, Mujahid said that, at the time of the pledge (after the killing of the former Taliban leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour in a U.S. drone strike on May 21, 2016), the Taliban had been “at war” with the United States. He added that “now, it is not necessary to reject the support that someone had declared years ago.” Given that the Taliban have for years denied the presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan as well as reports that they collaborate with transnational terrorist groups like al-Qaida, The Diplomat asked Mujahid what exactly had changed in the counterterrorism context since the singing of the agreement, but could not get a clear answer. Possible Explanations and Concerns It is safe to assume that the U.S. side has, during the negotiations preceding the signing of the Doha Agreement, not only clearly indicated their concerns about foreign fighters in Afghanistan to the Taliban but also their expectations that the Taliban have to do more against such perceived threats. Thus the Taliban messaging raises serious questions about their commitment to the pledged counterterrorism guarantees. This is all the more so as the Taliban statements described above eerily resemble the mid- to late 1990s, when the Taliban regime initially outright (and incorrectly) denied that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida members were present in Afghanistan. “History is repeating itself,” Anne Stenersen, who has written a detailed book on al-Qaida in Afghanistan before 9/11, told The Diplomat in this regard. However, Stenersen added that it would be too simplistic to jump to the conclusion that the Taliban are denying the presence of foreign fighters to deceive the United States in order to pursue sinister plots. “Western perspectives on Afghanistan tend to lack appreciation of the complex domestic challenges that the Taliban are facing, and how these challenges influence Taliban’s foreign policy decisions,” she pointed out. This was also confirmed by Andrew Watkins, a senior analyst working on Afghanistan with the International Crisis Group. “Denouncing the presence of foreign fighters on Afghan soil, in particular al-Qaida, might estrange some Taliban rank-and-file amongst whom such fighters are popular, which is why some Taliban leaders fear that such a step could lead to a fragmentation of the movement,” Watkins elaborated. “For the Taliban it is not so much about deceiving the U.S. [about foreign fighters], as it is about ensuring the movement’s own political survival; above all, the [Taliban] leaders want to avoid making controversial decisions that might cause splits in the movement itself,” Stenersen concurred. Whatever the motive is, it does not change the fact that the Taliban — in view of the overwhelming evidence of the presence of at least some foreign fighters in Afghanistan that are in contact with the Taliban — apparently knowingly misrepresent facts connected to the counterterrorism guarantees, which they claim to have fulfilled. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that the actual threat posed by foreign fighters in Afghanistan is sometimes exaggerated, as shown, for example, in a detailed case study on Uyghur extremists in Afghan Badakhshan. This, however, does not exonerate the Taliban from the responsibility to acknowledge the presence of such fighters and to do something about them or, alternatively, explain why such foreigners would not pose any relevant threat. While the Doha Agreement does not state that the Taliban have to implement the counterterrorism guarantees publicly, the fact that the Taliban chose to publicly and consistently deny the presence of any foreign fighters can hardly be reconciled with the guarantees in the agreement. In view of this, the problem of foreign fighters in Afghanistan must be more seriously addressed — be it in public or behind closed doors — so that history won’t simply repeat itself. Franz J. Marty is a freelance journalist based in Afghanistan. He writes on a broad range of topics, but focuses on security and military issues. You can follow him on Twitter @franzjmarty

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Anti-Taliban group leader asks Russia to mediate talks with Taliban The Tajik leader of the forces stuck under the siege of the Taliban in Afghanistan’s Panjshir Valley called on Russia to assume a mediatory role and help conduct emergency peace talks between his forces and the Taliban to make a buffer zone in the valley. In an interview with Russian media group RBK, Ahmad Massoud, head of the anti-Taliban resistance movement, said he hopes that Russia will help prevent the escalation of violence. “The international community, regional powers, including Russia, can pressure the Taliban to create a buffer zone for those who cannot leave Afghanistan. There may be a region where they can stay until the peace talks yield results,” Massoud said. “I wholeheartedly believe that peace talks are the only solution. But as there are certain military maneuvers and preparations in the Panjshir Valley, we are also preparing to defend ourselves,” he added. Massoud recalled that Afghanistan has been in wars for the last 50 years in general and said the country needs peace and dialogue. He went on to say the Taliban stated their openness to negotiations, adding that it is “encouraging” for his group. “What really matters is to be inclusive. If the government is inclusive, we can look at the future with hope. Otherwise, it will be a new failed attempt to build a state,” Massoud said.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

More than 27 years have passed since the Soviet Union pulled its forces out of Afghanistan, ending a blood-soaked intervention that left one million Afghans and fifteen thousand Soviets dead. In Tajikistan, a country that shares not only a 1300-kilometre border, but close linguistic and cultural ties with Afghanistan, the memory of the war has all but disappeared from the public space. History books make little mention of it, newspapers speak seldom of it and top government representatives stay away from public commemorations of the war. Only the war veterans themselves keep the memory of the conflict alive. Yet they are often cold-shouldered by government institutions and their fellow Tajiks. Around 15,000 residents of Soviet Tajikistan took part in the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. They served in a range of capacities, from snipers and riflemen to interpreters and signallers. As many as 366 of them lost their lives, with more than 1,000 listed as injured. It was the biggest military involvement of Tajikistanis since the Second World War, when some 200, 000 Tajik men and women from the Central Asian republic served on the battlefields of Europe and Asia. Today, between 6,000-7,000 Afghan war veterans, or afgantsy, still live in Tajikistan. They are spread far and wide, from the heavily trafficked streets of Dushanbe to the high mountain plateaus of Murghob district. Many of them struggle to make a living in a country that is stricken with unemployment and ranks among the poorest in Asia. Some have left, joining more than a million other Tajik migrant workers in Russia, from where they send home vital remittances to their families. More than a quarter of a century after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the afgantsy are still struggling to carve out a place for themselves in post-Soviet Tajikistan Scattered, poor and, in many cases, in ill health, the veterans receive little help from official quarters. A law from 1995 recognises them as “veterans of military action on the territory of other states” and entitles them to a limited number of benefits. But many of those benefits are ludicrously small (one is a 50% discount on garbage removal services) and often not delivered in practice. Instead, most of the former fighters have been left to fend for themselves. In Khorugh, a small town in the rugged Pamir Mountains, local veterans have no office or organisational budget and receive only meagre hand-outs and discounts on public services. Recently, they lost even their right to discounted electricity when the local electricity company was placed in private hands (although, on the upside, electricity has been more stable in the town since). That situation has parallels in other parts of Tajikistan. Especially in rural areas, afgantsy have been largely abandoned by official bodies, who choose to spend their limited budgets on other things. Indeed, despite being Tajik citizens, many veterans say, they receive better support in Russia when they go there to work. Heirs to heroes? The afgantsy do what they can to improve their lot. Certainly, being a veteran has some perks: it can provide access to helpful social networks and act as a door-opener in some contexts. A former scout from the Wakhan Valley in south-eastern Tajikistan recalled being helped by former comrades-in-arms when he fled to Ekaterinburg during the civil war that gripped the country from 1992 to 1997. Another afganets found a good job in Ukraine thanks to the intervention of local veterans. During my research in Tajikistan, many afgantsy spoke of the kindness and sense of camaraderie that they meet among fellow veterans in Russia today. In Tajikistan, too, camaraderie plays an important role. In the absence of adequate state support, many former fighters look to each other for assistance. A group of veterans that I came to know in Dushanbe were a tight-knit community who regularly met and spent time together, eating and drinking and helping each other in various ways, including with money, food and work around the house. It was a solidarity group that cut across family, regional and professional ties and provided additional security to its members in a context of precarity and hardship. Mostly afgantsy take part in it.But if some veterans rely on each other for help, they also demand that the state ramp up its support. Frustrated by the paltry benefits provided by officialdom, Afghan War veterans’ associations have petitioned government bodies to increase assistance to the former soldiers. The Committee on Soldier-Internationalists’ Affairs, one of the largest afgantsy organisations in the country, has been conducting negotiations with the Tajik government about revising the current law on veterans. Its main request has been that Afghan War veterans be granted the same legal status as veterans of the Second World War, which would entail increased benefits as well as symbolic recognition. To win the government’s ear, the veterans are trying to prove their worth to the independent Tajik state. Even as the government blind-sides them, the veterans miss few occasions to vaunt their patriotism. At public events, such as military celebrations and meetings with military conscripts, they cast themselves as loyal Tajik patriots, committed to defending their new post-Soviet motherland. They push the same rhetoric in their public announcements. In a statement in its organ Internatsionalist bashardöst in February 2013, the Committee on Soldier-Internationalists’ Affairs said that “we aim, desire and wish for the stability and prosperity of the land… we are soldiers, workers and rear guards of the Constitution and are ready to support the policies of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, the honourable Emomali Rahmon.” Many veterans deliver on such talk. One district branch of the Committee on Soldier-Internationalists’ Affairs has inscribed into its statutes a commitment to assist the government in efforts to promote “military and patriotic values” among Tajik youth. Several of its members take an active part in attempts to do so, including in meetings with school pupils. In the southern town of Qurghonteppa, meanwhile, veterans regularly visit all 19 schools in the town to hold events with pupils. This was said by the leader of the local afgantsy Yokub Nazarov, who added that: “We check their physical and mental readiness and talk to them about the need to defend their country.” Such efforts do more than boost the Afghan War veterans’ patriotic credentials. They also fit into a broader narrative about the veterans as guardians of military tradition. These soldiers, who once fought for the Soviet Union and now declare their loyalty to the Tajik state, say they tie together pride in the Tajik motherland with the legacy of the Soviet past. Indeed, many of them even venture to say that they are the successors of those greatest of Soviet heroes: the veterans of the Great Patriotic War (World War II). Just like the men and women who defended their motherland on the battlefields of Europe, so the afgantsy, they insist, hearkened to the call of their country when they donned their uniforms and carried their rifles into battle with the Afghan Mujahaddin. The wars may have been different, but the loyalty and steadfastness that the soldiers displayed were the same. Repeatedly, Afghan War veterans try to link the public memory of their own – much-scorned – struggle with the triumphalist discourse that surrounds the Great Patriotic War and other facets of Tajikistan’s military past. It is an attempt to boost their own social prestige and cast themselves as embodiments of military tradition. A luke-warm government response Yet the government’s response has been tepid. In 2013, it declined the request from the Committee on Soldier-Internationalists’ Affairs for increased benefits, citing budgetary constraints. At the celebrations of the 25th anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan on 15 February 2014, it sent no top official to attend the event, even though it had sent delegates to similar events in earlier years. On lower levels, some public officials reportedly refuse to honour even the spartan provisions of the current legislation, denying requests by veterans for benefits. At a time when Putin’s Russia is cozying up to its organised Afghan War veterans’ movement, which it uses as a partner in its state propaganda, the Tajik government seems intent on keeping its own afgantsy at arm’s length. More than a quarter of a century after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the afgantsy are still struggling to carve out a place for themselves in post-Soviet Tajikistan. The Tajik state has tried to cut the umbilical cord with the Soviet empire that birthed it and instead embarked on a nation-building drive that leaves little room for painful Soviet memories. But the afgantsy demand that their suffering and their exploits be heard and recognised. Through public performances and rhetoric, they try to remind the Tajik public of the blood they shed in Afghanistan, while they also pose as guardians of military and patriotic principles inherited from Soviet times. They want to be brought into the public narrative about the Tajik past and receive the recognition and support they see as their due. Yet the government still turns them a blind eye. Get our weekly email

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Yes, you read that headline correctly. As we approach the one year anniversary of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan it seems as though the United States government is once again playing musical chairs with whom it considers friend or foe. At least this appears to be the case due to a recent article published by AntiWar.com, in which a yet to be named spokesman for the US State Department asserted that the US “does not support organized violent opposition to the Taliban” rule in Afghanistan. First reported by The Foreign Desk, the statement comes as resistance fighters claim victory over Taliban forces in the Baghlan Province as conflict in the region continues. After a two day skirmish between Taliban fighters and Afghanistan’s National Resistance Front (NRF) which resulted in heavy Taliban losses and the NRF taking control of Baghlan province’s easternmost district of Khost wa Fereng, in northern Afghanistan, the resistance fighters took to social media to celebrate their victory. Speaking to The Foreign Desk, the State Department spokesperson said ― “We are monitoring the recent uptick in violence closely and call on all sides to exercise restraint and to engage. This is the only way that Afghanistan can confront its many challenges,” Continuing on, emphasis our own, “We want to see the emergence of stable and sustainable political dispensation via peaceful means. We do not support organized violent opposition to the Taliban, and we would discourage other powers from doing so as well,” Although this position has not yet been publicly acknowledged outside of this interview with The Foreign Desk, as the piece from Anti War notes this is an awkward position for the administration to be in. Considering the last few decades spent vilifying the Taliban as the epitome of evil and the ultimate adversary. Although also as noted, prior to the 2001 invasion the Bush administration was actually allied with the Taliban, considering them a partner in the war on drugs.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

What are the 7 branches of the US military? The Army , Marine Corps , Navy , Air Force , Space Force and Coast Guard are the armed forces of the United States. The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard are reserve components of their services and operate in part under state authority. Which branch of the military has the most members in the United States of America? How many soldiers does the US have in 2020? In FY 2020 the total Army will have an end strength of 1,005,500 and by FY 2024 will grow to only 1,016,500 . What are the 17 branches of the military? What are the Branches of the Military ? Air Force and Air Force Reserve: The nation’s source of air and space power. Air National Guard: Army and Army Reserve: Army National Guard: Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve: Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve: Navy and Navy Reserve: Space Force. What is the hardest military branch? the Air Force Who has the strongest military in the world? In 2020, China had the largest armed forces in the world by active duty military personnel, with about 2.18 active soldiers. India, the United States , North Korea, and Russia rounded out the top five largest armies respectively, each with over one million active military personnel. Which military branch has the most females? Similar shares of men and women currently serve in the Army, which is the largest active-duty branch of the military, and in the Navy . But women are more likely than men to be in the Air Force ; nearly one-third (31%) of military women are in the Air Force compared with 22% of men. What is the biggest branch of military? Which branch of military gets paid the most? the Marine Corps How large is the US military? There are more than one million active US soldiers, comprised of 476,000 regular troops, a 343,000-strong National Guard and US Army Reserves totalling 199,000 soldiers. The US has 6200 combat tanks to support its soldiers, a significant number but less than Russia and China. Which country has the powerful army? How powerful is USA? The United States is much more powerful than past lead states. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States accounts for 25 percent of global wealth, 35 percent of world innovation, and 40 percent of global military spending. What does 11 Bravo mean in the Army? What’s the easiest military branch to get into? the Air Force Has anyone ever served in all 4 branches of the military? In the past 10 years, more than 2 million U.S. troops have deployed overseas. Of those, only 40,385 have served in more than one branch , according to Defense Department records. El Paso native Jesus Yanez, now a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, has served in every branch of the military except the Coast Guard.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

A meeting of the defence ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was held in Beijing on April 24, 2018. This is the first meeting attended by India and Pakistan after they have become full-fledged members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the Astana Summit on June 8-9, 2017.The participants in the meeting reaffirmed their commitment “to enhancing trust among SCO member states on military matters, and working together to counter new challenges and threats, as well as ensuring that peace, stability and security in the region remain priorities for SCO member states.”The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has made outstanding achievements in combating the three evil forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism. Addressing this meeting on April 24, 2018, Indian Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman highlighted that “international terrorism is today the most serious threat to our peaceful societies. Terrorism threatens to derail our developmental aspirations and create sustained instability both within our countries and across national borders.”India has always stressed for enhanced cooperation between India and the SCO in countering these evils in the region. In order to provide the legal support for its counterterrorist activities and to implement the Shanghai Convention, the SCO established the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure(RATS) in 2002.The Executive Committee of the RATS is the permanent body of the SCO based in Tashkent. It is noteworthy that the SCO countries established the practice of conducting joint anti-terrorist exercises. Regular participation in the meetings of Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) and joint military exercises may provide the new level of intelligence sharing and it also enhance counter-terrorism strategies to fight terror. This is further clarified by MEA joint secretary (Eurasia) G V Srinivas in a press conference. He said that, “There’s little possibility of India staying out of such an exercise. We hope to benefit from RATS joint exercises against terrorism and also its data bank on terrorists.” India considers RATS as an important and effective organisation in fight against terrorism. The Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (RATS SCO) possesses data on 2,500 suicide bombers and 69 terrorist organizations.In accordance with the decisions and approval of the RATS SCO Council, a List comprising more than 100 organizations, including “Islamic State”, “Islamic Movement of Eastern Turkestan”, “Hizbut-Tahrir al Islami”, “Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan”, etc. which includes more than 3,000 individuals, whose activities are banned on the territories of the SCO member states.Moreover, the SCO has already banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (Pakistan) during its meeting in Bishkek in 2007. India should also insist SCO member states to include Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) in the List of banned organizations in SCO Territory as well as which would be more useful for India in fighting terrorism in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, where it has been battling insurgency for more than two decades. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s member-countries will hold the next joint military exercise “Peace Mission” in Russia in 2018. India and Pakistan, along with the other member states, will participate in joint exercises against terrorism under the banner of RATS (Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure) of SCO. Probably this would be the first exercise, but not the first engagement, as both have worked together before under the supervision of the UN. In this context, India and Pakistan will have to act in strict accordance with the SCO Charter which states that “The main SCO goals and tasks shall be: strengthening mutual trust, friendship and good-neighbourliness between the member States; development of multifaceted cooperation in the maintenance and strengthening of peace, security and stability in the region and promotion of a new democratic, fair and rational political and economic international order; joint combating terrorism, separatism and extremism in all their manifestations, fighting against illicit narcotics and arms trafficking and other types of transnational criminal activity, and also illegal migration”. However, there are certain apprehensions about the cooperation between India and Pakistan in the field of counter-terrorism because both states have a long tradition of suspicion and rivalry on various issues including Kashmir. For instance, they have different views on cross-border attacks in Kashmir. As one of the Russian scholar suggested that “any direct interference in the Kashmir issue should be avoided from the start.” He further warned that failing to help to manage the relationship between India and Pakistan carries a serious risk for the entire SCO project. Similarly, other argued that “hardly anyone within the SCO would like to see the Kashmir issue being brought to the table. But it is no secret that Pakistan has long been insisting on its internationalization.”India has clarified from very beginning that there is no role for third-party mediation in India-Pakistan conflict. This is further explained by SCO Secretary General Rashid Alimov during an interview with TASS correspondence where he stated that “I would like to note that the SCO does not deal with resolving bilateral disputes, be it border disputes, water disputes or any other matters in relations between certain member states. This is also true of the Indian-Pakistani problem.” It would be very difficult for Indian Government to get convinced the other SCO member states regarding Pakistan’s involvement in the separatist movements in Kashmir. Therefore, India has little to gain in this context because the member states will avoid in mediating on the bilateral disputes (Kashmir) as long as both side request to do so. Consequently, only the sharing of information within the framework of the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) is possible in the SCO but not a joint struggle against terror. It is still undefined that to what extent India will be able to utilise the SCO platform to advance its own security and economic interests, in a situation where Chinese influence within the organisation remains at its uttermost. - “Press release on the 15th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s Defence Ministers meeting”, April 24, 2018, http://eng.sectsco.org/news/ 20180424/413811.html - Nirmala Sitharaman (2018), “RakshaMantri’s Address at The 15th SCO Defence Ministers meeting in China”, April 24, 2018, http://pib.nic.in /newsite/pmreleases.aspx?mincode=33 - RaffaelloPantucci (2015), “India and SCO: the real benefit”, July 9, 2015, available at http://www.gatewayhouse.in/india-and-sco-the-real-benefit/ - “India to use Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in its war on terror”, June 8, 2017, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-to-use-sco-in-its-war-on-terror/articleshow/59044465.cms - Sergei Smirnov (2016), “Shanghai Pact Anti-Terror Database Lists 2,500 Suicide Bombers, 69 Groups”, September13, 2016, https://sputniknews.com/asia/201609131045248480-sco-rats-terrorism/ - About Information Accounts of the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, August 18, 2017, http://www.european-times.com/about-information-accounts-regional-anti-terrorist-structure-of-the-shanghai-cooperation-organization/ - SCO makes list of banned terrorist organisations, July 30, 2007, http://news.uzreport.uz/news_1_e_34705.html - Dmitri Trenin (2016), “Russia, China Can Help Kashmir Tensions”, October 10, 2016, available at http://carnegie.ru/2016/10/10/russia-china-can-help-kashmir-tensions-pub-64824 - Boris Volkhonsky (2017), “How the entry of India and Pakistan transforms the SCO’s agenda”, May 30, 2017, https://www.rbth.com/international/2017/05/30/how-the-entry-of-india-and-pakistan-transforms-the-scos-agenda_773172 - Rashid Alimov (2017), “Rashid Alimov: SCO agenda is an agenda for region-wide development”, December 19, 2017, http://eng.sectsco.org/news/20171219/367739.html

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Monday he hopes to reach a cease-fire deal for Syria's Idlib province during talks this week with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders are due to meet Thursday in Moscow. Turkey and Russia back competing sides in the Syrian conflict, which has increasingly turned violent in Idlib and sent one million people fleeing the area. Erdogan told a gathering of his ruling party in Ankara on Monday that a cease-fire deal with Russia could "prevent further bloodshed." Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Monday that Russia and Turkey are keeping lines of communication open as they focus on negotiations. On Sunday, Turkey's Defense Ministry said though it is "successfully" continuing its military operation in northwestern Syria against the Russian-backed Syrian forces, the Turkish government has no "desire or intention to clash with Russia." In another development, a Syrian boy died Monday when a boat capsized off the Greek island of Lesbos, the first reported death since Turkey opened its border last week to let migrants into Europe. More than 10,000 migrants have reached Turkey's land borders with EU countries Greece and Bulgaria since Erdogan announced he was opening Turkey’s border. The Turkish president made the move after Turkey lost 33 soldiers in a single airstrike last week in Syria. He said Europe must share the burden of Syrian refugees. Erdogan warned Monday that "millions" of migrants will soon head for Europe. His comment drew criticism from European leaders. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Turkey's move "unacceptable," and said Ankara should not take out its dissatisfaction with the EU "on the backs of refugees." EU migration commissioner Margaritis Schinas said, "No one can blackmail or intimidate the EU." Meanwhile, U.N. investigators issued their latest report on the Syrian war Monday saying both Russia and Turkey may be liable for war crimes for their actions. The U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Syria said Russian forces carried out deadly airstrikes on a busy market in Ma'arrat al-Nu'man in July and on a civilian compound in southern Idlib in August. It also cited detentions, killings and beating of predominantly Kurdish residents in the area of the northern Syrian city of Afrin, and assigned blame to Turkey-backed Syrian National Army rebels.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghan Rivals Have Signed Power-Sharing Agreement This post was updated at 7:40 a.m. ET Sunday. Afghanistan's disputed presidential election is finally coming to a close, as the two rivals for the presidency have reached a power-sharing deal that they formally signed on Sunday. Under the agreement, Ashraf Ghani is poised to replace the outgoing current president, Hamid Karzai. The deal will create a national unity government and delegate limited powers to the loser of the election. Last month, NPR's Sean Carberry reported that the long drama of this election was moving at a snail's pace. "Afghans voted for a president on April 5. Then they cast ballots June 14 in a runoff between the top two candidates. Now all 8 million votes from that second round are being audited, a laborious process that includes daily arguments, occasional fistfights and yet another deadline that seems to be slipping away," he wrote. Abdullah Abdullah came out on top in the initial election. But in the runoff, Ashraf Ghani was the front-runner, which led Abdullah to declare election fraud and launched the lengthy audit of the votes. During the recount process, Secretary of State John Kerry met with the candidates, who then announced a plan to come to an agreement and inaugurate a president by the end of August. Carberry reports for our Newscast division that the agreement was delayed by Abdullah's demand that the final results of the election not be made public: "He has alleged that the U.N.-supervised audit of the vote did not eliminate what he has called industrial-scale fraud in favor of opponent Ashraf Ghani. Abdullah asked that the terms winner and loser not be used. "While the details have not been released, President Karzai's spokesman says the candidates have agreed to the language for the announcement of the results. It's widely expected that Ghani will be declared Afghanistan's next president." Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghans who aided the U.S. in its decades-long war are now facing abandonment and possibly death as the clock winds down on a withdrawal deadline and the Taliban takes over. “We are hopeless right now. We don’t have any plan for the future right now,” said Jan, who the Herald has agreed to identify only by his first name due to security concerns. Jan, an Afghan National Army official who aided the U.S. with English translations, laid out his family’s struggle during a 25-minute call with reporters on Tuesday that was set up by 9th Congressional candidate Jesse Brown. Brown is seizing onto the “chaotic and disastrous withdrawal” from Afghanistan as an opportunity to edge out Democratic incumbent U.S. Rep. William Keating. About 50,000 to 65,000 Afghans are still awaiting evacuation assistance from the U.S. government, President Joe Biden said recently. Up to 15,000 U.S. citizens also remain inside the country. Their situation remains bleak as Biden on Tuesday said he remains committed to an Aug. 31 withdrawal deadline. “Right now I have $1.50 in my pocket. I’m just buying a little food to stay alive with my family,” Jan said. Jan has served in his country’s army since 2004 and worked with the U.S. military for more than a decade with translations after learning English. “My family is scared,” Jan told reporters over the phone. “My wife and my two daughters, they say, ‘Daddy, the Taliban will kill you.'” Jan and his family are now in hiding in Kabul after the province in the northern part of the country where they lived was overtaken by the Taliban in a single day. Taliban forces searched homes one-by-one for people like Jan, who they consider enemies, Jan said. His family is changing their location every two days, staying with trusted friends and family to avoid detection. “Because of the mismanagement of America’s exit from Afghanistan, Jan is in hiding with his family from the Taliban,” Brown said. “His life and his family’s life is in grave danger because of this demonstrated loyalty to the United States.” Brown, a former Marine Corps sergeant who served in the Middle East, is challenging Keating in the upcoming 2022 election. And Brown has been vocal about the “thousands more Afghans like Jan” who are being left behind with no protection from the Taliban as U.S. forces move out. The Brown campaign started slinging shots at Keating for being “silent in the face of this crisis” on the issue of removing Afghan allies. Campaign spokeswoman Lauren Amendolara called Brown’s statements “a joke.” “The reason you haven’t heard Congressman Keating talking about the issue is because he doesn’t exploit people in the middle of a humanitarian crisis,” she said. Amendolara said Keating “has been working nonstop on this issue,” noting Keating was in a meeting with major players on the Afghanistan withdrawal during Brown’s Tuesday morning press conference. U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch and other federal lawmakers on Monday sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III urging the Biden administration to accelerate evacuations, saying the country has “a moral imperative to rescue our Afghan partners who served alongside and supported U.S. forces.”

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

September 17, 2021 NEW YORK—Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, deputy prime minister in the Taliban's caretaker government, has been named among the 100 most influential people of 2021 by Time magazine, giving him a boost internationally at a critical time for Afghanistan. The list has chosen the "influential people" under six categories: leaders, icons, pioneers, titans, artists, and innovators. Mullah Baradar, who led the Taliban in the negotiations with the U.S. during the peace deal, has been listed as the most influential under the category of leaders, including President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping. In a profile carried by the magazine, noted Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid called Mullah Baradar a "revered" figure among the Taliban as a founding member of the movement, saying he is a "charismatic military leader and a deeply pious figure." Rashid wrote, "When the Taliban swept to victory in August in Afghanistan, it was on the terms Baradar negotiated. He was said to be making all the significant decisions, including the amnesty offered to members of the former regime, the lack of bloodshed when the Taliban entered Kabul, and the regime's contacts and visits with neighboring states, especially China and Pakistan. Daily Times, January 30, 2018 If my call is so important to them, why don’t they answer it for 22 minutes? How come when I want to, but something specific online is the only item out of stock. When I get into a queue or lane going fast, the moment I get in, it becomes the slowest and refuses to budge.Read more... | Archives

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Defending Human Rights in Turkey: Stories that Need to Be Heard A founding member and state party of the Council of Europe legally bound to nearly all of the fundamental human rights treaties, a bridge between “West” and “East” poised for EU membership. In the not too distant past, many considered Turkey an up and coming story of democratic transformation. Today human rights in Turkey are significantly at risk. Nowadays Turkey displays an increasingly restrictive environment with distorted checks and balances and undermined rule of law. Turkey has become one of the illiberal state models in the world with thousands of journalists, academics, and government critics sacked, imprisoned, and charged with terrorist or treasonous crimes. Throughout its volatile political history, it has never been safe or easy to defend human rights in Turkey. However, the current hostile context puts human rights defenders, whose nature of work is to reveal human rights violations and abuses by both state and non-state actors, in a highly dangerous position. The international community needs to be reminded of their courage and their struggles, and of the solidarity the international community owes to them at both personal, societal and high diplomatic levels. Onur Hamzaoğlu, Şebnem Korur Fincancı and Reha Ruhavioğlu are three individuals who, despite the increasing difficulty and mounting pressure posed by the government, continue to defend human rights in Turkey. Hamzaoğlu and Korur Fincancı are subjects to criminal trials, facing 8 to 14 years in prison respectively. The NHC calls on the Turkish authorities to drop charges against Hamzaoğlu, Korur Fincancı and other human rights defenders prosecuted in Turkey for their lawful exercise of their rights as determined by international law. The NHC calls on the government of the Netherlands and the EU to double its efforts to preserve fundamental freedoms and the rule of law in Turkey and protect those who defend it. Below are the stories of three individuals who, despite great personal risk, continue to defend human rights in Turkey. They are written by Tan Tunali and illustrated by Marco Lambooij for the Netherlands Helsinki Committee. Onur Hamzaoğlu is a professor of public health and member of the Turkish Medical Association. He is convinced that both academics and health professionals have a duty to serve the public and protect public health. Hamzaoğlu’s best known academic work is research on the implications of environmental deterioration on the health of local populations. He found that due to the heavy industrial pollution in the Dilovasi area, close to Istanbul, the likelihood of cancer for people living in the area is three times higher than in other areas of Turkey. Despite colleagues praising the research, local authorities who are actually responsible for protecting Dilovasi citizens, opened court cases against Hamzaoğlu. They claimed that the research sought to “cause panic among the public” and, along with local companies, started a campaign to discredit Hamzaoğlu’s research. As with so many rights defenders and academics, the failed coup attempt and its aftermath have had a huge impact on Hamzaoğlu’s life. A few months after the coup attempt, he, along with 18 other colleagues, were fired from university by emergency decree. All of them were signatories of a petition protesting the violence perpetrated by Turkish security forces against the Kurdish population in the southeast. “We won’t be part of this crime,” they stated in the petition. Turkish authorities targeted, purged, and put on trial and/or imprisoned many of the petition’s signatories. Despite their expulsion, they continued their work saying, “We will return (to our jobs),” and continued teaching in the Kocaeli Solidarity Academy set up by purged academics. Hamzaoğlu’s opposition to war also cost him his freedom. He was accused of “terrorism propaganda” and “provoking the people to hatred and enmity” after a press release, put out by an umbrella organisation uniting several political opposition groups, criticized Turkey’s military incursion in the Syrian-Kurdish province of Afrin. Hamzaoğlu spent 160 days in pre-trial detention and was released on 23 July 2018 following his first court hearing. As with so many rights defenders and academics, the failed coup attempt and its aftermath have had a huge impact on Hamzaoğlu’s life.” Hamzaoğlu has since continued his important work, writing for a medical journal, researching and lecturing. Due to the current political climate in Turkey, the work of people like Hamzaoğlu and countless others is more important than ever. They need to be heard. Despite his release, Hamzaoğlu is not yet free, his court case continues with the following hearing set for January 2019. If convicted he could face up to 8 years in prison. Şebnem Korur Fincancı Şebnem Korur Fincancı is a forensic doctor and, for decades now, an ardent defender of human rights. She is renowned for her fight against torture, writing columns on medical ethics and documenting torture cases. She also heads the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, which documents torture cases and other serious human rights violations and helps victims with rehabilitation and legal assistance. In 1999 Korur Fincancı contributed to the Istanbul Protocol, a document recognized by the UN as a standardized set of guidelines for the documentation of torture and its consequences. In the following years, Korur Financı travelled around the world to lecture about the protocol’s implementation. In June 2016, Korur Fincancı became the focus of news reports around the world. This time, torture wasn’t the subject, but terrorism instead. The Turkish government had accused her of terrorism propaganda for which she spent ten days in pre-trial detention. This was all due to her participation in a solidarity campaign with the pro-Kurdish newspaper Özgür Gündem. Along with Korur Fincancı, over 50 other prominent Turkish authors, journalists, and human rights defenders have participated in the solidarity campaign by working for a day as “co-editor-in-chief” of the newspaper in order to help withstand government pressure for its closure. While international pressure helped secure prison release for Korur Fincancı and two fellow campaigners, Turkish representative of Reporters Without Borders Erol Önderoğlu and author Ahmet Nesin, they are not yet in the clear. Their court case is still ongoing; and, if convicted, they face up to 14 years in prison. Korur Financı is already quite experienced when it comes to politically motivated court cases and other intimidation tactics by the Turkish authorities. In 2004 she was removed from her position as the Head of the Department of Istanbul University’s Forensic Medicine Faculty and later from her position as Chairperson of the Institute of Forensic Medicine. After fighting these decisions in court, she was reinstated as Chairperson and currently continues to teach at Istanbul University. Korur Fincancı’s career-long fight against torture unfortunately drags on and, sadly, is as relevant and pressing as ever.” The scores of torture cases reported by Korur Financı and the legal harassment she has endured herself during her decades long career, illustrate that human rights violations, which we hear increasingly and unescapably about today, are nothing new in Turkey. In the early 2000s, under the influence of the EU accession process and the AKP government’s stated zero tolerance policy, the number of torture cases dropped in comparison to their relatively common occurrence in the 80s and 90s. However, today torture is back in Turkey. Following the failed coup attempt of 2016 human rights organisations documented many torture cases in police custody, detention, and prison. Korur Fincancı’s career-long fight against torture unfortunately drags on and, sadly, is as relevant and pressing as ever. In a recent column for the Turkish daily Evrensel she explained how torture serves to incite fear in a population, “therefore fighting against torture means fighting for all our rights.” Reha Ruhavioğlu is a middle school computer science teacher in Diyarbakir, the capital and largest town in the predominantly Kurdish southeast region of Turkey. He has always been passionate about human rights. However, it wasn’t until the night of 28 December 2011, when Turkish fighter jets killed 34 civilians from the small town of Roboski on the Iraqi-Turkish border, that he started to dedicate much more of his time to human rights in Turkey. Ruhavioğlu became involved with the human rights organisation Mazlumder, documenting the personal stories of the 34 killed in the Roboski massacre. Mazlumder, founded in the early nineties, is best known for fighting against violations of freedom of religion, like the headscarf ban at universities and in public offices. Ruhavioğlu, a practising Muslim, easily identified with the organisation’s principles. After joining Mazlumder in 2012, Ruhavioğlu worked in several capacities for the office in Diyarbakir. Since joining, Ruhavioğlu has witnessed significant changes in Diyarbakir. In 2013, the Turkish government initiated a ceasefire and a peace process with the armed Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK). As a result, repressions decreased, and the political and cultural life in the region became freer. Only two years later the cease-fire fell apart and peace process collapsed, causing violence to engulf the region once again. Clashes took place between state security forces and the youth wing of the PKK. The Turkish state restricted the population by imposing curfews and used heavy artillery to bomb and besiege the cities of the region. Thousands of people died while hundreds of thousands more lost their homes. After the state lifted city curfews, Ruhavioğlu joined Mazlumder’s delegation in visiting the embattled town of Cizre at the Syrian border. They found evidence of widespread human rights violations by Turkish security forces. The detailed report Ruhavioğlu and his colleagues wrote sparked controversy, not only with the general public, but within Mazlumder itself. In particular, the report’s denunciation of government crimes and reportage of human rights violations faced harsh criticism by Mazlumder’s branches based in western Turkey. The organisation’s internal turmoil eventually led to a fall-out and the court ordered closure of 16 of Mazlumder’s 24 offices in early 2017. These included all offices and in the southeast region and the Diyarbakir office where Ruhavioğlu worked. We used to be guided by hope in defending human rights, but now we simply persist.”-Reha Ruhavioğlu Following the closure Ruhavioğlu and other co-activists founded a new NGO called Hak Inisiyatifi (The Rights Initiative). Like Mazlumder, Hak Inisiyatifi is an initiative, which takes Islamic values and principles into account. Increasing government repression and widespread fear in the region required Hak Inisiyatifi to resort to creative – and subtle – ways of mobilizing people. Despite mounting pressure, Ruhavioğlu remains positive: “We used to be guided by hope in defending human rights, but now we simply persist.” One way to persist is through organising educational projects that teach children about human rights. Along with the closure of 16 Mazlumder local offices, the stories written by Ruhavioğlu about the 34 victims of the Roboski massacre have disappeared from the archives. Ruhavioğlu is currently working on a Roboski museum to tell the victims’ stories and ensure the public is made aware. This is the first entry in the series, to find the rest of the series click here: Defending Human Rights in Turkey: Stories that Need to be Heard

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

From John Nelson KABUL: The Tehrik-e-Taliban Afghanistan spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said Afghanistan want to join the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Pakistan’s concerns will be allayed. This was stated by Mujahid at a press conference on Monday shortly after the group announced it had captured Panjshir Valley, the bastion of the anti-Taliban forces. Mujahid said Afghanistan was keen on becoming part of the CPEC to partake in economic activities with the global community. The spokesperson said that the new government in the war-torn country would address concern of Pakistan. “Pakistan’s concerns as a neighbour are valid,” Mujahid added. “Afghanistan’s land will not be used against any country, including Pakistan,” he continued. The spokesman also vowed to complete the four-nation CASA power project between Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan. Mujahid said that the Afghan troops would be asked to resume their duties. “The Islamic Emirate is very sensitive about insurgencies. Anyone who tries to start an insurgency will be hit hard. We will not allow another insurgency in the country,” Mujahid announced. “Anyone who picks up arms and start resistance, without any doubts, will be our enemy. “The war has ended; the country is getting out of the crisis. It is now time for peace and reconstruction. We need the people to support us.” Three weeks after seizing power but with no government so far announced, the spokesman said an “interim” system would first be announced to allow changes. Following Mujahid’s press conference, Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid on Monday hailed the Taliban’s desire to have Afghanistan incorporated in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as “encouraging”, saying “it is good” if the Taliban’s views about China were similar to that of Pakistan.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

The United States completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan late Monday, ending America’s longest war. Air Force transport planes carried a remaining contingent of troops from Kabul airport. Thousands of troops had spent a harrowing two weeks protecting a hurried and risky airlift of tens of thousands of Afghans, Americans and others seeking to escape a country once again ruled by Taliban militants. The following is a statement from President Joe Biden, released by the White House after the final troops left. "I want to thank our commanders and the men and women serving under them for their execution of the dangerous retrograde from Afghanistan as scheduled – in the early morning hours of August 31, Kabul time – with no further loss of American lives. The past 17 days have seen our troops execute the largest airlift in US history, evacuating over 120,000 US citizens, citizens of our allies, and Afghan allies of the United States. They have done it with unmatched courage, professionalism, and resolve. Now, our 20-year military presence in Afghanistan has ended. Tomorrow afternoon, I will address the American people on my decision not to extend our presence in Afghanistan beyond August 31. For now, I will report that it was the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs and of all of our commanders on the ground to end our airlift mission as planned. Their view was that ending our military mission was the best way to protect the lives of our troops, and secure the prospects of civilian departures for those who want to leave Afghanistan in the weeks and months ahead. I have asked the Secretary of State to lead the continued coordination with our international partners to ensure safe passage for any Americans, Afghan partners, and foreign nationals who want to leave Afghanistan. This will include work to build on the UN Security Council Resolution passed this afternoon that sent the clear message of what the international community expects the Taliban to deliver on moving forward, notably freedom of travel. The Taliban has made commitments on safe passage and the world will hold them to their commitments. It will include ongoing diplomacy in Afghanistan and coordination with partners in the region to reopen the airport allowing for continued departure for those who want to leave and delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan. For now, I urge all Americans to join me in grateful prayer tonight for three things. First, for our troops and diplomats who carried out this mission of mercy in Kabul and at tremendous risk with such unparalleled results: an airlift that evacuated tens of thousands more people than any imagined possible. Second, to the network of volunteers and veterans who helped identify those needing evacuation, guide them to the airport, and provide support along the way. And third, to everyone who is now – and who will – welcome our Afghan allies to their new homes around the world, and in the United States. Finally, I want to end with a moment of gratitude for the sacrifice of the 13 service members in Afghanistan who gave their lives last week to save tens of thousands: Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Darin T. Hoover, Marine Corps Sgt. Johanny Rosariopichardo, Marine Corps Sgt. Nicole L. Gee, Marine Corps Cpl. Hunter Lopez, Marine Corps Cpl. Daegan W. Page, Marine Corps Cpl. Humberto A. Sanchez, Marine Corps Lance Cpl. David L. Espinoza, Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Jared M. Schmitz, Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Rylee J. McCollum, Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Dylan R. Merola, Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Kareem M. Nikoui, Navy Hospitalman Maxton W. Soviak and Army Staff Sgt. Ryan C. Knauss." The Associated Press contributed to this report.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

As the killing and maiming of innocent civilians mounted in recent months, so did the rhetoric of negotiation from some parts of the government and the Imran-Khan-led PTI party. The logic, ostensibly, was that the scourge of terrorism cannot be eliminated by force alone so we need to talk. The likes of Ch. Nisar, Federal Interior Minister and PML-N leader and Imran Khan managed to tap into the legacy of General Zia-ul-Haq which lingers in the consciousness of the masses, that as long as someone is raising the slogan of Islam, they deserve some respect from our side. So the strategy was constructed: we will negotiate with the Taliban. Those three words “we will negotiate” represented the entire strategy. There was no thinking beyond this. It was as if a couple confessed their love to each other and assumed, as some do, that declarations of love (rather than actions) will determine the future. Spare a thought for the state of Pakistan and the federal government — the legitimacy of both is being mocked by the armed militants led by Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP – Taliban). And there is no respite or answer in sight. This was done without any thoughts being directed to the question of “what are our limits?”. Now the TTP has turned around and said that the imposition of Sharia law is a condition (preceding) for negotiations to take place. And until negotiations officially start, the TTP will merrily continue to kill and maim Pakistanis, in cinemas houses, markets and hotels. Do the advocates of negotiations even have an answer now? What does it say about a state that seeks to talk to those who continue to kill? What does it say about the TTP’s allegedly bona fide intentions to negotiate? It is as if the government keeps stomping its feet after a bomb blast and says to the TTP, “okay, but this was the last time.” Until it happens again of course. The religious extremist groups bought time from their sympathisers and, quite remarkably, a large number of people in the country started assuming that something actually could be achieved through negotiations. But this is a false assumption. The road to negotiations is going to be a long and bumpy one and the ride will be rough and tough. There are many contentious issues that will arise in the negotiations. In this entire process, crucial questions remain unanswered. The most important is: what will happen to those Pakistani people who will live in the territories controlled by the TTP? Whose law will they live under? If the answer is the TTP’s, then we might as well just invite the TTP to Islamabad and hand over power in a grand ceremony. Maybe we could also squeeze in an under-pass inauguration in a ceremony in the same photo-op. No women should attend. You also have to feel for the thousands of people rotting in jails for crimes such as murder. They must be cursing their luck; if only they had killed in the name of religion, the state of Pakistan would negotiate with them. Since those engaging in extortion and kidnapping in the name of religion are allowed to sit across the negotiating table in dialogue with the state of Pakistan. Those of you planning heinous offences in the near future had better take note. Pakistan’s history will most likely see this period as revealing of one particular fact: delusion about the benevolence of those who kill in the name of religion. It is quite staggering how so many have been fooled by so few and rendered indecisive. As far as negotiation strategy is concerned, the TTP is giving us a real lesson. From their fetid hovels of misery the masses search the skies for deliverance. In desperation they look towards their rulers, but these are the men who quiver like maple leaves on a cold and windswept expanse in the face of the terrorist onslaught. From 5 June, 2013, when Nawaz Sharif commenced his third Prime Ministerial term, until 7 February, 2014 there have been 863 incidents of terrorism perpetrated by the Al-Qaeda backed TTP and its affiliates, in which 1,403 people have lost their lives. The government has done nothing to take on these violent groups that kill, maim and destroy in the name of their religion. Since 2004, more than 46,000 people have lost their lives and thousands have been injured and become disabled. More than 3,000 security personnel have lost their lives. The Pakistani economy has lost more than $68 billion US as the result of this so called war and violence. The human and economic loss in Pakistan is far greater than the loss in Afghanistan since the US and other imperialist powers intervened in 2002. The working masses continue to suffer because of this madness in the name of religion and saving the state. The real issue in this whole context is whether the Pakistani state wants to abandon its policy of using religion as a political slogan and an instrument to repress the working masses. Whether it ready to stop its support for Jihadist organisations and groups like the Taliban. The answer is that the Pakistani state is not ready to abandon this long time policy, which was started in 1970s. The problem with the Pakistani state at the moment is that it wants to continue its reactionary policy and at the same time wanted to bring peace to the country. This contradiction is the hall mark of the Pakistani state’s policy. The Pakistani army is fighting against some Taliban groups and Al-Qaeda affiliated forces in tribal areas and the same time it continues to support some Taliban groups fighting in Afghanistan but who have safe havens in Pakistan. It has decided to pursue negotiations with the TTP in the hope that the outlawed group can be persuaded to abandon its goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate, lay down its weapons and pledge loyalty to the constitution. Since this hair-brained scheme was announced by the Prime Minister on 29 January, when he finally condescended to show up at the National Assembly after an absence of six months, the tempo of violence has not abated. So this is the Pakistan where the standard response to a crisis seems to be to look at the person next to you and ask, “What do we do now?”. You can imagine each person looking to from one to the next until the last one looks at the wall and then everyone keeps staring at the wall. When it comes to springing surprises, the federal government is giving everyone a run for their money. The Prime Minister’s recent speech on the way we will tackle (but not really) the threat of terrorism hit a stumbling block. He sounded like a man about to break off a relationship — only to turn around and say, “But I will still try to make it work, even though I have not got a clue how to go about it.” Military action in North Waziristan may have some support and provoke some indifference amongst the general population. But if it leads to more attacks in urban centres then the opposition will put the government on the mat. The PM, of course, knows this so he played politics by sounding tough but also by not giving the opposition another opportunity to attack his government. On the one hand, the government passes draconian new laws such as the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance. On the other, it invites the terrorists to talk so that the “state may be saved”. The sheer lack of consistency will not be lost on the TTP. They can see through the hollowness that the state breathes. The state of Pakistan seems to be threatening to pack a good punch — but recognises that it cannot deliver it right now. A state that continues to exist with an army but is perennially threatened by the threat of violence is no real state. An offer of negotiations that stems from a realisation that you cannot fight is not really an offer — it is a concession. Laws that promise strict punishment for militants but are applied only to ethnic separatists, nationalist armed groups and working class movements are mere instruments of oppression. Both the military and civilian government are on the same page about not launching a serious operation. The PML-N government is certainly not too eager because it has ideological and political stakes in the religious extremists. The military does not seem too keen either. If it was it would show at least show some seriousness in sharing intelligence with the police and strengthening it to thwart religious militants present in its’ heartlands. Considering the joint government-Taliban committees’ only real purpose is to delay any serious armed conflict and dampen down terrorist activity until at least the end of the governments’ last year in office. That will give enough time for this group of ‘kleptocrats’ to accumulate much more wealth before they withdraw to their palaces and mansions in London and Dubai leaving ordinary Pakistani people behind to deal with the Talibanisation of Pakistan. The devil’s advocate The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party bagged an astonishing 7.7 million votes in the 2013 general elections. This was enough to make it the second highest vote-getter nationally after Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N, beating Asif Zardari’s PPP into third place, becoming the third largest party in the National Assembly. It formed the government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The party, however, felt cheated, expecting a much better showing. It hoped Imran Khan would become the prime minister to deliver on its singularly resonant promise of “change” that would free the country of inertia on the road to peace and good governance. The PML-N and PPP ended up banding together to deny Imran even the consolation prize of being the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly. But Imran is back in contention with a game changer. His persistent narrative insisting on the state talking rather than fighting the Taliban into the path of peace has forced the much-derided and virtually abandoned option of talks with the Taliban from the jaws of imminent military action and into centre stage. However, the chairman of the PTI has done something he would never have done when he was on the cricket field — gone to the pavilion just when he was handed the bat to deliver on the death “overs”. When the Taliban, benefiting from Imran’s support to their dubious argument of being a stakeholder in the state’s fate, named him on their committee to hold talks with the government, he excused himself. In short, he brought everyone to the table but skipped the seat at the proceedings, leaving others to take the blame. Imran and his party’s convincing argument that he was the head of his own political party and, hence, could not possibly represent the Taliban is acceptable. But it is a bit self-serving that PTI and its chairman failed to extend the same logic to the fact that the Taliban also nominated leaders of Munawar Hassan’s JI, Fazlur Rehman’s JUI-F and Samiul Haq’s JUI-S to its team. There was no advice from Imran to either the Taliban or these parties to also not represent the Taliban. By the same yardstick, if he has no objection to them being the Taliban’s representatives, how could he not ‘help’ the talks process by nominating a deputy to the Taliban team, if he was queasy about being on it himself? It was Imran who forced an APC on talks when a majority in the parliament wanted action against the Taliban. It was Imran who then refused to attend the APC unless it was briefed personally by the army chief. It was Imran who droned on about drones killing the reluctant APC consensus on talks when the Taliban went on an especially vicious killing spree in the last few weeks instead of condemning the Taliban by name for the vicious cycle of violence. He has never asked the Taliban to announce a cease fire — he has only been demanding that the state do so. He and his party have no qualms in embracing contradictions — the PTI core committee that declined Imran being on the Taliban team called for talks to be under the ambit of the constitution. And yet, under the constitution, private armed groups are banned. And the Taliban have been declared a terrorist organisation by the state. The party also said the Taliban did not consult the PTI before naming Imran. So, are we to assume the Taliban consults them before their bloody attacks? The fact of the matter is that among the non-religious parties, the PTI is the only one that has always opposed the military action against Taliban groups and never condemned these groups for killing innocent civilians. Its policy is underpinned by appeasement and capitulation. This, in Imran’s estimation, is a less messy, more feasible option to taking actual responsibility and paying the inevitable higher price for peace by opting for a long-term solution. There can be only two explanations for Imran’s politics of bipolarity — running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Either he is too scared to opt for a path that will bring with it a lot of pain and loss for which his party is not ready or that he is what many suspect — a genuine sympathiser of the Taliban who represent for him a better way to sidestep the messiness of politics that does not offer the same certainties as cricket. He thinks that aligning himself with them buys him more influence than the prime minister has. He is the captain who does not lead from the front. He wants the reward but not the responsibility. Imran Khan is very confused about religion. He suffers from romanticism about religious narrative without understanding what he is saying and means. The reality is that with negotiations or without the government and ruling elite of Pakistan cannot offer an alternative to the bloodshed and poverty faced by the masses. Only a united mass movement of the workers, peasants and rural poor could take the necessary steps to defend the population from the murderous attacks of the Taliban and the ruling class. This devastating crisis poses the urgent need to build an independent political party of the working class and masses to offer a real alternative to the current players. Socialist Movement Pakistan (CWI in Pakistan)

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

The emigration of well-educated and skilled individuals from Turkey to Western countries has been attracting greater media attention, particularly after recent economic and political crises. Academics, journalists, other professionals and students have been increasingly leaving the country for the short or long term in recent years. After a coup attempt on July 15, 2016 followed by a systematic attack on academic freedom through the dismissal of professors from the country’s most prestigious universities and the cancellation of their passports as well as the shutting down of civil society and nongovernmental organizations, Turkish citizens began to feel the seriousness of the political pressure. The latest studies on Turkey’s ongoing brain drain find that the rise of authoritarianism, religious nationalism, financial difficulties and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s strict control over universities are the main inducements for emigration. “President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan has a serious problem communicating with young people. He continues to terrorize all segments of Turkish society who are not on his side politically. Women and young people in particular are his targets,” Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) MP Hüda Kaya told Turkish Minute in a phone interview. The AKP government’s appointment of an outside rector to Istanbul’s prestigious Boğaziçi University has led to weeks of demonstrations, hundreds of arrests and one of the most sustained protests in recent years against Erdoğan’s autocracy. The protests began in early January, immediately after Erdoğan appointed Melih Bulu, a former parliamentary candidate for Erdoğan’s AKP, as rector. The biggest protests since the Gezi demonstrations, which swept across Turkey in the summer of 2013, have reawakened the awareness of one of Turkey’s most important problems — Erdoğan’s commanding sway over state institutions. Kaya thinks the communication gap between the government and young people makes things difficult for Erdoğan, who continues to publicly humiliate Boğaziçi students and their supporters with gross insults, regardless of local and international reaction. “They call the young people ‘perverts, vandals, snakes whose heads will be crushed’! This is unacceptable. The government cannot move forward without the support of the younger generation. Approximately 7 million young people will vote for the first time in the coming elections in 2023. Most young people have opposing views, and they don’t accept AKP policies. The government is aware of this. The AKP has no future, they are finished,” said Kaya. The Turkish authorities’ response to the protests is harsh and familiar. Police raid students’ homes, and peaceful protests meet with excessive force. Government officials continue to label the demonstrators as terrorists and LGBT students as perverts who violate “Turkish national values.” According to the Turkish Statistics Institute (TurkStat) Turkey witnessed a 2 percent increase in its number of emigrants in 2019 compared to the previous year. A total of 330,289 people left the country last year, about 40.8 percent of whom were between the ages of 20 and 34. Recent studies show that young people who do not want to live in “Erdoğan’s Turkey” are looking for a free and democratic country where they can find better working conditions and a higher standard of living. In November 2019 Erdoğan had declared his political mission as “raising devout Muslim generations.” However, Konda, a Turkish pollster, found that young people were less likely than the broader population to identify themselves as “religious conservatives” in 2019. They were less likely to fast, pray regularly or wear a headscarf. Konda’s research showed that Turkish youth had “challenged” Erdoğan’s most coveted national project. Turkish Minute spoke with Kerim Has, a Turkish academic based in Moscow since 2006. Has thinks young people who want to have a quality education and stay away from the polarized and repressive political atmosphere in Turkey try to leave the country. “There is a risk that one day you can suddenly be accused of being a ‘terrorist’ and that immediately afterward you can face an unlawful arrest. People also go abroad to avoid this lack of personal security. Under Erdoğan’s one-man rule, young people are getting more exhausted by the day. People also want to leave for their ideals, which no longer seem realizable in Turkey,” Has said. Young citizens are becoming increasingly disappointed with the widespread nepotism in the country and losing their hopes of finding a job based on their merits if they don’t know any high-ranking people. Many people feel that even their basic freedoms are being taken away from them. Nesi Altaras, a Jew from Istanbul and master’s student at McGill University in Montreal who has been living in Canada for six years, thinks the lack of free speech and academic freedom lowers the quality of education at universities in Turkey and makes it harder to live like a young person. “It becomes suffocating to constantly self-censor. This is compounded by the terrible economic situation. Young people can’t find jobs, and even when they do, they aren’t able to enjoy the standard of living they seek, [barely able to] pay their rent, go out to eat or travel. For people who belong to the non-Muslim minorities of Turkey, like me, the rise in nationalism and anti-Semitism further adds to these push factors.” Altaras told Turkish Minute. Erdoğan’s interior minister, Süleyman Soylu, branded demonstrators “LGBT perverts” in a tweet that violated Twitter rules about “hateful conduct” and was hidden from public view. The US State Department condemned anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and voiced concern at the detention of protesters. The UN Human Rights Office called for the immediate release of the detained students in a tweet, condemning the “homophobic and transphobic comments by officials, inciting hatred and discrimination against LGBT people.” Erdoğan has also made homophobic comments. “As for LGBT, there is no such thing,” he said at a party meeting earlier this month. “This country is … moral, and it will walk to the future with these values.” In the light of these facts, the protest against the pro-government rector’s appointment has turned into a struggle for democracy, freedom of expression and equality in Turkey. After the Gezi Park protests of 2013, many of Turkey’s educated, politically progressive young people started to leave the country. Facing the oppressive and authoritarian government response — purging the public sector of any of its opponents — after the attempted coup in 2016, more young people decided to leave. Students at Boğaziçi University have written an open letter to Erdoğan listing their demands and promising that their protests would continue as long as newly appointed rector Bulu remains in the position. Altaras thinks the Boğaziçi protests will not cause a new wave of emigration. “An overwhelming majority of young people already want to leave. There’s nothing new. Although some people who leave for education or political reasons have the desire to move back, each year away ties you to your new place and further alienates you from Turkey as you wait for things to improve,” she said. However, Has underlined that the brain drain that has been ongoing for a long time will accelerate even more after the Boğaziçi University protests. Has thinks people will only think about a return to Turkey when democracy and the rule of law have been established in the country and, of course, when economic conditions improve accordingly. “I don’t think even in the future the perception of Turkey in terms of democracy and human rights will be equal to that of Western countries; therefore, at the moment while people are making ‘plans to go,’ we are far from discussing the conditions for returning,” Has said.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Abandonment of Afghanistan at this time would be highly inadvisable because of the inordinate risks of abetting Islamic extremism and generating higher outflows of narcotics and people. The strategy of 2013-2017, in which small numbers of American troops advised Afghan forces and conducted raids, prevented the Kabul government from falling, but it failed to prevent insurgents from retaking much of the country. Military setbacks heightened infighting among Afghan elites and impeded the development of a viable national government. The August 2017 announcement of an enduring U.S. commitment has been a welcome change, easing Afghan fears of American abandonment—fears that have caused many Afghans to sit on the fence or side with the insurgents. The Trump administration’s determination to preserve the Afghan government and its resolve to get tougher with Pakistan could also cause the Pakistani government to reduce its assistance to the Afghan insurgents. The actual impact on the Pakistanis, however, remains to be seen. The proper degree of reliance upon local and regional warlords has bedeviled security efforts in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. For the first few years of the post-Taliban era, the international community permitted the warlords to convert their militias into police forces, but the misbehavior of those forces and their ineffectiveness in halting the return of the Taliban led to increased emphasis on national security forces. Building those forces required a long-term commitment, for a decade of civil war and Taliban rule had left Afghanistan bereft of trained and experienced officers. The slow rate of progress, coupled with the revival of the Taliban and other insurgent groups, led to intermittent efforts to empower warlords, with widely varying results. The American effort to build the national security forces has been expensive, and at times has been fruitless because of lack of care and patience, but it has produced a younger generation of military and police officers who are less prone to criminality and corruption than the warlords. Given what has been achieved and what is at stake, continued investment is warranted. The national security forces will have to take the lead in securing Afghanistan’s provinces because of their superior competence and commitment to the nation of Afghanistan. Whether the warlords can play constructive roles going forward will have to be handled on a case by case basis. Having spent considerable time traveling around Afghanistan, I have found that it is most difficult to gauge the current state of affairs without visiting the districts and provinces, and that there is great variation from one place to the next. With the international media presence now much smaller than a few years ago, it is even more difficult to tell what is going on from afar. Bolstering the U.S. advisory presence with the Afghan national security forces, as the Trump administration is in the process of doing, will help reverse the negative military trends of the past few years. Many of the Afghan units are now reasonably good at basic infantry skills, but they require help with combat-enabling functions such as close air support, intelligence, and logistics. Considering the limited size of the recent U.S. troop augmentation, the recapture of territory and population is likely to be incremental, not rapid. Although the American public is generally impatient with overseas military commitments, it is likely to tolerate this level of U.S. military involvement so long as American casualties continue to remain low. Mark Moyar is Senior Advisor at the U.S. Agency for International Development. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Pentagon plans to shrink US Army to pre-WWII level Updated: 2014-02-25 09:39 WASHINGTON -- US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel outlined on Monday his priorities for 2015 defense budget cut, including plans to reduce the size of the US army to its pre-World War II levels. "We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a Pentagon press conference. The Pentagon chief unveiled his budget-cut proposals as the Obama administration is preparing to pull out most US troops from Afghanistan following an almost 13-year war. "As we end our combat mission in Afghanistan, this will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition DOD (the Department of Defense) is making after 13 years of war, the longest conflict in our nation's history," said Hagel. Among the proposals, Hagel announced his plans to further reduce the size of US Army to between 440,000 to 450,000 active- duty soldiers. This would mark the US Army's smallest force since World War II. The active-duty troop level has already been slated to go down to 490,000 by 2015 from a peak of 570,000 after September 11 attacks, 2001. Hagel's proposals also include to retire the US Air Force's entire A-10 fleet and to seek another round of base realignment and closure. Hagel said the recommendations favor "a smaller and more capable force, putting a premium on rapidly deployable, self- sustaining platforms that can defeat more technologically advanced adversaries." "They're also well-suited to the strategy's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, to sustaining security commitments in the Middle East and Europe, and our engagement in other regions," he added.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

ISLAMABAD: The government confirmed on Wednesday that its allegation about a foreign conspiracy against the prime minister was based on a diplomatic cable received from one of the country’s missions abroad. At a rally in Islamabad on Sunday, Prime Minister Imran Khan claimed that the opposition’s no-confidence motion against him was a result of a “foreign conspiracy” because of his external policy and funds were being channelled from abroad to oust him from power. Though he did not initially provide specific details about the threatening letter, he subsequently opened up a bit because of critics doubting his claim. The government initially offered to share the letter with the chief justice of Pakistan, but later the prime minister also briefed his cabinet members about the contents of the letter. In view of the legal bar on disclosing classified documents, a group of journalists were then provided with minutes of the cabinet meeting at their interaction with the prime minister. State Department says no US government agency or official sent letter to Pakistan No foreign government was named in that meeting, but the media persons were informed that a Pakistani envoy was told by a senior official of the host country that they had issues with Prime Minister Khan’s foreign policy, especially his visit to Russia and the stance on the ongoing Ukrainian war. The Pakistani envoy was further conveyed that the future trajectory of relations between the two countries was contingent upon the fate of the no-confidence motion that the opposition parties were then planning to bring against the prime minister. The envoy was warned of serious implications if Prime Minister Khan survived the no-trust vote. The cable was reportedly sent on March 7, a day before the opposition submitted the no-confidence motion and requisitioned a National Assembly session for voting on it. Meanwhile, it has separately emerged that the cable was sent by Pakistan’s then ambassador to United States Asad Majeed on the basis of his meeting with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu. Ambassador Majeed has now moved to Brussels for taking up his new assignment and has been replaced by Ambassador Masood Khan. Contradictory claims have emerged from Islamabad and Washington about the meeting between Ambassador Majeed and Lu after PM Khan’s claim. A senior Pakistani official told Dawn the language used in the meeting by the American side was unusually harsh. Meanwhile, Americans deny in private discussions that any specific message was delivered to the Pakistani envoy. It is a well-known fact that the administration of US President Joe Biden was uneasy with Mr Khan’s trip to Moscow that coincided with the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. US State Department had publicly voiced those concerns and both sides acknowledge that there had also been a communication between them ahead of Mr Khan’s Moscow trip in which an attempt was made to dissuade him from undertaking the visit. Later on March 1, Islamabad-based Western diplomats had also issued a statement, urging the Pakistani government to condemn the Russian attack on Ukraine and support a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) calling on Moscow to stop the war. Pakistan went on to abstain in the UNGA vote and demanded that the conflict be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy. The other issue the Americans reportedly had was with Mr Khan’s foreign policy. A couple of Pakistan’s former envoys to the United States told Dawn American officials usually did not brandish threats during official meetings though their tone would vary from situation to situation. Besides, countries routinely keep expressing displeasure or concern over others’ actions in bilateral engagements. They said that even if threats were made in extreme situations, that was done in a subtle manner and, more importantly, a plausible deniability is maintained. “They will certainly not do so in the presence of note takers,” one of them quipped. The two former ambassadors further observed that under PM Khan, the fundamentals of foreign policy had not changed except that he was more vocal. Therefore, it was difficult to understand why they would have an issue with his policy now, they maintained, adding that Islamabad had not threatened US interests either. Interestingly, there were no signs of a rupture or new tensions in ties until Mr Khan went public with the threat. Islamabad hosted Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya for the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers meeting held last week. After a meeting with Ms Zeya, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi tweeted: “Bilaterally, Pakistan has a longstanding relationship with the US and we believe a regular and structured dialogue process [was important] to promoting our bilateral and shared regional objectives. We look forward to commemorating Pak-US 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties this year.” Even Ambassador Majeed thanked Mr Lu on Twitter for participation in an embassy event on March 16. US diplomats in Islamabad were not demarched even after the disclosure. A Western diplomat thinks that it has happened because someone had to be scapegoated for the current political crisis and there could have been no better option than the United States. ANWAR IQBAL ADDS: Meanwhile,the US State Department said on Wednesday that no US government agency or official had sent a letter to Pakistan on the current political situation in the country. Responding to questions from Dawn about the alleged letter and US involvement in the no-confidence motion against the PTI government, a State Department spokesperson said: “There is no truth to these allegations." According to some diplomatic sources in Washington, the letter could be a diplomatic cable from Washington, drafted by a senior Pakistani diplomat. “The contents of the letter, apparently, are based on informal discussions between Pakistani and other officials,” one diplomatic source said. “The contents, if correct, show a set of friendly officials from various countries indulging in some loud-thinking and probing. Nothing more,” the source added. The sources said that such conversations often happened in capital cities around the world and diplomats often shared the contents of such conversations with authorities in their home countries. “The purpose behind such cables is to keep your government informed. It’s no sign of a conspiracy against a government or a personality,” another diplomatic source said. Published in Dawn, March 31st, 2022

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

The United Nations is scheduled to meet on Tuesday to consider whether the Taliban should be allowed to join the international body and serve as war-torn Afghanistan's official representative at Turtle Bay. The United Nations Credentials Committee will meet to consider who will represent Afghanistan and Myanmar, which experienced its own military coup in February and has been beset by violence since. Ghulam Isaczai, the former Afghan government's U.N. representative prior to the Taliban's takeover of the country, is still serving in his role, but the Taliban has chosen its own representative, Suhail Shaheen, to replace him. The Taliban has been vying for a seat at the United Nations after it deposed the former democratic government following the Biden administration's bungled military withdrawal from the country, which left hundreds of Americans stranded. If granted a seat, the Taliban will inherit Afghanistan's current seat on the U.N. women's rights commission, which is likely to rankle opponents of the terrorist group's admission. Former U.S. officials say a Taliban representative at the international body would further subvert its commitment to human rights and show the globe that terrorism is an effective tool in international diplomacy. The Taliban said it hopes to use its seat at the United Nations to address the world about its recent takeover of Afghanistan. The terrorist group, if admitted, would likely act as an ally to other rogue regimes that caucus at the United Nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, among others. A rejection might agitate the Taliban and potentially interfere with ongoing diplomatic talks between it and the United States. An admission would also signal to other global terrorism organizations, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, that if they violently overthrow a government, they could earn a spot at the world's foremost human rights group. While the Biden administration has not formally recognized the Taliban government in Kabul, it has been working with the terrorist organization to ensure Americans still trapped in the country can come home. Russia and China have been more willing to back the Taliban, but neither has formally recognized the terrorist group. The United States, China, and Russia play an outsized role in the credentials committee, and their votes will likely be critical to deciding the Taliban's fate at the United Nations, at least in the short term. Nikki Haley, the Trump administration's former ambassador to the United Nations, told the Washington Free Beacon that the Taliban has no place at an organization committed to global freedom and peace. "Under no circumstance should the United States, or any other country, vote to recognize the Taliban at the United Nations," Haley said. "It should not be a difficult decision to keep a group of terrorists out of an organization founded to maintain peace and security." Shaheen, the Taliban's chosen representative to the United Nations, reportedly said last week the group is counting on Russia to support its bid. "We had and currently have good relations with the Russian Federation, and we are expecting them to support the new government that has been formed in the result of our struggle for liberation of Afghanistan," Shaheen said. "We expect Russia and other countries will support us at the Credentials Committee of the United Nations, because this is good for the peace in Afghanistan and in the region, which is also of interest to the Russian Federation." The vote, however, is likely to be a more complicated process. The committee has "no coherent rules or guiding principle," according to the Diplomat, meaning the process could become turbulent and end without a final decision. Previous decisions by the committee "have been unpredictable and riven by great power politics," the outlet reported in September. The United Nations has the authority to postpone a final decision on Afghanistan and Myanmar, leaving the current ambassadors from each country in place. This is the route it took from 1996 to 2001, when the Taliban was in control before being deposed by the United States following the 9/11 terror attacks. The situation now is different—both in Afghanistan and among power brokers at the United Nations. China and Russia could support this bid as part of an effort to subvert the United States at the international organization. "The U.S. should stand firm against allowing the Taliban to assume representation at the United Nations General Assembly," said Brett Schaefer, a former Pentagon official and international diplomacy expert, now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. "The Taliban is a brutal government that does not respect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms—a primary purpose and principle established in the United Nations Charter."

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Alistair Lexden (then Alistair Cooke) wrote to The Daily Telegraph about Afghanistan in September 2001. The paper asked him to reflect in a further letter on what he had said then in the light of the American decision to withdraw before the 20th anniversary of its invasion. Both letters were published online by the Telegraph on September 11. Original letter - 12 Sep 2001 SIR – Although Britain’s interventions in Afghanistan met with reverses (report Sept. 15), Sir Frederisk Roberts mounted a triumphant expedition in 1878 which culminated in his famous march from Kabul to Kandahar. Some 10,000 troops covered 313 miles without significant loss in the heat of August, before crushing the entire Afghan army. Disraeli wrote that “the march was the march of Xenophon, and the victory that of Alexander”. Queen Victoria argued strongly that the country should be kept under British control. Others maintained “the place might be made a real emprium of trade”, according to Gladstone’s private secretary. If Gladstone had not rejected that advice, would Afghanistan today be a relatively stable Commonwealth country? Letter in response - 11 Sep 2021 Dear Sir – Was I foolish to have suggested twenty years ago that Afghanistan could have achieved stability and prosperity under firm British control after 1880 in accordance with Queen Victoria’s wishes, pointing the way to a settled future? As it was, the country made considerable progress over the next forty years in close alliance with the British Raj, only briefly interrupted by the two-month third Afghan War of 1919. Yet the infinitely more determined efforts to create a stable, reasonably well-governed state since 2001, which I did not foresee, have ended in total disaster. Does that prove I was wrong to reject the conventional wisdom that other countries should always keep out of Afghan affairs? I would counter that the West’s humiliation is the result of failing to learn from British experience. Victoria insisted that in the process of change “the best local customs and traditions must be accorded full and lasting honour”, and her ministers agreed. The United States chose to impose Western values quickly with well-intentioned arrogance, and then abandoned the task. Those trusting Afghans, particularly women and girls, who supported America’s rushed and incomplete reforms, were doomed to pay the terrible price that has now come to pass. Queen Victoria would have been appalled by America’s failure to learn from the lessons of history.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Digital Maps and Geospatial Data | Princeton University Provinces Afghanistan 1998 |Click on map to preview values (download file to work with all data) - Afghanistan Information Management Service This polygon dataset represents the provinces of Afghanistan. Provincial Administrative Boundaries of Afghanistan contains 32 provincial boundaries for Afghanistan, mapped at 1:250,000 scale. The coverage has polygon topology and was uploaded from land cover 1:25000(1993) which was digitized by FAO (Rome) and later was converted and updated to ESRI shapefile mapped at 1:100,000 scale at AIMS office. - Afghanistan, Asia, Northern Hemisphere, and Eastern Hemisphere - polygon, boundaries, Administrative and political divisions, and Boundaries - Held by:

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Turks have recently been receiving an unexpected geography lesson as the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has stepped up its campaign to secure a seat on the UN Security Council when five places come up for election in October 2008. In recent weeks Turkish newspapers have entertained their readers with photographs of government leaders, particularly Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, meeting a succession of dignitaries from little-known states in far-flung corners of the world, many of them exotically dressed in their local costumes. The AKP appears to have chosen April as the month of small island states. Last week, the leaders of leaders of Nauru, the Republic of Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Palau, Fiji, the Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa and Tonga arrived in Istanbul for a conference on how to improve Turkey’s almost non-existent ties with the Pacific. This week Foreign Minister of the Maldives Abdullah Shahid was in Ankara for discussions with his Turkish counterpart (Radikal, Turkish Daily News, April 17). Turkey last served on the UN National Security Council in 1961. On July 21, 2003, eight months after it first came to power, the AKP formally submitted Turkey’s candidacy for election to the Security Council when a vote is held on October 16, 2008. If chosen, Turkey will serve a two year term starting on January 1, 2009. Although Turkey would undoubtedly stand to benefit diplomatically and politically from being a member of the UN Security Council, it is likely that the AKP is at least as attracted by what it regards as the prestige and the boost to national pride that would accrue from serving, albeit temporarily, on one of the most powerful decision-making bodies in the world. The AKP launched its campaign for Security Council membership in June 2004, when it vigorously lobbied members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for their support during a summit meeting in Istanbul. In the first six months of 2006, officials from the Turkish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) visited 30 countries to ask for their backing. Another 27 countries were visited in the first eight months of 2007. In September 2006 Deputy Prime Minister Abdullatif Sener unexpectedly attended the 14th Summit Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cuba. Speaking after the Turkish Embassy in Havana had hosted a breakfast for the leaders of Caribbean states, Sener told Turkish journalists: “I had never heard of the names of some of them before, but they all have a vote at the UN” (Radikal, April 17). A study by the Center for Eurasian Strategic Studies (ASAM), a think tank based in Ankara, reports that the MFA has been allocated a budget of $50 million dollars. Some $20 million of the total has been assigned to pay off the debts of smaller nations to the UN in order to ensure that their failure to pay their membership fees does not prevent them from voting in the election in October (Stratejik Analiz, January 2008; www.asam.org.tr). In 2007 Turkey established a $15 million fund to support underdeveloped, small island states, of which $5 million has been assigned to Pacific countries. Turkey recently announced that it would establish diplomatic relations with the Marshall and Cook Islands for the first time (Radikal, April 16). Turkey has also sought to bolster its ties with Africa, announcing that it would dispatch its first ambassadors to 10 countries: Angola, Chad, Ghana, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Niger and Tanzania. In August, just two months before the UN vote begins, it will host a conference in Istanbul on Turkey-Africa Cooperation. In addition to aid and closer diplomatic ties, Turkey has also been offering promises. Small island states have been among the most vociferous supporters of international attempts to slow the pace of global warming, not the least because several of them stand to disappear if sea levels rise. On April 9, at a press conference following his meeting with the leaders of Pacific island states, Babacan emphasized the AKP’s commitment to environmental issues. “We are doing whatever we can to ensure that the world is a better place for our children and grandchildren,” he said. “There are studies on the impact on the world of a rise in water levels. Turkey is very sensitive about the issue of the environment. We shall continue to contribute in this regard” (Ihlas Haber Ajansi, April 9). Turkey is, however, one of the very few countries has yet to sign the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Several of Babacan’s Cabinet colleagues have repeatedly insisted that they believe that Turkey’s economic development takes precedence over the environmental considerations addressed by the agreement. In April 2007 Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler explicitly dismissed suggestions that Turkey should sign the Kyoto Protocol, which he described as “not being in the national interest” (Today’s Zaman, April 21). There is currently no indication that Guler or any other member of the AKP government has had a change of heart over Kyoto, nor has Turkey put forward any alternative proposals to address global warming. It is currently unclear whether the island states being so vigorously courted by the AKP will be swayed by the largesse and attention currently be showered on them or by Turkey’s refusal to address issues that could, quite literally, see them wiped off the map. The worry for Turkey is that whatever expressions of support are made now will not change the fact that the October 16 vote is by secret ballot.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

When it comes to inflicting miseries on innocent Afghan people, there’s plenty of blame to be shared…Yet, unquestionably, the warring party in Afghanistan with the most sophisticated weapons and seemingly endless access to funds has been the United States. Funds were spent not to lift Afghans to a place of security from which they might have worked to moderate Taliban rule, but to further frustrate them, beating down their hopes of future participatory governance with twenty years of war and brutal impoverishment. The war has been a prelude to the United States’ inevitable retreat and the return of a possibly more enraged and dysfunctional Taliban to rule over a shattered population. The troop withdrawal negotiated by President Joe Biden and U.S. military officials is not a peace agreement. Rather, it signals the end of an occupation resulting from an unlawful invasion, and while troops are leaving, the Biden Administration is already laying plans for “over the horizon” drone surveillance, drone strikes, and “manned” aircraft strikes which could exacerbate and prolong the war. Kathy Kelly, a longtime peace activist has been in Afghanistan many times throughout the years. See her article, “Reckoning and Reparations in Afghanistan,” Progressive Magazine, July 15, 2021 Somalia: “Collective Defense” The U.S. military was supposed to have pulled out of Somalia mid January of 2021, as announced by Trump. However, that doesn’t mean leaving the country. The U.S. military is stationed in adjacent countries and can still bomb Somalia as they did on July 20 and again on July 23. According to online news site, The Hill, U.S. Africa Command General Stephen Townsend claimed his own authority to strike under “collective defense”, meaning it’s conducted with partners veiled by “operational security.” The Pentagon claimed the bombing was done under the 9/ll Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) which gave the president the power to strike anywhere, anytime, ignoring the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives had recently voted to repeal the AUMF and that even the President wasn’t informed of the action. So evidently a general can make decisions to bomb, independent of any branch of government. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota questioned the idea of collective defense and asked that “strategy focus first and foremost on the security of the Somali people and the stability of the Somali state.” Eye Witness: Syria during the 2021 Presidential Election Driving into Syria in the middle of the night was intense. The lights and bustle of Lebanon gave way to darkness and stone-faced soldiers along an empty highway. Our luggage was searched at military checkpoints. It felt like entering the warzone we’d all read about. But then we saw lights appear in the darkness: streetlamps, illuminated public art displays, traffic, nightlife. Even at 3 o’clock in the morning, we could discern that Damascus, one of the world’s oldest cities and a longstanding hub of Arab culture and resistance to Western imperialism, was coming back to life after a decade of war. In the badly damaged Jobar neighborhood of Damascus, restorations like the charming balconies on a building (third from left) are an inspiring sign of Syrian resilience. Photo: Wyatt Miller I was part of the International Delegation to the 2021 Syrian Presidential Election. Organized by the U.S.-based Syria Solidarity Movement and Arab Americans 4 Syria, the delegation included activists from Palestine, South Africa, France, Canada and the U.S. We spent a week in and around Damascus to witness the May 26 presidential election and see the conditions in which Syrians live. As with much of Syria, the war had been over in Damascus for several years after the government restored control. In areas that were spared the fighting, like the Old City with its endless stalls of metalsmiths, woodworkers, soapmakers and other craftsmen, it looked much like it probably had for centuries. But in places like the Jobar neighborhood, the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp, and the eastern suburb of Douma, there was no avoiding the signs of war. Nearly every surface was covered in bullet holes. Stray dogs roamed in piles of rubble that stretched for miles. Against that gruesome backdrop, we saw Syrians trying to return to their lives. Millions fled their homes in the early years of the war when so-called “rebels” took over their neighborhoods to use as bases to fight the government. Armed, funded and whitewashed by the U.S. and its allies, this patchwork of reactionary warlords and foreign mercenaries were more analogous to the Contras of Nicaragua than any authentic rebels. Years later, with control being restored to more and more areas, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have begun to rebuild their homes and businesses. We saw many surreal sights of otherwise damaged buildings with a quaint restored balcony here, a sleek new storefront there. People’s resilience in those conditions was as inspiring as it was heartbreaking. The worst feeling was knowing that reconstruction would be happening faster if it weren’t for U.S. sanctions. A few months before our trip, UN human rights rapporteur Alena Douhan stated that U.S. sanctions were “impeding access to supplies needed to repair infrastructure damaged by the conflict” and “[running] roughshod over human rights, including the Syrian people’s rights to housing, health, and an adequate standard of living and development.” Many Syrians we spoke to believed that the most recent round of severe sanctions, imposed by Trump in 2019, are deliberately intended to discourage the return of refugees. Necessities as basic as cooking oil now cost large portions of people’s income. Many have had to find second and third jobs in the informal and black market economies. We saw dozens of people along the roadside selling jugs of gasoline, smuggled in from Lebanon—a sign of the ongoing illegal US occupation of Syria’s eastern oil fields. Even though ISIS has largely been defeated, and invasion by Turkey has been stopped by a compromise between the Syrian government and Kurdish groups seeking greater autonomy, US troops have remained in eastern Syria following Trump’s “keep the oil” policy. Voters at the polling place in the city of Douma, a suburb northeast of Damascus. Photo: Wyatt Miller As for the election, what we saw of it was nothing like the “fake” election conjured up by corporate media. Posters of the different candidates lined the streets. Trade unions and youth organizations held large rallies. Long lines formed outside polling places—not only inside the country but also at Syrian consulates in Lebanon, where refugees braved xenophobic violence to cast a ballot. For the Syrians we spoke to, the election meant more than just picking a president (Bashar al-Assad was re-elected in a landslide). They were proud that their country had retained its independence and reclaimed most of its territory from foreign-backed contras. Rumors abounded that Arab and European countries would soon reopen their embassies in Damascus. People’s hopes were high that the election would bring stability after a decade of violence and uncertainty. The U.S. is the main obstacle to peace in Syria. U.S. troops occupy Syria’s east. U.S. sanctions devastate Syria’s economy and preclude the return of many refugees, and U.S. think tanks lobby for renewed support for war, recently trying to rehabilitate an Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria’s north. We in the U.S. must be firm in rejecting more U.S. intervention in Syria. Otherwise this war will continue, and even after half a million of its people have died, Syria could be in for yet another round of violence, with no end in sight. Wyatt Miller is a Youth Against Empire Committee member of the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) and a member of the Antiwar Committee, Minneapolis. In May 2021, he travelled with a delegation to Syria. His written work has appeared in CounterPunch, MintPress News, and the Orinoco Tribune. The Biden Administration has continued the U.S. bombings in the Middle East that were ordered for decades under the presidencies of the Bushes, Clinton, Obama, and Trump. Without congressional authorization, on February 25, U.S. fighter planes dropped seven 500-pound bombs on two locations in Syria. On June 27, the U.S. military dropped 500-pound and 2,000-pound munitions on facilities inside Iraq and Syria near the border of these two countries. Foreign and independent news sources report casualties of wounded and dead militia, and at least one civilian. The rationale provided to the American public was that the bombings – violations of national sovereignty – were in retaliation for Iran’s alliance with Iraqi military units referred to as Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), seen as a threat to the 2,500 American troops stationed in Iraq. These Iraqi military forces had been sending small drones packed with explosives into the U.S. bases. In February, one foreign contractor was reported killed and nine Americans were wounded in the attacks. U.S. soldiers have been placed in a very dangerous position where there is strong opposition to them. The most recent spate of incidents has its origins back in January of 2020, when former President Trump sent a drone to assassinate the leaders of the Popular Mobilization Forces, the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, and his colleague Iraqi General Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, at the Baghdad International Airport. In retaliation for those murders and the refusal of the U.S. to remove its troops out of the country, after a resolution was passed by the Iraqi parliament, the PMF began targeting U.S. interests, military bases, and diplomatic institutions in Iraq. An overarching concern of the U.S. has been how to eliminate the Popular Mobilization Forces, which had begun to grow stronger every day. That’s because – taking the timeline back further to 2003 – the U.S. has tried to prevent Iraq from having its own strong, efficient armed forces. When the leadership of Saddam Hussein and the secular Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party was removed (the de-Ba’athification of Iraq), Paul Bremer was appointed the U.S. civil administrator, replacing the former Iraqi president. Bremer came with 100 orders, the first of which was the abandonment of the Iraqi army, which had been ranked the fourth most powerful in the world prior to the 2003 U.S. war on Iraq. The infrastructure of roads, bridges, power stations, water purification plants, and more than 3,500 factories producing goods for the Iraqi people was destroyed and closed. More than 25 American bases took complete control of Iraq’s airspace, water, and land, and Iraq was not to able to rebuild itself. The so-called creative chaos, heralded by then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2006, pervaded Iraq’s vital institutions and facilities. The only thing that functioned smoothly was Iraq’s formerly nationalized oil industry taken over by U.S., UK, and multinational corporations, which began pumping out exports to profit for themselves. As for neighboring Syria, we found that the United States funded proxy terrorist groups with various names as opposition forces to fight, on behalf of the United States and its allies, against the Syrian government. The U.S. maintained more than 25 military bases to occupy Iraq while in 2014 allowing ISIS to penetrate Iraq’s borders from the Syrian side and travel to and occupy Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. PMFs filmed many videos of the U.S. and its Middle East proxy client-state, Israel, supporting and aiding these terrorists on the ground by dropping food and weapons from U.S. planes, as well as by treating injured ISIS fighters at medical facilities. The official Iraqi army, trained by the U.S., carried out a poor defense of Mosul against ISIS. On the ground, the Iraqi army fought and fled, leaving remnants of ISIS and its weapons behind. After the fall of Mosul, the Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa ordering Iraqi youth to perform sufficient jihad to expel the remaining forces of ISIS from Iraq. And in record time, and in response to the call, hundreds of thousands of young people flocked to form the Popular Mobilization Forces for the purpose of supporting the official Iraqi army. The PMF fought fiercely against the remnants of ISIS, forcing them out. The PMF became a ghost haunting unwanted elements in Iraq. This is especially true since the nation of Iran is behind them in strength, organization, and training. Iran and the PMF are allied in opposition to the U.S. policies towards Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. As the PMF grew strong, they were recognized as legitimate forces by Iraqi law. It was as if the once powerful Iraqi army, dissolved by Paul Bremer in 2003, had returned. Iraq’s neighbor, Syria, continued to struggle. The terroristic mercenaries which had infiltrated Syria and were backed by the U.S. and its regional partners, the oil monarchies, fought against the official army of the Syrian government with the aim of weakening the Syrian state in a way that would cause it to collapse. However, the presence of the PMF in Syria reminded everyone that it has become difficult to weaken the Syrian government, as was the case in Iraq. Hence, the U.S. and Israel have continued bombing the Popular Mobilization Forces wherever they were found in an attempt to keep the Middle East divided, separate, and weak. They want to prevent the rebirth of the movement which began in the 1950s to throw off the colonial yoke and to unify the region, keeping its resources for its own people. Unless something changes, military skirmishes will continue between Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine on the one hand, and the U.S. and its allied client-partners on the other, and may develop into a devastating new war in the Middle East. In order for peace to prevail for everyone in the Middle East region, we must continue to promote a culture of nonviolence and tolerance in our homes, schools, and societies until each of us becomes a true human being. Sami Rasouli was born, raised, and educated primarily in Iraq. He lived in the U.S. for many years and returned to Iraq in 2005 to found the Muslim Peacemaker Teams in his city of origin, Najaf. Among other projects, he established the American Institute of Language in Najaf (which had no political affiliation, but in 2020 was blown up and destroyed, believed due to a misunderstanding about its name). Rasouli now resides in the U.S., where he plans to continue his people-to-people outreach and peace work through the American-Iraqi Initiative.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

PAK AFGHAN BORDER MANAGEMENT: DEVELOPMENTS AND CONTROVERSIES Keywords:Border Management,, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Security, Terrorism,, , Peace Border mismanagement has been a cause of tension s between Afghanistan and Pakistan ever since the formation of Pakistan. Contrarily, a well-managed border can lead to improved economic and security situation. The movement across border has become a security concern due to the presence of militants in the area. The data suggests the economic and security costs that Pakistan has incurred due to a mismanaged border. This study analyzes Pakistan’s efforts at border management with Afghanistan, with various mechanisms been put to practice as Pakistan vies for regional peace. However, recently Pakistan has constructed gateways and fenced its border with Afghanistan, which has reduced terrorist activities significantly. Given the context, this study endeavors to explore how would the management of Pak Afghan border bring regional peace? The article also challenges in addition to charting a future path for Pak-Afghan relations. How to Cite

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Boisterous celebrations by Syrians on New Year’s Eve in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, where the Syrian flag and Free Syrian Army (FSA) banners were waved amidst anti-Assad chants, has reignited the heated debate in Turkey over Syrian refugees. Many are claiming Syrian youngsters are enjoying a good time in Turkey instead of traveling to Syria — “where Turkish soldiers are fighting and dying” — to liberate their country from a tyrant. Fact and fiction are entwined in this debate, which is laced with accusations of racism and intolerance. Many Turks are angry, for example, over the privileges the government has been extending to Syrians while ordinary Turks struggle to eke out a living. Many also argue that Syrians are undercutting the labor market and depriving Turks of their livelihood. Also fueling the debate is “Syrian ghettoization” in Istanbul and other cities, where certain districts have been overrun with Arabic shop signs. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to boast about the 3.6 million Syrians Turkey has given shelter to. He also complains that Turkey has been footing the bill while European countries squabble over quotas on how many refugees they will accept. Ankara says it has spent over $30 billion from its own coffers on the refugees so far. There is some justification to what Ankara says. Turkey has also been commended by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres for the burden it has assumed in this respect. Despite such praise, though, disgruntlement over the presence of the Syrians is becoming more vocal in the Turkish media. The concerns of ordinary Turks include demographic, economic, social, cultural and security issues stemming from such a large injection of foreigners into Turkey. Most pro-government analysts presume that criticizing the presence of the Syrians is merely another device the opposition is using to hit at Erdogan and his government. Nevertheless, there are those in the pro-government media who are concerned that the presence of the Syrians will cause serious social unrest. There are also strong opponents of the Erdogan government who accuse those complaining about the presence of the Syrians of intolerance and racism, demonstrating just how complex the issue has become for Turkey. According to Turkey’s Directorate General of Migration Management, Syrians in Turkey surpassed 3.6 million in 2018. Even thought 291,000 refugees returned to Syria after Turkey’s Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch operations in 2017 and 2018, respectively, the total number of Syrian refugees increased in 2018 by 187,000. Sevilay Yilman, a Haberturk columnist who is known for her incendiary articles, kicked of the debate after she deplored the spectacle of the Syrians in Taksim Square on New Year’s Eve. “Taksim is no longer the Taksim we knew from previous New Year’s celebrations,” Yilman, who has stood by Erdogan’s government in the past, bemoaned. “The Syrians that filled Taksim Square were not celebrating but demonstrating.” Yilman argued, “Everyone wishes the Syrians to be free. But Syrians who want to see that happen even more than us should not be waving those flags in Taksim, but in Syria. … Rather than shouting and yelling in Taksim they should join our soldiers in Syria who are keeping watch there night and day.” Yasin Aktay, an adviser to Erdogan, refuted the claim that Turkish soldiers were fighting for Syria. “Turkey is in Syria primarily to protect its borders and its people from the threat of terrorism and invasion,” Aktay wrote in the pro-government Yeni Safak. He was referring mainly to Turkey’s fight against the Kurdish People's Protection Units, which Ankara says is a terrorist group that threatens Turkey’s security. “The greatest support in this task comes from heroic young Syrians who are fighting shoulder to shoulder with Turkish soldiers,” Aktay added. However, Aktay’s fellow Yeni Safak columnist Hasan Ozturk supported Yilman, arguing that the lifestyles Syrians are forcing on Turkey would pose serious problems in the future. “We don’t say the Syrians should forget their traditions, but they have the responsibility of complying with the rules of the countries they have taken refuge in,” Ozturk wrote. “To argue that we successfully incorporated a large population in our midst is nothing but negligence, and amount to sweeping the problem under the carpet.” Meanwhile, many situations have arisen that serve as reminders of the social problems the presence of the Syrians is causing around the country. In September, violence erupted against Syrian refugees in the eastern province of Sirnak after a fight between Turkish and Syrian children escalated into a pitch battle between the families and resulted in the Syrian side shooting and killing two Turkish brothers. Syrian shops and houses were attacked and damaged by infuriated locals, resulting in 45 arrests and the expulsion from Turkey of 639 Syrians. In October, 250 Syrians in the western province of Denizli were relocated following demonstrations by locals after a number of Syrians allegedly harassed a 14-year-old girl. These are by no means unique cases. Many independent observers believe incidents such as these are generally underreported by the pro-government media. Political talk show presenter Fatih Altayli has indirectly suggested that the government’s avid support for the Syrians owes to their Muslim identity. Writing for Haberturk, Altayli referred to the government’s argument that the Syrians were from lands that were once part of Turkey — meaning the Ottoman Empire — a century ago. Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu has contended that Syrians should be welcomed as kin by Turks because of this history. To highlight his point, Altayli speculated about unlikely scenarios in Greece or Armenia that could force millions to seek shelter in Turkey and questioned whether the welcome extended to Syrians would have been shown them. Nationalist commentator Mehmet Farac also wrote a provocative article in which he asked rhetorically whether it is Syria or Turkey that is under occupation. Farac claimed that the tax exemptions, social benefits and free medical care extended to the Syrians by the government are angering Turks and preparing the ground for serious social conflict. He wrote, “Whose shame is it that our citizens in need of medical care have to get Syrians to apply for them in order to obtain it?” The government maintains that that scope of the assistance provided Syrian refugees is being grossly exaggerated by the opposition, but undermines its own case by stating that it has spent $30 billion to date on the refugees. Meanwhile, some pro-government commentators are invoking what they refer to as “European tolerance for outsiders” to counter anti-Syrian sentiments in Turkey. Resul Tosun from Star newspaper, which acts as a mouthpiece for the government, is one of them. “I was surprised when I saw the Turkish district in Berlin or saw the Turkish and Arabic shop in Preston, New York. It saddens me to see our excessive reactions to our co-religionists the Syrians when Germans and Americans show foreigners such tolerance,” Tosun wrote. What is really surprising is that columnists like Tosun, who represent a point of view that usually vilifies the West over its intolerance for Muslims, are all of a sudden lauding the West for its tolerance for outsiders. Seasoned political analyst Fehmi Koru laid out Turkey's situation in stark terms. “You understand the situation better when you talk to these people. Although they miss their country, they make it evident that they will continue to live among us,” Koru wrote in his widely read daily blog. “Whether we like it or not, our country will have a significant Arab population after a while,” he argued. Koru went on to stress the need to take advantage of the benefits that Syrian professionals could provide Turkey, rather than forcing them to seek their future in the West because of the disregard they face in this country. At this stage, it is clear that the debate over Syrian refugees will only get more heated in Turkey, as long as the government provides no clear indication of its plans for the future of these people.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

We shall have to share out the fruits of technology among the whole of mankind. The notion that the direct and immediate producers of the fruits of technology have a proprietary right to these fruits will have to be forgotten. Media commentaries about the U.S.-China accord on limiting carbon emissions have been almost dithyrambic, with some justification. The world’s two superpowers have agreed for the first time in modern history to work together to manage a global problem that no nation state can resolve alone. However important this agreement is, strategic distrust between China and the U.S. remains the single most significant risk to peace in our time and neutralizing it will demand much more than an emissions reduction agreement. At the center of this dangerous forma mentis is an ever-accelerating competition between Beijing and Washington for science & innovation, technological supremacy, and “full spectrum dominance.” A strategic initiative like the AirSea battle dogma, together with hypersonic weapons and China’s anticipation of a century of sustained intellectual warfare, only exacerbates a securitization game that if left unchecked could confirm Thucydides’ ominous prediction about the perils of hegemonic transition. The Nuclear Age The destabilization of great power relations by relentless, qualitative improvements in military equipment has become a central concern for IR; it is almost the defining issue of Strategic Studies”. In early September 1939, the White House’s most important occupant received a mysterious letter. It was signed not by military specialists, political supporters, businessmen, or any other of the usual correspondents, but was rather written by two of the world’s leading atomic scientists: Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard. Both men had been German immigrants to the United States, fleeing Nazi Germany in the early 30s to escape rising anti-Semitism. In the letter, they argued that the “bomb” was technically feasible and that uranium could be enriched to fission levels sufficient for a chain reaction. On reading the letter, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered his staff to go out at once “to see that the Nazis don’t blow us up.” By 1942 the Manhattan project, the biggest techno-industrial project in history, was underway. In about two years, the ultimate weapon of the 20th century was ready to rewrite the rules of the game. The splitting of the atom and the awesome amount of lethal energy it released reshaped war and conflict, for it altered the imperatives of strategic communities around the world. As Bernard Brodie realized: While winning a war had hitherto been the sole and ultimate end of militaries, with the invention of the atomic bomb the new imperative was to ensure that war, at least among atomic powers, would never be fought. Brodie’s recognition recalled Sun Tzu’s famous stratagem that the acme of skill is to win a war without a fight. Nuclear weapons turned war – at least between nuclear armed states – into a strictly “peacetime” endeavor, with implications for socioeconomic structures and the role of government intervention in R&D projects. It was understood that deterrence would only be possible as long as both Cold War adversaries, the Soviet Union and the United States, had second strike capability; that is, that they could both retaliate sufficiently after a first strike and inflict a heavy cost on their adversary. Yet nuclear deterrence and the consequent balance of terror was never as stable as is often perceived, for it was highly susceptible to technological disruptions and innovation. When in 1959 the Soviets set Sputnik into orbit, a massive hysteria swept the United States. Elites became obsessed with science and technology and a comprehensive reform of the educational system was accompanied with increased funding to science education, basic research, and a space program. The Department of Defense Advanced Research Agency Project (DARPA), which according to one researcher has contributed to 95 percent of the iPhone’s patents, was created to promote basic research and close the perceived gap with the Soviets. Sputnik was viewed as a decisive technological breakthrough that would allow the Soviets to achieve a successful first strike. In the 60s, together with the space race, both superpowers engaged in anti-ballistic missile defense research. They gradually understood that no side could achieve a clear first strike advantage but that misperceptions about the other side’s capabilities could prompt one side to attack first, preempting a perceived imminent strike by the other (a use-it-or lose-it situation). The anti-ballistic treaty was signed along with SALT and later START in the early 1970s, a pause in technological competition and the drive for frontier military innovation. U.S. President Ronald Reagan broke almost two decades of atomic modus operandi with the Soviets when his Strategic Defense Initiative created new impetus for technological disruptions. For some analysts this was a fatal blow to the bureaucratic and heavily centralized Soviet system, which lacked the economic resources to compete with the U.S. in “Star Wars.” The United States demonstrated Sun Tzu’s acme of skill, winning the Cold War without turning it hot. The U.S. strategic community not only followed Brodie’s advice to ensure that war would never be fought; it also found a way to undermine its adversary and eventually build a Pax Americana, at least for a while. China today is no USSR. Its open and interconnected economy ensures that it commands the economic resources to compete with the United States in a race for disruptive innovation. Tsinghua professor Hu Angang, an influential economist in China’s elite circles, sees the revolution in science and technology as the shaper of both economic and military affairs. According to Hu, by 2030 China is likely to be outspending the EU and the U.S. combined on R&D. At the same time, President Xi Jinping’s frequent public statements on the matter make clear that innovation has a prime role to play in the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. History is back with a vengeance. The Ring of Gyges & The Technological Imperative The atomic era has made war among nuclear powers suicidal. It has created the risk that a conventional clash between nuclear powers could lead to catastrophic escalation and has thus enabled the world to avoid another great war. However the atomic era has not drained humanity of its inherent tendency to compete for supremacy. As great theorists (Waltz, Gilpin, Schelling, Yan Xuetong) have argued convincingly, states cannot trust intentions and thus look to assess the capabilities of their adversaries. As a former U.S. Secretary of Defense noted in a Tsinghua university speech, no state can be certain about the exact capabilities of its competitors and thus it must plan for worst-case scenarios and “think the unthinkable.” This concept of strategic mistrust, first found in Thucydides, was at the core of Clausewitz’s* theorizing and has featured in subsequent eras of strategic thought. Today, the technological imperative exists in the sense that “decision makers have to consider how to respond to actual and potential technological change.” This is not merely a deterministic phenomenon. Decisions on which technologies states choose to pursue are shaped by a continuous process of reciprocal responses and by the security imperatives of their competitors. In the industrial era, every major economy has latent military potential, which feeds the “imperative of technology” due to “the linking and indeed blurring of the civilian and military spheres of technology.” The technological imperative is thus the outcome of industrial economic systems that base their economic vibrancy and perpetual growth on technology and R&D. Even if R&D projects are located within the civilian sector, the dual use of their inventions ensures that “recessed deterrence” will follow a rising trend. In that sense, great powers cannot remain indifferent to economic and technological progress of other states and thus competition is unabated and fierce. The Ring of Gyges is perhaps the most relevant and concise theoretical example of the interaction between unbalanced power and ethical behavior. In the Republic, Plato introduces a parable that has long captured the attention of political philosophers and psychologists around the world. A poor and innocent shepherd is out in the countryside with his sheep when an earthquake reveals an entrance to a mountainside. The shepherd enters the cave where he finds an unusually large male corpse and a bronze horse. The corpse carries a golden ring. The shepherd discovers that the ring can turn him invisible at will. He goes on to use the power of the ring to seduce the queen and together assassinate the king of Lydia. He then sets up his own dynasty. The Ring of Gyges can be seen as the ultimate disruptive technology, a source of technological power that turns a state into a perhaps perpetual global hegemon. The Ring of Gyges metaphor fully exemplifies the role of S&T in the operational code of the strategic community of both China and the United States. Full spectrum dominance has long been at the core of the Pentagon’s strategy while China’s strategic thought is marvelously summarized in Sun Tzu’s Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?”** A case study that highlights the continuous and accelerating struggle between the United States and China for a Ring of Gyges is the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) matched with a national Anti Ballistic Defense system (NABD). If the United States were to develop both a very advanced Anti-Ballistic System with directed energy capabilities and further grow its CPGS then it could achieve a first strike capacity against major rivals and dictate the rules of the global order. Global Prompt Strike and Hypersonic Cruise Missiles When we read, say, of some new poison-gas by means of which one bomb from an aeroplane can exterminate a whole town, we have a thrill of what we fondly believe to be horror, but it is really delight in scientific skill. Science is our god; we say to it, “Though thou slay me, yet will I trust in thee.” And so it slays us. A potential technological disruption that calls for the rethinking of Cold War nuclear deterrence is in its infancy. The United States has led the way in developing the Conventional Global Prompt Strike (CGPS); that is, a missile system that can exceed seven times the speed of sound and hit any point of the earth under any conditions. This capability allows the United States to attack even the strategic forces of its adversaries conventionally and undermine second-strike capability. This ability, which could endow the United States with a “Ring of Gyges,” has not escaped the attention of Chinese strategists. As Lora Saalmaan, a Tsinghua university trained professor has argued; China has followed U.S. Prompt Strike development closely. The Chinese military has considered scenarios in which the U.S. attacks Chinese strategic forces conventionally and has directed its own R&D at developing similar weapons. The January 2014 test of a glide vehicle should be seen in this context. China is conducting research to counter the U.S. and develop its own hypersonic high precision missiles. Saalman has reported a substantial increase of Chinese technical articles on CGPS, and a review of these papers reveals that the strategic aim of the systems described evolves through close observation of U.S. initiatives and technological capabilities. R&D in hypersonic technologies is not new, but a potentially disruptive technological breakthrough only became evident in the last three or four years with the successful testing of boost glide vehicles in both the United States and China, with Russia also following closely. These technologies have profound implications for military dogmas and strategic stability on both sides of the Pacific. Misperceptions about CGPS could lead to a new arms race. China is worried about the combined effect of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense and the Global Prompt Strike Capabilities on nuclear deterrence. A CGPS attack combed with an ABS defense could undermine Chinese second strike capabilities and turn the U.S. into an all-powerful “Gyges.” Sharing the Fruits of Technology While CGPS is an impressive case study of Ring of Gyges technologies, it remains nonetheless a needle in the ocean of full spectrum dominance and disruptive innovation. In the 21st century, the potential for technological disruption is so broad that great powers are engaged in an ever-accelerating competition for innovation. This is the mother of U.S.-China strategic distrust and the most difficult problem for strategists and theorists to resolve. It will take a lot more than climate change agreements or even “military trust” accords. The U.S. and China along with Russia should actively work on means to improve information about capabilities, agree on strategies, and most importantly agree on the verification of “DARPA type” disruptions. In addition to building military technology, countries need to develop human institutions on the line of existing UN offices and reach verifiable agreements to manage disruptive technological capabilities. A more revolutionary change and perhaps the surest way to approach a Ring of Gyges would be a G-8 (EU, U.S., China, Japan, India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa) megaproject – say a space initiative to establish a human colony on Mars by mid century. Such an unprecedented techno-industrial project would demand sincere sharing of information and would ensure that disruptive innovation would not lead to an imbalance of power but to the empowerment of humanity, as the “fruits of technology” would indeed be shared among the multinational scientific communities. It hardly takes great contemplation to understand that a Sino-U.S. race for technological supremacy has potentially catastrophic consequences for peace. Bringing the scientific communities of the world together and aiming to innovate for peace rather than war is perhaps a parallel path (along with verifiable agreements) in building Sino-U.S. trust and ensuring the survival of the human race. Plato himself believed that if human beings comprehend the true meaning of happiness and thus do not enslave themselves to their appetites, the Ring of Gyges could indeed be neutralized and bow before the ascendency of Man. Vasilis Trigkas ([email protected]) is a research assistant in Sino-EU relations at Tsinghua University & a Non-Resident WSD Handa Fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS. He is also a researcher at thinkinchina.asia. *Corrected spelling. Thanks to commenter Malcolm Davis for pointing that out. **A quote very widely attributed to Sun Tzu, but not one that appears in his Art of War. Thanks to commenter Bankotsu for pointing that out.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

In the days before the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, the world is in deep turmoil. This becomes particularly evident in Europe, whose political elite in reaction to the American presidential results, is eagerly looking for solutions that could pave the way for a New World Order. Rarely have there been so many comments and seminars given by experts from the strategic community whose evaluation is that the world is heading for a crisis. Their view is conditioned by the unpredictable situation in the US under the new President Trump and by Russia, which – if we follow the media perception – is perceived as becoming more autocratic under President Putin. Many observers ask whether with the “collapse of longstanding certainties” of the post war order and the the global reorientation after 1989, Europe will succeed in drawing the lessons from the last 25 years, and to actively discuss about the parameters of a new value-based order. Pope Francis’s speech before the diplomatic corps In his New Year’s speech before the Diplomatic Corps (9.1.17.) Pope Francis spoke about “security and peace.” Reviewing the past 100 years of history, he pointed to some obvious discrepancies: Given that many parts of the world have benefited from lengthy periods of peace, which have favoured opportunities for economic development and unprecedented prosperity, the Pope emphasized that “for many people today peace appears as a blessing to be taken for granted while for too many others peace remains a distant dream.” “Millions of people still have to live through senseless conflicts.” Peace and justice are intimately linked, according to the pope and therefore peace-making demands that “those causes of discord which led to wars, be rooted out.” A lot of attention was given to the subject of migration, which, as Francis stated, is not an issue that can leave some countries indifferent, while others are left with the burden of humanitarian assistance. “So I am grateful to the many countries which offer a generous welcome to those in need, beginning with various European nations, particularly Italy, Germany, Greece and Sweden”, the Pope said. “Nor should be overlooked the welcome offered by other countries of Europe and the Middle East, such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, as well as the commitment of various African and Asian countries.” Pope Francis spoke about the need for “peace dialogue;” especially with regard to Syria, Palestine and Israel. In respect to Ukraine he expressed hope that viable solutions will continue to be pursued with determination in order to fulfil the commitments undertaken by the parties involved and above all, that a prompt response will be given to the humanitarian situation. Europe is experiencing a decisive moment in its history, one in which it is called to “rediscover its proper identity”, the Pope stated: “This requires recovering its roots in order to shape its future. In response to currents of divisiveness, it is all the more urgent to update ‘the idea of Europe’ so as to give birth to a new humanism based on the capacity to integrate, dialogue and generate what made the ‘Old Continent’ great.” He underlined that “the process of European unification begun after the Second World War continues to be a unique opportunity for stability, peace and solidarity between peoples. On this occasion, I can only reaffirm the interest and concern of the Holy See for Europe and its future, conscious that the values that were the inspiration and basis of that project, which this year celebrates its sixtieth anniversary, are values common to the entire continent and transcend the borders of the European Union itself.” The most urgent tasks In an interesting guest commentary for the magazine “Focus online.de” (http://www.focus.de/politik/experten/teltschik/ende-aller-gewissheiten-ex-kanzlerberater-teltschik-das-sind-the-draengendsten-aufgaben- 2017_id_6435173.html), the former adviser of Chancellor Helmut Kohl and chairman of the Munich Security Conference (1999-2008), Dr. Horst Teltschik, expressed his concern about the present geostrategic situation. He stated that with the year 2017 a new era is beginning, in which all certainties with which policies had been developed over the past decades, could come to an end. In light of the newly emerging conflicts and crisis, he warned about the lack of strategic cooperation and pointed to the strategically “missed opportunities” during the past 25 years: “For more than a quarter of a century, we have known that after the end of the bipolar world system, a new world order should be created.” But historical opportunities that were evident since 1989 have not been used in the necessary way, according to Teltschik. These included the enlargement of the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance to 28 Member States. These two communities were not organized to become viable institutions. Instead of being perceived by the neighbouring regions, in particular by Russia, as a new threat, they should have been conceived as a common chance for a comprehensive European peace order, the author emphasized. “The Paris Charter for a New Europe, signed by all the CSCE member states in November 1990, was supposed to create the basis for this. The Russian Presidents Yeltsin and Putin were initially even prepared to think about some kind of Russian membership in NATO.” The reality is, however, that instead of cooperation, “mutual sanctions” are determining today’s relations – a consequence of Russia’s aggressive policy against Ukraine and its intervention in the American election campaign. From Putin’s point of view and according to Putin’s self-understanding, Putin “defends the interests of Russia in the same way in which the US and its allies acted in the Balkan war, in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, or the CIA in the colourful revolutions in Georgia, Moscow or on the Maidan”, the author emphasized. And while the US has blocked for many years solutions for Syria, linking this to the demand that first Bashar al Assad resignd, “Putin has acted” and “ it would be an irony of history if he were to succeed in reaching a far-reaching pacification of Syria in cooperation with the NATO member Turkey, without the US and the Europeans.” Teltschik sees the danger of an “erosion of the EU, which is accelerated by the rise of populist movements in Europe and authoritarian governments in Eastern Europe, while at the same time the French-German cooperation is slowing down, and Italy and the Benelux countries are losing themselves in internal bickering. The future of Europe The author put a lot of emphasis on the question concerning of the future of Europe and therefore the core question is: what Europe do we want? In the midst of a worsening Euro crisis, great powers such as India, China, Russia and the USA are beginning to redefine their political, economic and security policy perspectives while “Europe is falling out as a team-mate.” The problem is that no country in Europe has the potential to take on an equal role, neither Germany nor France or England, although England may dream of resolving the problems that Europe faces. A key aspect in the commentary is the urge for a cultural and spiritual concept which a future Europe should be based upon. Hence in view of the “de-Christianization of Europe”, Teltschik underlined that a strong intellectual and spiritual response should to be given to Islam. This is only possible on the basis of a “common value system” which should be seen as a common property that should be “exercised”, “educated” and “practiced.” And only in this way it is possible to pave the way for cooperation in the future. The author expressed some concern about the future U.S. President Trump, whose light-hearted speeches about the use of nuclear weapons, NATO, and his ignorant approach on China or Israel, give a “pre-taste about potential new conflicts and crises” emerging in the future. This leaves an open question: “Who in such a situation would respond in Europe? Can and will there be an answer from Europe? Should there not be a common EU response? But who would take the initiative and give direction?” Wiesbaden 13 January 2017

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

At foreignpolicy.com, Audrey Wilson reports that Afghanistan is facing a potential humanitarian and economic crisis. She writes (abridged): G-7 meeting. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has called for a virtual meeting of the G-7 countries—the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Germany, Japan and Canada—on Tuesday to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, including how to secure safe evacuations and avoid a humanitarian crisis. Johnson is expected to urge the other leaders to consider new sanctions against the Taliban if they commit human rights abuses. Ticking clock. Meanwhile, Afghanistan faces a quickly deepening economic crisis, with financial hardships increasingly affecting those in Kabul and other cities. Banks remain closed, food prices are rising, and the value of the local currency has plummeted. The suspension of commercial flights to Kabul’s international airport has in some ways exacerbated the crisis, halting the flow of some medical supplies and aid. If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for my free weekly email.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghanistan, Taliban resume fresh talks Amid the Taliban's growing offensive in Afghanistan, the delegations of the Afghan government and the Taliban began a fresh round of talks on 17 July 2021 in Qatar. Addressing a conference in the Qatari capital of Doha, Chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah said to achieve peace, there is a need for flexibility from both sides. - Afghans want the continuation of the world's support to the peace process... Afghanistan still needs reconstruction and it needs 'constructive' ties with the region and the world. - The Taliban said that despite a lack of progress in intra-Afghan negotiations, there is a need to keep the hope and that they will make efforts to make the talks a success. - To ensure Afghanistan's prosperity, there is a need for a central and independent Islamic system. To achieve this we should ignore our personal interests. - Earlier this week, local reports had suggested that that Kabul would send a high-ranking delegation. - The delegation includes former President Hamid Karzai and head of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah, to Qatar's Doha. - In recent weeks, Afghanistan has witnessed a spike in violence. Taliban have stepped up offensive since the foreign forces began to withdraw from the country in May. - The US AND NATO forces will complete military drawdown till the end of August.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

New Delhi — Turkey seeks to gain credibility in bidding on the global caliphate by defending the Islamic cause in Kashmir, a region divided into India and Pakistan. Behind Turkey’s recent Muslim foreign policy is the first World War that saw the rise of secular westernized Turkey and the following, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP (Justice and Development Party): It has a history of being sandwiched between the rise of various political parties from 50 to 60 years. Party), said Abinaf Pandia, who advised the last governor of Jammu and Kashmir, India. Pandaya, the current CEO of the Usanas Foundation, an India-based geopolitical and security think tank, has changed Turkey’s foreign policy with Erdogan’s three-election victory and presidential post since 2014. He told the Epoch Times that he had begun to do so. “And as he progressed, these secular elements were gradually alienated from the Turkish regime, and religion became a more powerful force,” Pandia said. Geopolitical games have begun to emerge in this context. “It was basically the resurrection of the Ottoman Empire, or the glory of the Ottoman Empire where he could project himself as a caliph in the Islamic world.” By this time, Turkey’s dream of joining the European Union had disappeared, he said. “So now, instead of begging in front of the European Union, why not regain the true glory of the Ottoman Empire? That glory of the Ottoman Empire will only occur if Turkey returns to its religious roots in Islam. It will be brought, “said Pandia. He said democratically elected leader Erdogan would be more accepted as a caliph than the Islamic extremists who lead global terrorist organizations. “I know he is a democratically elected leader in a country like Turkey. Turkey is a country with great military power or a growing superpower and a fairly decent middle-income group. is. [population], Excellent infrastructure, and the illustrious history of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, he is likely to be accepted as a caliph by Muslims around the world, “said Pandia. In addition to this possibility, he said, there are stories of Islamophobia that also exist in the West and India, injecting fear that Muslims and their beliefs are at stake. “So they are already looking for a compelling, powerful and existing alternative model of leadership. Therefore, no one else can satisfy the case. He is a democratically elected sovereignty. I am the sovereign leader of the nation. “ “And because of his trust, he has the potential to be accepted as a leader in the Ummah (Arabic community) around the world. Imagine how much power he creates around the world.” Pandia said. In this context, he said, the world needs to understand Turkey’s interest in South Asia, especially Kashmir. Turkish interest in Kashmir The Turkish agenda of integrating Islamic Ummahs under that leadership will be challenged directly by the Arab world seeking the same leadership. As a result, Erdogan has not enjoyed many leadership opportunities among Muslims, Pandia said. “The first battle for Islamic leaders in the Islamic world was not between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Today we are misunderstood that it is Iran and Saudi Arabia. Originally with Turkey. It was between Saudi Arabia, “Pandia said. He mentioned many battles between the Ottoman Empire and the Saudi dynasty. The latter eventually expelled the Ottoman Empire with the help of Britain and became the caretaker of the sacred sites of the Islamic world, Mecca and Medina. Unlike Muslims in the Arab world, Muslims in South Asia will be willing to accept the leadership of Prime Minister Erdogan because Turkey has strong historical, cultural and religious ties with South Asia. This is from the time of the Mughal Empire, which ruled the subcontinent before Britain ruled in 1857. According to Pandia, many Mughal aristocrats fled to Turkey. “Then, when the Turkish Ottoman Caliphate was uprooted by the British in the 1920s, Gandhi launched a movement in 1920 called the Khilafat Movement,” Pandia said. It was the Khilafat Movement that began seeking restoration. Ottoman caliph. Mahatma Gandhi wanted to unite Muslims and Hindus against British colonial rule. That required a Muslim cause, Pandia said. However, after the violence, Gandhi withdrew the Khilafat movement, while Britain uprooted the Ottoman Empire in India. These events sowed the seeds of two-nation theory, which ultimately led to the bloody division of colonial India into India and Pakistan, Pandia said. The partition also sowed the seeds of a long-running conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and this background needs to be understood to grasp Turkey’s current agenda within Kashmir. .. “If he wants to get the support of Muslims in South Asia, what is the best way to get support? Try to build a relationship with Islamic organizations in India. And second, in South Asia It’s about trying to raise the most important issue for Muslims, “Pandia said, adding that Erdogan has a strategy. He said that the Kashmir cause in South Asia was a religious cause, which affected Muslims, and Erdogan took it up. “”[He seeks] Since South Asian Muslims may not be as relevant to the Palestinian cause as they are to the Kashmir cause, internalize the credibility of the Islamic world, the Kashmir issue, and the hearts of Muslims throughout South Asia. To grab. “Pandia said. Turkish activity in Kashmir Turkey’s voice about Kashmir and its activities within Kashmir has been amplified in the last four to five years, and its tactics are multifaceted. For example, it leverages an international platform to wage and support information warfare against India in Kashmir through social media and mainstream media channels. According to Pandia. Recently India Today reports That Turkish SADAT, a shadow military organization, Turkish ambassador Sakir Ozkan Trunler said he was preparing to work in Kashmir but was unfounded and false. Pandia said he believed that the establishment of India was on the lookout after the Indian media turmoil about this. so Interview with The Wire last yearAS Dulat, a former chief of the Research & Analysis Wing (R & AW) in India, said “worriedly” that 50 foreign mercenaries, including Turks, had traveled from Pakistan to Kashmir. Burhan Wani, commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen, was killed by Indian security forces in 2016. Before his death He released a video He said he had openly stated that he wanted to make Kashmir an Islamic caliphate. “Pakistan then organized violent civil unrest [inside Kashmir] Pakistan’s Interservice Intelligence (ISI) has supplied 800 chlores (more than $ 100 million), “Pandia said. Sting operation by India today It recorded a video of a separatist leader confessing that he had received money from Pakistan. This is also reported in the book.K-File: Silence Conspiracy “Bashir Assad And in an investigation by the National Investigation Agency of India, Pandia said. Police fired on violent protesters, he said, killing 46 people during the turmoil. Turkey continued to spread the news about anxiety and loss of life worldwide, but never got into the background of the event, Pandia said. He emphasized that Turkey turned out to be a strong supporter of Pakistan. The· The United States was blacklisted Kashmir-based Hizbrum Mujahideen as a terrorist organization in 2017. Turkish national media TRT World Crocodiles have been included in the list of “20 people who shook the world in 2016”. “Burhan Wani, a hero to the Kashmirs but a’terrorist’in the eyes of the Indian state, was a 21-year-old rebel in Kashmir under Indian control,” said Boris Johnson and Bernie Sanders. TRT World said in a list that includes. And Ivanka Trump. “He used social media to amplify his voice and uploaded videos and photos to Kashmir with a message calling for a break from Indian rule. His gun-wielding presence was symbolic, but His call for freedom affected tens of thousands of young Kashmirs, although it was an image war against India’s continued invasion in Kashmir, where about 500,000 troops were stationed to calm dissent. Gave. In August 2019, after India revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, which gives Jammu and Kashmir limited autonomy, the state was dissolved and two federal territories were created from it. Pandia claims that Turkey’s voice over Kashmir has since grown louder. Only a month after this political reorganization, Erdogan Raised the Kashmir issue At the UN General Assembly, he criticized the international community for failing to serve its purpose. Despite official Indian opposition, Prime Minister Erdogan raised the issue again during his speech at the Joint Session of the Pakistani Parliament in February 2020. “Our Kashmir brothers and sisters have suffered inconveniences for decades, and these sufferings have been exacerbated by recent unilateral measures.” He added that he would support Pakistan Financial Action Task Force (FATF). “Today, the problem in Kashmir is as close to us as you (Pakistan),” Erdogan said. While Pakistan continues FATF Gray List Just ReleasedPandia has designated countries involved in supporting terrorism, but said Turkey has always been a major obstacle to Pakistan’s “blacklist” in the FATF, leading to direct economic sanctions. “I heard that the drones that Pakistan is using to stop in Kashmir are very high quality drones. They drop their weapons and disappear within seconds. You can’t even find them. They are unidentified. It’s like a flying object, “said Pandia, who writes the next book on terrorist financing in Kashmir. He said Pakistan could not manufacture such sophisticated drones and they came from either China, Russia or Turkey. Turkey also attracts Kashmir students with many scholarships Study at a Turkish educational institution.. “And these students are trained in human rights studies, various international affairs studies, and even technical studies such as good drones and wars,” Pandia said, Turkey training them in their own story. I added that. This is the second in a series on Kashmir’s global agenda (on the agenda of Kashmir’s CCP), based on an exclusive interview with Kashmir field researcher Abhinav Pandya, who advised Governor Satya Pal Malik of Jammu and Kashmir. Continued). Intensification and security issues at the critical stage of the abolition of Article 370, which led to the constitutional reorganization of the state.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Greens senators Larissa Waters, Mehreen Faruqi and Janet Rice have written to the Minister for Women and Foreign Affairs Marise Payne to urge the Government to provide immediate and increased aid to help women and girls now subject to Taliban rule in Afghanistan. To ensure that aid is targeted to those most in need the aid should be delivered through partnerships with civil society and aid organisations working on the ground. Greens deputy leader and spokesperson on women Senator Larissa Waters said: “Australia has an obligation to do everything it can to secure the safety and freedoms of people in Afghanistan, especially women and children, given the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. “The gendered impacts of Taliban rule must not be ignored. There are now clear and immediate risks to the freedom, education, employment, safety, political engagement and bodily autonomy of Afghan women and gender diverse people. “Just a few months ago, Senator Payne released the National Action Plan for Women, Peace and Security and committed Australia to increasing women’s meaningful participation in peace processes. In line with those commitments, Australia must call on the international community to ensure that Afghanistan's women leaders are included in the Doha talks, and represented in the Afghan National Assembly and public office. “Despite occupation and war, the past decade has seen important gains, with nearly one third of Afghan political representatives now female and more than 3.5 million girls attending school. These gains must not be lost.” Greens spokesperson for international aid and development Senator Mehreen Faruqi said: “This Government’s apathy is sickening, particularly given Australia’s culpability in the current crisis. We have a responsibility to act now with a strong humanitarian response to the situation in Afghanistan. “Women and children suffer a disproportionate burden both during and after a war. Afghans have already endured two decades of Western military occupation and are now subject to Taliban rule. Increasing aid targeted for supporting women and children is a debt we owe Afghan people. “Australia must also show some leadership and take in at least 20,000 refugees and give permanent visas to Afghans already in Australia.” Greens spokesperson on foreign affairs Senator Janet Rice said: "Australia has a moral obligation to the people of Afghanistan, and particularly to the women and girls now at risk. This is a crisis that's been years and decades in the making, which Australia's actions have contributed to.” “Rather than hollow words and flimsy announcements, the Government should provide meaningful, significant support to those most at risk, including increased aid and a genuine increase to Australia's refugee intake."

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Statement by the President on the Signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement and NATO Status of Forces Agreement in Afghanistan Today we mark an historic day in the U.S.-Afghan partnership that will help advance our shared interests and the long-term security of Afghanistan. After nearly two years of hard work by negotiating teams on both sides, earlier today in Kabul the United States and the new Afghan Government of National Unity signed a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA). This agreement represents an invitation from the Afghan Government to strengthen the relationship we have built over the past 13 years and provides our military service members the necessary legal framework to carry out two critical missions after 2014: targeting the remnants of Al Qaeda and training, advising, and assisting Afghan National Security Forces. The signing of the BSA also reflects the implementation of the Strategic Partnership Agreement our two governments signed in May 2012. Today, Afghan and NATO officials also signed the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, giving forces from Allied and partner countries the legal protections necessary to carry out the NATO Resolute Support mission when ISAF comes to an end later this year. These agreements follow an historic Afghan election in which the Afghan people exercised their right to vote and ushered in the first peaceful democratic transfer of power in their nation’s history. The BSA reflects our continued commitment to support the new Afghan Unity Government, and we look forward to working with this new government to cement an enduring partnership that strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability, unity, and prosperity, and that contributes to our shared goal of defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates. This day was only possible because of the extraordinary service of our men and woman in uniform who continue to sacrifice so much in Afghanistan on behalf of our security and the Afghan people. The American people are eternally grateful for their efforts.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghan Voice Agency(AVA)_Monitoring, They said that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Western nations' agencies in Pakistan have not paid attention to their requests. "For the past three months, a large number of journalists and civil society women's rights activists have protested the delay in processing our immigration applications, but they have not provided us with any answers," said an Afghan refugee in Pakistan. "Afghans face challenges such as their visas expiring and not being extended, lack of jobs, and high rent," said another Afghan refugee in Pakistan. They ask the institutions supporting the asylum seekers and Western nations' agencies in Islamabad to address their problems. “We ask the United Nations and those countries who accept immigrants to listen to the voices of the Afghan people and pay attention to their cases,” said an Afghan refugee in Pakistan. “Officials said the slow progress in processing cases this year had been caused by the high number of rejected applications, as well as legal cases challenging UK refusals to provide a right of abode. So far, only 5,000 Afghans have been given permission to come to the UK, in addition to the 15,000 evacuated at the time of the fall of Kabul last year,” Guardian’s report reads.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

What political upheaval in Pakistan means for rest of the worldHere is what the upheaval, which many expect to lead to Khan's exit, means for countries closely involved in Pakistan. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan blocked a no-confidence vote he looked sure to lose on Sunday and advised the president to order fresh elections, fueling anger among the opposition and deepening the country’s political crisis. His actions have created huge uncertainty in Islamabad, with constitutional experts debating their legality and pondering whether Khan and his rivals can find a way forward. The nuclear-armed nation of more than 220 million people lies between Afghanistan to the west, China to the northeast and nuclear rival India to the east, making it of vital strategic importance. Since coming to power in 2018, Khan’s rhetoric has become more anti-American and he has expressed a desire to move closer to China and, recently, Russia - including talks with President Vladimir Putin on the day the invasion of Ukraine began. At the same time, US and Asian foreign policy experts said that Pakistan’s powerful military has traditionally controlled foreign and defence policy, thereby limiting the impact of political instability. Here is what the upheaval, which many expect to lead to Khan’s exit, means for countries closely involved in Pakistan: Ties between Pakistan’s military intelligence agency and the Islamist militant Taliban have loosened in recent years. Now the Taliban are back in power, and facing an economic and humanitarian crisis due to a lack of money and international isolation, Qatar is arguably their most important foreign partner. “We (the United States) don’t need Pakistan as a conduit to the Taliban. Qatar is definitely playing that role now,” said Lisa Curtis, director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security think-tank. Tensions have risen between the Taliban and Pakistan’s military, which has lost several soldiers in attacks close to their mutual border. Pakistan wants the Taliban to do more to crack down on extremist groups and worries they will spread violence into Pakistan. That has begun to happen already. Khan has been less critical of the Taliban over human rights than most foreign leaders. Khan has consistently emphasised China’s positive role in Pakistan and in the world at large. At the same time, the $60-billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which binds the neighbours together was actually conceptualised and launched under Pakistan’s two established political parties, both of which want Khan out of power. Opposition leader and potential successor Shehbaz Sharif struck deals with China directly as leader of the eastern province of Punjab, and his reputation for getting major infrastructure projects off the ground while avoiding political grandstanding could in fact be music to Beijing’s ears. The neighbours have fought three wars since independence in 1947, two of them over the disputed Muslim-majority territory of Kashmir. As with Afghanistan, it is Pakistan’s military that controls policy in the sensitive area, and tensions along the de facto border there are at their lowest level since 2021. But there have been no formal diplomatic talks between the rivals for years because of deep distrust over a range of issues including Khan’s extreme criticism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his handling of attacks on minority Muslims in India. Karan Thapar, an Indian political commentator who has closely followed India-Pakistan ties, said the Pakistani military could put pressure on a new civilian government in Islamabad to build on the successful ceasefire in Kashmir. On Saturday, Pakistan’s powerful army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa said his country was ready to move forward on Kashmir if India agrees. The Sharif political dynasty has been at the forefront of several dovish overtures towards India over the years. US-based South Asia experts said that Pakistan’s political crisis is unlikely to be a priority for President Joe Biden, who is grappling with the war in Ukraine, unless it led to mass unrest or rising tensions with India. “We have so many other fish to fry,” said Robin Raphel, a former assistant secretary of State for South Asia who is a senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank. With the Pakistani military maintaining its behind-the-scenes control of foreign and security policies, Khan’s political fate was not a major concern, according to some analysts. “Since it’s the military that calls the shots on the policies that the US really cares about, i.e. Afghanistan, India and nuclear weapons, internal Pakistani political developments are largely irrelevant for the US,” said Curtis, who served as former US President Donald Trump’s National Security Council senior director for South Asia. She added that Khan’s visit to Moscow had been a “disaster” in terms of US relations, and that a new government in Islamabad could at least help mend ties “to some degree”. Khan has blamed the United States for the current political crisis, saying that Washington wanted him removed because of the recent Moscow trip.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

By Afrasiab Khattak-The latest round of the so called Great Game which has started recently, like the previous ones played in 19th and 20th centuries, has brought new troubles for South Asia in general and for Afghan/Pashtuns in particular. The first round of the Great Game is supposed to have started between the British and Russian empires in 1830 when Britishers decided to connect Bukhara (now part of Uzbekistan) with British India by road. The Tzarist Russia that regarded Central Asia to be its natural zone of influence wasn’t amused at this strategic British initiative. The ensuing conflict between the two great empires of that era resulted in division of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was turned into a buffer zone to prevent a physical clash between the two big powers. The first and second Anglo-Afghan wars (1842 and 1878) erupted when Britishers tried to physically occupy Afghanistan. In 1917 the Bolshevik Revolution turned Russian empire into Soviet Union leading to a severe tussle between the communist block and the capitalist west which was first led by UK and later by US. In 1980 at the peak of Cold War the two blocks fought a devastating war in Afghanistan when the Soviet armed forces entered Afghanistan to support the leftist government in Kabul. Afghan/Pashtuns had to face death and destruction on a very large scale during the war which continued for almost a decade. In 1990s after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union and emergence of independent republics in Central Asia there was a hope for end of the Great Game. But as the recent developments have demonstrated that was not to be. The eastward expansion of NATO has resulted in the beginning of a new Cold War between Russia and the West in Europe. US has revived its policy of imposing sanctions against its rivals (like Russia and Iran) that used to be part of its strategy against socialist states. The rise of China as a great power which is skillfully filling the vacuum created by economic decline of the West is yet another important factor for the beginning of the new Great Game. Emerging powers united in BRICS are not only creating new international financial institutions to compete with IMF and the World Bank but they are also challenging the Western dominated old political order in the world. India, Japan and Australia for their own reasons and interests have teamed up with US. Like Middle East, East Europe and South China Sea, AfPak is also one of the potential flash points in the new Great Game. The strong and declared US opposition to the Chinese vision of BR (Belt & Road) in general and to CPEC in particular underlines the significance of AfPak in the new Great Game. But the problem is that the fires of religious extremism and militancy ignited by previous Great Game have yet to be overcome in the AfPak. Western colonial powers had the richest experience in using religious and ethnic cards for dividing and weakening the national liberation movements in Asia and Africa. Apart from creating military blocks like SEATO and CENTO, revival of Jihad was part of Anglo-American strategy to contain and defeat communism. The war in Afghanistan in 1980s vindicated the wisdom of western strategists. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the jihadists have turned to strong anti west rhetoric but the west is too experienced in using the communal and sectarian cards to be outsmarted by them. The scary thing is that the modern jihadist project has strong roots in AfPak. Pakistan has been successfully and effectively used by western powers as a bastion of Jihad in Afghanistan. Alqaida which was basically of Arab origin gravitated to AfPak and OBL took his last stand in Pakistan. A similar trend can be seen in the so called IS although the local version of the terrorist network doesn’t seem to be fully controlled from the Middle East and appears to be shaped mostly by local dynamics. Be that as it may the fact of the matter is that the jihadist project that flourished in Pakistan during General Zia led military dictatorship has persisted in Pakistan and has adopted different new and dangerous forms. It has radicalized both the state and the society. Despite rhetorical claims by successive governments the non registered and unreformed religious seminaries keep on producing brain washed young men attracted by jihadist industry. The strong backlash from religious extremists has defeated every effort at taking hate material out of curricula and reforming laws with great potential of misuse against religious minorities. Weaponized religious decrees used both by state and non state actors have unfortunately become part and parcel of political battles. But worst of all is Project Taliban that is the mother of religious militancy in AfPak. The statement by recently released north American hostages that they were kept for years in Pakistan by the Haqqani network speaks volumes about the bankruptcy of Pakistan’s Afghan policy. The fact that Taliban sanctuaries have survived Zarb-e-Azb, NAP and Radul Fassad exposes the hollow nature of the state policies against extremism and terrorism. As a consequence the sovereignty of the nuclear state is regularly violated by foreign terrorists as well as drones. But the game of religious militancy seems to have reached a dead end. The US led West that had midwifed the Jihad against communism has turned against it due to the growing loss of life of US troops in Afghanistan. Pakistani media tends to exaggerate reports about “Russian flirtation “with Taliban. The strong language used by the communique of the recent BRICS Summit against Taliban reveals the opposition of China and Russia to the outfit. One can fully understand their concerns as Taliban ultimately threaten Central Asia that includes Xinjiang. It’s time for AfPak to raise to the occasion and team up against extremism/terrorism. AfPak can turn the challenge into an opportunity by getting into the fast lane of economic development. AfPak has to put its act together before friends and foes act in unison to root out religious militancy. Map of the region was redrawn in the previous rounds of the Great Game. If lessons are not learnt history tends to repeat itself.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

A plane has arrived in the Netherlands with a 181 Afghans who had fled their war-torn country, the Dutch government said on July 13. The refugees on the flight from Pakistan were the latest group of Afghans to fly to safety following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan last year after the pullout of Western troops. Most of the group left Afghanistan by crossing the land border into Pakistan, where Dutch diplomats and the International Organization for Migration helped them reach the capital, Islamabad. Pakistani authorities allowed the Afghans, who did not have valid travel documents, into the South Asian nation so they could travel on to the Netherlands. The Netherlands has pledged to evacuate Afghans who assisted Dutch diplomats and military personnel before the Taliban seized power. The Dutch government said on July 13 that it hopes to evacuate “as many eligible people as possible” from Afghanistan who are able to make it to Pakistan. The Dutch Foreign Affairs Ministry said earlier this year that it had brought 1,801 Afghans to the Netherlands since late August 2021.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Each month there are incidents on the borders between Afghanistan and the neighbouring republics of Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan). Or if not on the borders, in one of the six provinces of northern Afghanistan. In the chaotic torrent of breaking news, often manipulated by one side or the other, the non-specialist has a hard time distinguishing between an attack by ISIS, some of whose fighters have retreated to Afghanistan since 2015, and an offensive by the Taliban, who have recruited a number of local Uzbeks or Tajiks in the North. However, today’s Taliban are no longer the same as those who took Kabul in 1996. In Tashkent, Dushanbe or Ashgabat, ISIS is the veritable bogeyman. The Afghan central government controls scarcely more than half the national territory, besides which Donald Trump announced at the end of 2018 a “major” withdrawal of the US troops on Afghan soil, seemingly half the expeditionary force of 14,000 without which President Ashraf Ghani’s government would tumble like a house of cards. In short, the situation has completely changed. “In 2014, the departure of the main contingent of US and foreign troops left a vacuum which was quickly filled by the Taliban. The result today is a deadlock, which prompted Ghani to make overtures to the Taliban a year ago”. It is thus that Georgi Asatryan, Afghanistan expert at the Russian State University for the Humanities, summarises the situation. ISIS, the number one danger And the situation is still evolving. In the last few weeks the “students of religion” stepped up their attacks against the government’s armed forces. There have been countless casualties. But beyond the Amu Darya river and the Garabil plateau, it is well-known that, “in general, only the Taliban are capable of defeating ISIS” Obaif Ali points out. He works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) in Kabul and goes on to explain that “while in 2015, when the first ISIS units showed up and proclaimed the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP), it was thought they were going to get the better of the Taliban. But little by little, this was seen not to be the case. In northern Afghanistan, ISIS had to make do with a couple of pockets of resistance, as in the provinces of Jowzjan, where they were defeated last July, Faryab and maybe Sar-e Pol. And this is because the Taliban have changed their organisation and their recruiting policies, opening their ranks to non-Pashtuns, to Uzbeks, Tajiks and ethnic Turkmens”. Some of these even hold positions of authority in the “parallel governments” created by the Taliban in the districts under their control. The situation is not always clear, even though the Taliban are focusing on the struggle inside Afghanistan and have no wish to extend hostilities to the former Soviet republics. In fact they have scarcely ever wished to do so. Yet border skirmishes are increasingly frequent, in particular with Turkmenistan since 2014, the year in which that country began to increase its military spending. However, holding as it does the planet’s fourth-largest reserves of natural gas, Turkmenistan has conducted over the years a real dialogue with the Taliban and has convinced most of them to open their territory to the TAPI pipeline (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India). However, the Taliban movement is not united, it includes fighters spoiling to knock heads with the Turkmen dictatorship, drug traffickers and foreign jihadists with their own agendas. The Russians regularly voice doubts about the country’s capacity, as well as that of Tadjikistan, to control its borders, but it is hard to tell whether this worry is genuine or feigned (allowing Moscow the better to deploy its pawns in the former Soviet republics). A new modus operandi “The countries of the region are mostly afraid of ideological spillover from ISIS. They see signs of this in Central Asia as in other parts of the world”, says Kamoliddin Rabbimov, an Uzbek expert on Islam, living in exile in France. On 29 July, for example, four Westerners on a cycling tour were run down and killed in a terrorist attack, responsibility for which was claimed the next day by ISIS. This mode of operation was new to the region. Despite the basic incompatibility between the Taliban movement and the governments of the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, the latter do their best to get along with the former. This is especially true in Uzbekistan where the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), founded in the 1990s, ultimately gave allegiance to ISIS after breaking with the Taliban who had hosted them in Afghanistan. “The IMU’s joining forces with ISIS got the Uzbek government very worried. It more or less hid the news from its people because the subject is so touchy,” a journalist in Tashkent, Yuri Tchernogaiev informed us. When Shavkat Mirziyoyev became President in 2014, Uzbekistan tried to reassert itself on the regional diplomatic scene by hosting a major international conference on the Afghan question. The Taliban were invited to attend. Some declined the invitation but were appreciative of Tashkent’s approach. “After the conference, Uzbekistan continued helping its Afghan neighbours,” the political scientist Anvar Nazirov tells us. There has been no lack of initiatives: connection to the electric grid, training young Afghans in a centre created especially in Termez, development of rail lines which have attenuated Uzbekistan’s isolation and opened routes to Bandar Abbas and Chabahar, two ports on the South coast of Iran, etc. “But Tashkent doesn’t have an overall strategy. And continues to rely on Abdul Rashid Dastum, the leader of the Uzbek community in Afghanistan. However, his power is dwindling, for many Uzbeks have joined up with the Taliban. Hence any dialogue with the movement takes place via its office in Qatar, opened in connection with the Doha peace talks sponsored by the UN and still very circumspect,” as Anvar Nazarov points out. Sher Muhammad, head of the Taliban office in Doha, went to Tashkent last summer. Everything seems to indicate that the Taliban are striving not to affect adversely the interests of Uzbekistan. And the opposite is also true. “President Mirziyoyev is implementing a policy of religious tolerance in Uzbekistan [after the ultra-repressive policies of his predecessor] and this is meant, among other reasons, as a message to the Taliban: Tashkent is no longer an enemy of religion.” In Rabbimov’s opinion, “this could have a significant impact on the dialogue with them.”

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

U.S., Afghan Security Pact Is Sweeping But Not Specific While the headlines proclaim that thanks to a new draft agreement the U.S. will continue to defend Afghanistan for a decade after the planned 2014 withdrawal of foreign combat forces from that country, the stories themselves make clear that many of the key details remain to be worked out: -- "In many respects the strategic partnership agreement is more symbolic than substantive. It does not lay out specific dollar amounts of aid or name programs that the Americans will support; the financing must be authorized and appropriated by Congress from year to year. "Nor does it lay out specifically what the American military and security presence will be after 2014 or what role it will play. A more detailed security agreement is to come later, perhaps in the next year, Western diplomats said, once it becomes clear how much support European nations will give to the Afghan security forces." -- "The document sidesteps some of the thorniest questions about the US military presence. ... Both sides agreed to set aside difficult questions about long-term US access to military bases and the status of any US forces that do stay on in Afghanistan. These issues will be negotiated in a separate deal some time before 2014." -- "The agreement as read out by Spanta is broad, addressing a mutual commitment to the stability of Afghanistan and to human rights. It does not address specific troop levels or the size or location of bases, though it does say that the U.S. has no plans to keep permanent military bases in Afghanistan." Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

A thousand words that people will use to describe Osman Kavala will be released on July 27 that marks 1,000 days in prison for the philanthropist, businessman and human rights activist. A collective and anonymous online effort, the project will depend on participants to use one word they would choose to describe Kavala. "We stand with Osman Kavala, whether we love and respect him as friends, or learned about his fate only later on. We protest his illegitimate, cruel and irrational detention on its 1000th day, by calling on you to come up with one single word that describes him best," said the organizers of the project.Kavala says Turkish gov't keeping him imprisoned in unlawful way with no evidence The most popular 1,000 words will be released on the milestone date, along with general information about the submissions. The submission form was offered in Turkish, English, Kurdish, Greek, Arabic and Armenian. The deadline for participation was set for July 23. Initially incarcerated for organizing the 2013 Gezi Protests, which were later dropped, Kavala is now imprisoned on charges related to organizing the 2016 failed coup attempt that's widely believed to have been masterminded by U.S.-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

US envoy doubts Afghan Taliban's desire for peace Kabul (AFP) – US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad raised doubts Thursday about the Taliban's desire to end the 17-year war, after the militants refused to meet with a Kabul-backed negotiating team. While he was certain the Afghan government wanted to stop the conflict, Khalilzad told Ariana News that he questioned whether the Taliban were "genuinely seeking peace". "We have to wait and see their forthcoming steps," Khalilzad said according to a translation of the interview provided by the US embassy in Kabul. Khalilzad's remarks to Afghan media following his latest face-to-face meeting with the Taliban echoed those expressed privately by some Western diplomats in the capital. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan also attended the talks in Abu Dhabi earlier this week, which the United Arab Emirates hailed as "positive for all parties concerned". But the Taliban would not meet with a 12-person Afghan delegation, Khalilzad said, describing the decision as "wrong". "If the Taliban are really seeking peace, they have to sit with the Afghan government ultimately to reach an agreement on the future political settlement in Afghanistan," the former US ambassador to Kabul said. The Taliban have long refused to talk directly to the Afghan government, which the group accuses of being a puppet of the United States. In a message released Tuesday the militants said they had held "preliminary talks" with Khalilzad on Monday. They also said they had held "extensive" meetings with officials from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, repeating demands for international forces to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. Those three countries were the only ones to recognise the Taliban's 1996-2001 regime. The meetings are the latest in a flurry of diplomatic efforts as Washington seeks a way out of the Afghan conflict, which began with the 2001 US-led invasion of the country that had harboured Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. While US President Donald Trump wanted to end the war, Khalilzad told Tolo News that Washington's "main objective" was to ensure Afghanistan did not pose a threat to the United States in the future. While ruling out a "pre-9/11 situation" in Afghanistan, Khalilzad said he had told the Taliban that "if the menace of terrorism is tackled, the United States is not looking for a permanent military presence" in the country. Khalilzad repeated his desire for a peace deal before the Afghan presidential election scheduled to be held in April, but added it was up to the "government and the Taliban". © 2018 AFP

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghanistan emerged as a prominent US foreign policy concern in 2001, when the US began a military operation against Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban regime that housed and backed it in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the 19 years afterwards, the US has incurred over 22,000 military losses (including around 2,400 fatalities) in Afghanistan, and Congress has committed approximately $144 billion for reconstruction and security forces there. Money and troops are two tangible assets that boost America’s influence on the ground. Since 2002, the United States has spent around $144 billion in Afghanistan on “relief and reconstruction,” the majority of which has gone toward the establishment of new security institutions and the maintenance of Afghan forces. The fate of Afghanistan, now a nation of more than 35 million people, has been linked with the American military presence during the last 20 years. The changes in Afghan society during that time, for better or worse, represent a duality of violence and privilege unleashed by America. After more than a year of talks, US and Taliban representatives signed a bilateral agreement on February 29, 2020, agreeing to two “interconnected” guarantees: the withdrawal of all US and international forces by May 2021, and unspecified Taliban action to prevent other groups (including Al Qaeda) from using Afghan territory to threaten the US and its allies. The United States and its international partners are withdrawing military soldiers from Afghanistan as part of a drawdown announced by President Biden on April 14, 2021, signaling the end of the nearly two-decade-long US military engagement in the country. In a February 2020 agreement with the Taliban, the Trump Administration agreed to withdraw military forces by May 2021 in exchange for the Taliban agreeing to prevent other groups, including Al Qaeda, from using Afghan soil to recruit, train, or fundraise for activities that threaten the US or its allies. According to United Nations sanctions monitors, US officials claim that the Taliban have not met their obligations, as violence between the Taliban and the Afghan government has risen and Taliban contacts with Al Qaeda remain in place. President Joe Biden made it plain in his presentation on Thursday that the future of Afghanistan and concerns about women’s and girls’ rights were not in the hands of the American military, but rather the responsibility of the existing administration. In his opinion, America’s objective was not to construct a nation in Afghanistan, and it was “the right and obligation of the Afghan people alone to decide their future and how they wish to manage their country.” He emphasized that, in the spirit of democracy, America has appropriately equipped the Afghan police and military, as well as the ramifications of the pandemic. Implication of U.S. Military Drawdown President Joe Biden‘s decision to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, after two decades of military presence in the region, has been met with uncertainty and questions about Afghanistan’s fate, as the country is incapacitated by the Covid-19 pandemic, and the continued presence of the Taliban and an American military pull out in the region at this juncture will lead to the closure of all the gains the country made in the last 15 years. When it comes to Afghanistan, center-left politicians and policymakers appear to be just marginally less pessimistic. Even inside his own party, the president has garnered remarkably little support. The majority of Washington policymakers have supported the Afghan war for the past two decades and will never think that a secure departure is possible. Reports of defections, surrenders, and defeats mounted when the United States began withdrawing its forces. According to Ignatius, “the Afghan army is crumbling in numerous regions” after the president’s statement. And, in the void, ethnic militias and criminal gangs are increasingly providing the sole security for a fearful populace.” Since the announcement of the pullout, scores of districts have been conquered; according to one analysis, the Taliban controls more districts than the government. Concerns about the safety of major provincial capitals have grown. The brutality of Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban cannot be resolved from outside. International participation will undoubtedly impact developments on the fringes in Afghanistan. Different countries are capable of shaping the government of Afghanistan, the Taliban and the power breakers of Afghanistan. Their measures, however, will increase violence rather than mitigate it, despite the fact that all regional players are against civil war, the Islamic Emirates or a Taliban-driven government alone. Since US and NATO soldiers “retrograde” before the schedule, it is obviously possible in just a few months to reverse the complexity of 20 years of coordinated support for the ANDSF. In the context of supply contracts, maintenance and operations, and notably for the Afghan air force, unforeseen regulatory and contracting barriers have caused gaps. The Afghan government is eager to locate additional suppliers of munitions, to establish free-of-charge fuel contracts and to recruit non-US maintenance workers for helicopters. There are at least four major scenarios for Afghanistan in the next three to five years. They include a significant preservation of the current political regime; a power-sharing agreement between the Taliban and important Afghan powerbrokers without significantly more killing; quick Taliban wins on the battlefield and in political dealmaking; and a protracted and splintered civil war. The later, more pessimistic alternatives are significantly more likely. The first is exceedingly unlikely: the retention of the existing political order, with competitive elections and constitutional commitments to human, minority, and women’s rights, i.e., the preservation of the existing Afghan constitution. The Taliban is simply too militarily powerful and politically astute for such a result. It seeks major social and political transformations. The uncertainties include the magnitude of the losses that the existing order will bear and the amount of bloodshed that will occur as a result of the procedure. The US has the greatest power with the Government of Afghanistan by financing the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF). Reduced funding would result in the ANDSF collapsing and the Taliban gaining power quickly. Washington also contributes to the civilian administration in Afghanistan, which will be the foundation for any future government. Aside from the immediate impacts on Afghan forces and capabilities, a full US military withdrawal might have second- or third-order effects on the fragile Afghan state, particularly in terms of local views of US intentions and the impact of US withdrawal on Afghan forces. Recalling the complex, multi-sided civil war of the 1990s, some Afghans have recommended that local villages (and, often, their associated militias) pursue more independent withdrawal. Some Afghan authorities have stated that continuing infighting among Afghan elites may be as dangerous to Afghanistan’s political system as the Taliban. Afghans from all political parties expressed worry over increased ethnic differences in society and perceived ethnic prejudice in government appointments. Political leaders know that they are more powerful when they work together to defeat the Taliban. However, deep suspicion and political selfishness have stymied progress on a proposed High State Council, which would broaden the government’s tent to include Abdullah Abdullah and former President Karzai, among other political leaders, in decisions on peace and security with national implications. So far, the political crisis has been viewed as an opportunity to settle old disagreements over power-sharing inside the Republic rather than unite to fight the Taliban’s existential danger. Outside of government, there is a widespread belief that the leadership is failing to recognize the gravity of the problem. The United States and its partners currently need to work for the Afghan political scene to be as unified as possible around the government and discourage the Taliban from being separately accommodated. International actors should help the Afghan government, such as current initiatives for the National Unity Council, and encourage dialogue between them. The more Afghan policy players unite with the Taliban, the less political concessions they have to make to the Taliban. The United States and other international actors can try to alter the Afghan government’s approach to negotiations by granting or denying visas and refuge to key government officials and potentially threatening to capture its unlawfully acquired financial assets outside Afghanistan. Naturally, this latter requires portfolios of accusable problems against government members. Shaping the Taliban’s reign would be the most strategic international engagement. Aside from counterterrorism, the first step would be to persuade the Taliban not to exclude ethnic minorities from the new rule. The international community should also work to decrease the scope of human rights violations, particularly those affecting women’s rights. Educating the Taliban on the standards and modalities of modern governance, such as donor aid requirements for social inclusion, women’s rights, and financial accountability, is another important shaping tool. Twenty years after intervening to oust the Taliban from power, the best we can do is limit the level of losses to rights already granted to Afghans while avoiding exacerbating and prolonging the country’s civil war. - Rashi Randev, “US withdrawal from Afghanistan and its implications for India”, Financial Express, July 10 2021 - Clayton Thomas,” Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy: In Brief”, Congressional Research Service, June 11, 2021 - Andrew Wilder & Scott Worden, “11 Things to Know: Afghanistan on the Eve of Withdrawal”, United States Institute of Peace, June 17, 2021 - Doug Bandow, “Withdrawal from Afghanistan Must Continue: Afghan Government’s Potential Collapse Is Another Reason to Leave”, CATO Institute, June 28, 2021 - Vanda Felbab-Brown, “Afghanistan after American withdrawal”, Brookings, June 16, 2021 The text of the agreement is available at https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-ForBringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf. Non-public annexes accompanied the agreement.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

In the 2015 and 2016 fighting seasons, the Taliban, as the largest and umbrella insurgency group in Afghanistan, showed that they are capable of conventional warfare and significant territory seizure. They have changed their fighting strategy from blowing up roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to targeting strategic government assets. They were able to capture the city of Kunduz in 2015 and 2016, and severely threaten the main cities of Helmand, Uruzgan and Farah (Ali, 2015; Aljazeera, 2017). The Taliban have been able to secure themselves some respect by steady advances in capturing territory and in attacking Afghanistan’s major cities. The intensity of fighting in Afghanistan gives critical indications about the current situation facing the nation. The continuous trend of incidents like the March 8, 2017 attack on the military hospital in Kabul, the April 27, 2017 attack on the 209 corps in Balkh, and the recent bomb blast on May 31, 2017 in the well-secured diplomatic quarter of Kabul may demoralize the Afghan security forces, increase discord among the people, and create more barriers to peace in the country (Nabikhel, 2017; 1tvnews, 2017; Aljazeera, 2017). Increase in similar incidents can also intensify ethnic tensions, further deteriorating the stability of the National Unity Government. All sides involved in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan need to understand that peace will not come by continuing the fight. Warring parties have regional and international support, which makes a conclusive military victory unlikely for either side. Additionally, the Afghan government, the Taliban, other countries in the region, and the international community—in particular the United States—will have to accept a compromise and make sacrifices in order for peace to be restored. With the exception of Pakistan (which controls the Taliban), the sides involved in the conflict have shown some orientation towards peace talks; however, they need to become more active in pursuing a peace deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Moscow talks in December 2016, February 2017, and April 2017, and the recent Kabul Process Conference in June 2017 aimed to bring stakeholders of the Afghan conflict around the same table in order to create momentum and to come to some common agreement on how to work together for a peaceful Afghanistan (Tolonews, 2016; Amiri, 2017; 1tvnews, 2017; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017). The remainder of this article will discuss what each party needs to consider for compromise. The Government of Afghanistan Striking a peace deal with the Taliban will come at a cost to the government and the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban, given their recent successes in the fight, will not surrender and easily accept the unilateral terms set by the government of Afghanistan. Instead the Afghan government needs to be prepared to share power with the Taliban. This is an important strategy for incentivizing the group to come to the negotiating table. This is the time for the government to hold critical internal discussions on exactly what a power-sharing agreement with the Taliban would look like. The Afghan government is limited by the mindset it has created in striking a peace deal with Hizb-e-Islami Afghanistan (HIA), in which HIA was not offered a power-sharing deal. The Taliban are a far greater threat to the government’s authority than the HIA used to be. The Taliban claims to control more than 50% of the country’s territory, and are able to penetrate areas very tightly secured by the government (Roggio, 2017). Thus, the deal offered to Taliban should be compelling enough for the Taliban to stop fighting and join the political process. Similarly, the Taliban will have to make compromises and radically change their behavior in order to become part of a peace process. Firstly, the Taliban will have to agree to some form of a ceasefire as an initial step for talks. As a third party, the United Nations could guarantee that the ceasefire will be mutual. It will not be considered as a weakness of the Taliban, but merely the confidence-building necessary for entering into peace talks. The Taliban will have to agree to the constitution of Afghanistan and commit to sustain and build upon the government’s achievements over the last sixteen years, specifically in areas such as education, human rights, and women’s rights. While the withdrawal of foreign troops is a priority condition that the Taliban may put on the table, they will have to show flexibility to negotiate a timeline. The United States and the international community need to assure that they will withdraw their forces, as they have promised, after a peace deal is signed between the Afghan government and the Taliban and terrorists are denied safe haven in the country (Dostyar, 2017). While the international community and the United States play a crucial role in the peace process, the roles of regional countries such as Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia are equally important. An unstable Afghanistan is a threat to the region, specifically to China and Russia, with their growing military and economic powers. Pakistan and Iran, although hesitant, have realized that instability in Afghanistan is a growing threat to their own national security. Thus, the cost of living without peace in Afghanistan is exponentially higher for those regional countries. Regional countries have to realize that there is a need for a regional consensus both on including the Taliban in the peace talks and on restoring peace by any means possible. China’s interest in assisting the peace process is of significant importance. China has the ability to take serious steps towards pressuring Pakistan, its close ally, to be fully transparent during the peace process and bring the Taliban to the talks. The same holds true for Russia. Although no concrete evidence is available, Russia should by no means support the Taliban with arms and finances and should use their relations with Pakistan and the Taliban instead to encourage cooperation in future peace talks. Pakistan’s role is of the utmost importance to the peace process. There seems to be a realization in Pakistan that the continuation of the insurgency is not in the country’s best interest. However, the government of Pakistan seems to also imply that any end to the insurgency and terms of a peace agreement should result in a good deal for Pakistan. Pakistan thinks it deserves this role because it has the ability to disrupt things if not heard. The attitude of Pakistan’s government is a significant barrier towards peace talks. The people of Afghanistan should be the ones concerned with the results of a peace process. No external stakeholder should impose terms that violate the sovereignty of the Afghan people. The ultimate decision makers ought to be the people of Afghanistan. In the same vein, the people know what price they have been paying and what level of sacrifice is necessary for restoring peace in their country. While the stakes have become high for all stakeholders, Pakistan must change its behavior for the good of its own country, the region, and the world at large. Although some of Pakistan’s fears, such as the growing influence of India in Afghanistan, are valid and need to be addressed, Pakistan must not dictate the terms of an Afghan peace deal and must allow the Taliban to participate independently in peace talks. Pakistan will also have to abandon its “strategic depth” vision of turning Afghanistan into a client state and accept Afghanistan’s absolute sovereignty (Institute for the Study of War). It is of great importance that the international community, particularly the United States supports an Afghan-owned and an Afghan-led peace process. The fact that they provide a great deal of funding to the Afghan government should not give them the right to dictate terms in the potential peace deal with the Taliban. Additionally, Afghanistan’s Western allies need to accept that democracy in Afghanistan will not mirror Jeffersonian democracy, and it will always have its context specific improvisations. The international community and the United States need to realize the fact that Afghanistan will have to follow its own path in restoring peace and interpreting democratic principles. Furthermore, the international community, particularly the United States, needs to exert pressure on Pakistan to ensure they allow some degree of independence to the Taliban during the potential talks. This can be done through releasing regular statements in support of an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace process; regular official calls upon Pakistan to close terrorist sanctuaries; isolating Pakistan; cutting military aides to Pakistan; and if need be, imposing targeted sanctions against Pakistani military, intelligence agencies, and specific individuals. In summary, it is in the benefit of all concerned parties in the Afghan conflict—internal and external—to advocate, cooperate, and actively contribute in making a peace deal possible between the Afghan government and the Taliban. In order to work on this goal, all concerned parties will need to make sacrifices and compromises. Now is the time for all stakeholders of the Afghan conflict to have internal, bilateral, and multilateral discussions and to prepare for a deal that will ensure a sustainable peace for the people of Afghanistan. 1tvnews.af. (2017, june 11). 1tvnews.af. Retrieved from 1tvnews.af: http://1tvnews.af/en/news/afghanistan/28693-afghanistan-to-attend-moscow... 1tvnews.af. (2017, 03 07). 1tvnews.af. Retrieved from 1tvnews.af: http://1tvnews.af/en/news/afghanistan/28276-kabul-hospital-attack--death... Ali, O. (2015 йил 16-october). Afghanistan-Analysts.org. Retrieved 2017 йил 9-June from Afghanistan-Analysts.org: https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/the-2015-insurgency-in-the-north-3-... Aljazeera.com. (2017, may 31). aljazeera.com. Retrieved from aljazeera.com: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/huge-blast-rocks-kabul-diplomatic-... Aljazeera.com. (2017, feb 23). www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2017/02/afghanistan-f... Amiri, S. S. (2017, Feb 15). tolonews.com. Retrieved from tolonews.com: http://www.tolonews.com/afghanistan/six-nation-talks-moscow-ponder-afgha... Dostyar, A. (2017). The Challenges and Opportunities of a Negotiated Settlement in Afghanistan. Strategic Analysis. doi:10.1080/09700161.2016.1249186 Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2017, june 6). Retrieved from mfa.gov.af: http://mfa.gov.af/en/page/the-kabul-process Nabikhel, F. (2017, April 25). afghanistantimes.af. Retrieved from afghanistantimes.af: http://afghanistantimes.af/defense-minister-army-chief-resigned-over-bal... Pakistan and Afghanistan. (n.d.). Institute for the Study of War. Retrieved June 11, 2017, from http://www.understandingwar. org/pakistan-and-afghanistan Roggio, B. (2017, March 28). longwarjournal.org. Retrieved from longwarjournal.org: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2017/03/afghan-taliban-lists-perc... ToloNews.com. (2016, december 30). tolonews.com. Retrieved from tolonews.com: http://www.tolonews.com/afghanistan/taliban-welcomes-moscow-talks

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

KOENIGSWINTER, Germany – The Northern Alliance, saying "there is security in place," rejected on Wednesday the United Nations' proposal for a security force for Afghanistan after the Taliban. The issue of security is one of two items to be decided at U.N.-sponsored talks among four Afghan factions meeting outside Bonn that will decide the war-torn country's political future. The other issue is an interim administration. "We don't feel a need for an outside force. There is security in place," Northern Alliance delegation leader Younus Qanooni told reporters — referring to the alliance's own forces. However, Qanooni said, if a more extensive security force is needed, it should be comprised of ethnic groups within Afghanistan. The United Nations had suggested the use of a broader, possibly international force, but said it would consider one made up of solely Afghans. Qanooni also dampened expectations building at the talks that the exiled former king would head an interim administration, saying he would have a role only if elected by a national council. "We don't believe in the role of a person and personalities. We believe in a system, for example, the loya jirga," Qanooni said, referring to a traditional national council. "If the people agree through a loya jirga that the king has a role, of course, no one can deny that." Delegates from other factions at the conference indicated earlier Wednesday that consensus was growing around the ex-king as head of a transitional administration. The issue of the transitional administration appeared to get off to a positive start Tuesday. The administration would run Afghanistan until a loya jirga can convene, possibly as early as March. Fatima Gailani, an adviser to one of the four groups negotiating at the talks, said Wednesday that the delegates appeared to nearing agreement that former King Mohammad Zaher Shah, 87, would run that administration. Zaher Shah has been living in exile in Rome since being overthrown in 1973. "The majority, everyone agrees that whatever procedure, he will be the head of it. How much power he will have, we have to discuss this," said Gailani, who is advising the delegation of exiles based in Peshawar, Pakistan. Deputy U.N. mediator envoy Francesc Vendrell said discussions about the king's role had been so far informal between the factions, and that while there are indications that most of the delegates in the four groups would like to see a role for the king, there was no decision yet. "The former king of Afghanistan enjoys widespread, I would say, almost unanimous respect among the Afghans,'' Vendrell said. ``That does not necessarily mean that everyone who is a powerholder in Afghanistan agrees to this role.'' U.S. envoy James Dobbins indicated on Tuesday that the four factions at the table accept Zaher Shah as a unifying figure. No faction favors a return of the monarchy, and Northern Alliance leader Burhanuddin Rabbani strongly opposes the king as head of state. Still, Dobbins said the northern alliance has indicated it would accept a symbolic role for the former king. The Cyprus delegation supports the ex-king as the head of the interim authority, delegate Abdul Qadir Amiryar said Wednesday. The four delegations were to meet Wednesday afternoon in a working session with the chief U.N. envoy to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, following a meeting earlier in the day between the two largest factions, the northern alliance and that of the exiled former Afghan king, U.N. spokesman Ahmad Fawzi said. Secluded in a luxury hotel near Bonn, Germany, the groups are under strong international pressure, not only from the United Nations but also from the United States and Afghanistan's neighbors, who have observers at the talks, to come up with a formula for an interim administration to replace Taliban rule and a security force. Vendrell indicated a measure of impatience with the pace of talks so far. Despite plans, the four groups have not yet met together since agreeing to the agenda on Tuesday. ``We have to decide whether we should not help them move along and overcome obstacles,'' he said, adding that the U.N. will probably ``encourage them, prod them.'' After heralding a unifying tone at the opening sessions, the United Nations toned down expectations on the talks' second day. ``These talks are not going to be easy. One grain of sand can stop the machine,'' Fawzi said. Despite the conflict over the security force, Qanooni called the meetings ``positive'' and said he expected them to be wrapped up in two or three days. Western nations hope to use the promise of billions in reconstruction aid as leverage to prod the Afghans toward a historic agreement on a broad-based government, a constitution with full civil rights for women and eventual elections. Following the transitional administration, tribal leaders convening the initial loya jirga would approve a transitional government to be in place for up to two years, leading to a second loya jirga, which would approve a constitution and set the stage for elections. Key to any accord is the northern alliance, a coalition of warlords that has gained control of much of Afghanistan since U.S. forces began bombing suspected terrorist targets in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Pakistan Playing Key Role in the US-Taliban Talks Despite hurdles, the fifth round of peace talks which started between the US negotiators and the Taliban in the Doha-the capital of Qatar on February 25, this year, is making progress gradually. Hinting that US forces could leave Afghanistan within five years under a Pentagon plan offered as part of a potential deal with the Taliban to end the nearly 18-year war, The New York Times reported on March 7, 2019, “Nearly 11 days after peace negotiations between the United States and the Taliban began with high hopes…it has become clear that any resolution to the 18-year war could be frustratingly slow. One of the most prominent issues thwarting progress is a disagreement over a fundamental question: What is terrorism, and who is a terrorist? The answer is so important because the two sides had already agreed in principle on a framework for two crucial issues: the withdrawal of American troops, and a commitment that Afghan soil would not again be used to launch terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies…American negotiators have insisted on specifying that Afghanistan not be used by “terrorist” groups, but the Taliban have resisted, saying there was no universal definition of terrorism”. However, the meetings between the interlocutors restarted over in Doha after a temporary halt to allow for internal consideration. Conflicting reports are coming about the progress of the dialogue, as these delicate talks are being conducted by both the sides with much care. In this regard, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said on March 4, 2019: “The current round of talks in Doha is advancing on a step-by-step basis. As the issue at hand is immensely crucial and delicate, it’s progression is taking place with much care and vigilance…the negotiations continue to focus primarily on a potential US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and a pact to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a safe haven for terrorists…no understanding has so far been reached about any agreement or document.” The latest meetings follow marathon negotiations in January, this year, which saw the US and the Taliban walk away with a draft framework on the two issues. America has insisted for a ceasefire and the opening of a dialogue between the Taliban and the Afghan government whom the former considered puppet regime of the US-led Western countries. However, the Taliban repeatedly rejected the demands, while the continuation of the talks followed a major attack on a joint US-Afghan base in southwestern Afghanistan’s Helmand province on March 1, this year with at least 23 Afghan security forces killed. Meanwhile, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on February 10, 2019 offered the Taliban for opening of an office in Afghanistan, but, the Taliban swiftly rejected the proposal. In September 2018, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo named veteran diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad as a newly-named State Department special envoy to Afghanistan. Khalilzad, Pompeo said, would be “full time focused on developing the opportunities to get the Afghans and the Taliban to come to reconciliation.” Since Khalilzad started his efforts to convince the Taliban to have direct talks with the US, Pakistan has been playing a key role in the US-Taliban talks, as Islamabad succeeded in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating Table. Zalmay Khalilzad who repeatedly visited Pakistan and met the civil and military leadership, including country’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Quershi admired Pakistan’s role in the US-Taliban peace dialogue. Although the US has not clearly released a statement regarding the status of the talks, yet it has admitted Pakistan’s central role in the negotiations between America and the Taliban leaders. In this connection, while giving briefing to the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 8, this year, the head of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) General Joseph Votel has lauded Pakistan’s role for maintaining peace and stability in the region. The General elaborated, “We have had some success with Pakistan, they’ve been more helpful in terms of bringing the Taliban to the [Peace negotiating] table…positive steps [Of Pakistan] to assist Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in support of Afghanistan reconciliation by facilitating talks with the Taliban. As we have requested [from] them, we have seen instances where they have taken action against the safe haven areas of the militants”. In a discourse in CBS programme-“Face the Nation” on February 3, 2019, US President Donald Trump has made it clear that he is determined to get out of “endless wars” in Afghanistan and Syria. President Trump stated: “I have been hitting very hard in Afghanistan and now we are negotiating with the Taliban…If you look at Afghanistan we are going in very soon we will be going into our 19th year spending $50 billion a year”. American President Trump’s determination and gesturing has already manifested in the diplomatic manuvours of Khalilzad, resulting in silver-lining for Afghan peace process in Doha. It is notable that the war in Afghanistan is America’s longest military intervention which has cost Washington nearly US $.1.7 trillion. Hence, positive shift in America’s policy towards Islamabad, seeking cooperation and re-establishing the association, have raised hopes regarding the probability of peace in the war-torn Afghanistan. It is mentionable that in the aftermath of Pulwama terror attack in the Indian Occupied Kashmir and escalation of tension between Pakistan and India, on February 28, this year, US President Trump hoped that Pakistan-India tension will de-escalate soon—the United States has been mediating between the two sides and trying to have them stop. Trump also acknowledged that Washington has improved her relations with Islamabad shortly. Particularly, Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State stated that he has spoken with the leaders of India and Pakistan and has urged them to avoid “any action that would escalate and greatly increase risk”. American State Department deputy spokesperson Robert Palladino said on March 5, 2019 that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo played an essential role in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. Nevertheless, President Donald Trump’s positive approach towards Islamabad endorsed the fact that America needs Pakistan’s help to reach an agreement with the Taliban as soon as possible. It is of particular attention that in his first interview to the NBC News on October 31, 2018, indicating NATO defeat in Afghanistan, the US General Austin Miller-NATO’s head of Resolute Support in Afghanistan had admitted by saying: “This is not going to be won militarily…This is going to a political solution…My assessment is…if you realize you can’t win militarily at some point…So you do not necessarily wait us out, but I think now is the time to start working through the political piece of this conflict.” Besides, in order to resolve the Afghan imbroglio, Russia is also facilitating approach towards the Taliban. In this context, a two days conference ended in Moscow on February 6, 2019. Former Afghan president Hamid Karzai who was among the most high profile attendees in Moscow, pointed out Kabul’s role in negotiations was something for it to resolve with the Taliban. He stated: “We understand that the government in Kabul needs to be part of these negotiations, we wish that they would have been here today”. During the meeting with Afghan politicians outside of government, senior Taliban leaders said that the US had agreed to draw down half of its 14,000 force in Afghanistan by April, a claim later denied by officials in Washington. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani criticised the gathering in Moscow, saying they amounted to “nothing more than a fantasy.” The moot in Moscow also played some positive role and probably compelled Washington to intensify efforts to reach an agreement with the Taliban in connection with Afghanistan. Besides, the role of China to create stability and peace in Afghanistan has also been very positive. It is analyzed that continued suicides by the US war veterans (Reportedly, 20 per day) also exerted pressure on President Trump to make urgent overtures vis-à-vis Pakistan and Taliban to implement the withdrawal strategy from Afghanistan and to improve relations with Islamabad. It is noteworthy that these related developments seem to have increased the agony of Indian deep state. Reportedly, an orchestrated Indian campaign to portray the talks with negative colours has already been launched, focusing on human rights issues and plight of Afghan Women With the covert assistance of Kabul, India has also activated her proxies, including “Pashtoon Tahfuz Movement (PTM) with new offensives to create disturbance and law and order situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan and that of Baluchistan. Apart from other similar incidents, recent terror attack on the DIG Police Loralai office in Balochistan, which killed nine people, including eight policemen on January 29, this year is an indicator. It worth-mentioning that security situation in Afghanistan is well beyond the control of Afghan security forces and the National Unity Government of that country. For all its failure, New Delhi and Kabul has been blaming Pakistan in accordance with their collective agenda which also includes Israel. In fact, since the occupation of Afghanistan by the US-led NATO forces, the country has become center of American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad which are in connivance to obtain the covert designs of the their countries and some Western countries against Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran. Under the cover of fighting terrorism, these foreign agencies which are also in collaboration with the Afghanistan’s intelligence agency National Directorate of Security (NDS) support the militants of ISIS and Afghanistan-based Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), including their linked outfits which have been conducting terror-assaults in Afghanistan and Pakistan as part of the secret strategy of the US-led countries—double game of America. These terrorist groups have also been destabilising Tibetan regions of China and Iranian Sistan-Baluchistan through subversive activities. Especially, India and Afghan government which want to prolong the stay of NATO forces in Afghanistan are also playing double game against America. New Delhi knows that after the withdrawal of the NATO forces, Taliban will eliminate the secret network of RAW, the NDS and Mossad in that lawless country. Therefore, these intelligence agencies are particularly using the terrorists of TTP and ISIS in wakening Afghanistan and Pakistan. Regarding Indian activities in Afghanistan the then NATO commander, Gen. McChrystal had pointed out: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan…is likely to exacerbate regional tensions.” Similarly, while taking note of Indian role in Afghanistan, US Republican Senator John McCain had reminded the Obama administration that encouraging India to take a more active role in Afghanistan, while simultaneously criticising Pakistan could be a recipe for disaster. It is also of particular attention that armed forces of Pakistan have successfully broken the backbone of the foreign-backed terrorists by the successful military operations Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad which have also been extended to other parts of the country, including Balochistan province. And Pakistan’s primarily intelligence agency, ISI has broken the network of these terrorist groups by capturing several militants, while thwarting a number of terror attempts. But, in the recent past and during the election-campaign of 2019, blasts in Balochistan and other regions of the country and failed attempt at the Chinese Consulate in Karachi showed that the US-led India, Afghanistan and Israel have again started acts of sabotage especially to weaken Pakistan and to damage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which is part of China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative or BRI. Washington and New Delhi have already opposed this project. Now, in backdrop of Afghan Taliban’s successes in maximizing the physical occupation of the country and recent political/diplomatic gains and the US-led prolonged war forced America to have a deal with the Taliban. As RAW and Mossad are in collaboration, therefore, it can be predicted that Afghanistan in particular and Pakistan in general will witness a surge in the activities of out-laws, terrorists and the Indian proxies. Some analysts opine that Afghan elite class, comprising of businessmen, civil-military bureaucracy and other rich people might opt to migrate from the country to adjacent areas in case of the Taliban-USA agreement. However, till that time, usual anti-Pak rhetoric will remain the common norm for most of the Afghan government officials, as evident from recent accusative outbursts from Afghan President Ashraf Ghani during a meeting with the US peace negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad. In any case, Pakistan needs to make arrangements for another exodus of Afghan migrants (Afghan elites) in the wake of success of Taliban-US peace talks. Resultant effect will be more economic burden on Pakistan and socio-economic effects on the local trade and commerce and influx of more Afghan refugees. It is imperative for Pakistan to keep following the evolving meetings in Afghanistan to counter the drastic aftermath on the region. Intense diplomatic activity, engaging Iran and other regional countries such as China, Russia and the Middle East will help in containing the negative spillover effects of the prospective US-Taliban deal and expected withdrawal of American troops. Nonetheless, now; President Trump has become lenient towards Pakistan. Instead of blaming Islamabad for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan and emphasizing to ‘do more’ against terrorism, he is asking for its assistance to ‘help more’ to pull out the US-led NATO forces from that war-torn country. Although Pakistan is playing a key role in the US-Taliban talks, yet after obtaining its selfish aims after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, America can again leave both Pakistan and Afghanistan to face the fallouts of the ongoing war, as it did after fulfilling its interests against the former Soviet Union. Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

6. Direction for Q1 to Q3: Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow: There are good reasons why the ‘Heart of Asia’ conference, part of a 14-nation process begun in 2011 to facilitate the development and security of Afghanistan, is so named. The obvious one is geographical, as Afghanistan lies at the junction of Central, South and East Asia, and also of the ancient trading routes from China and India to Europe. Today it is also a focal point for the region’s biggest challenge of terrorism; some of the far-reaching battles against al-Qaeda, Islamic State, etc. will be decided on the battlegrounds of Afghanistan. For India, putting terror centre stage at the Heart of Asia declaration in Amritsar was thus timely and necessary. In tandem, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Prime Minister Narendra Modi focussed their concerns on cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan, something even Pakistan’s traditional allies at the conference, including China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey, found difficult to counter. The case Mr. Ghani made was clear: progress and development in Afghanistan are meaningless and unsustainable without peace, and peace is contingent on Pakistan ending support to terror groups such the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba. He dared Pakistan to use its proposed development grant to Afghanistan to fight terror on its own soil. However, if every window for engagement with Pakistan is closed for India and Afghanistan, the two countries must closely consider what their next step will be. A lack of engagement may, in the short term, yield some pressure on Pakistan’s leadership to act, as it did briefly after the Pathankot attack. But in the long run it may deplete the two countries of their limited leverage as Pakistan’s neighbours. It may, for all the affirmations of mutual ties, also succeed in driving more obstacles to trade between India and Afghanistan. In the past year, the cornering of Pakistan by its South Asian neighbours has only yielded deeper ties for Islamabad with Beijing and Moscow, pushed Kabul closer to Central Asia, and moved New Delhi towards multilateral groupings to the east and south. As a result, the measures India and Afghanistan have envisaged in order to avoid Pakistan, such as land trade from the Chabahar port and a dedicated air corridor between Delhi and Kabul, may prove to be insufficient by the time they are put in place, even as Afghanistan is connected more closely via a rail line from China’s Yiwu and Tehran. The Heart of Asia process thus remains critical to forging cooperation to realize Afghanistan’s potential to be a vibrant Asian “hub”. Q1. What according to the author was the initial agenda for the ‘Heart of Asia’ conference?

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Roger Atwood in National Geographic: Omara Khan Massoudi knows how to keep a secret. Massoudi is director of the National Museum of Afghanistan in Kabul. Like the French citizens during World War II who hid works of art in the countryside to prevent them from falling into Nazi hands, Massoudi and a few trusted tahilwidars – key holders – secretly packed away Afghanistan’s ancient treasures when they saw their country descend into an earthly hell. First came the Soviet invasion in 1979, followed about ten years later by a furious civil war that reduced much of Kabul to ruins. As Afghan warlords battled for control of the city, fighters pillaged the national museum, selling the choicest artifacts on the black market and using museum records to kindle campfires. In 1994 the building was shelled, destroying its roof and top floor. The final assault came in 2001, when teams of hammer-wielding Taliban zealots came to smash works of art they deemed idolatrous. When they finished, more than 2,000 artifacts lay in smithereens. Throughout those dark years, Massoudi and a handful of other museum officials kept quiet about the hoard of museum artifacts – among them the crown jewels of Afghanistan, the famed Bactrian gold – that they had hidden in vaults under the presidential palace in 1988, as the Soviet occupation gave way to civil war. Researchers the world over despaired of ever seeing the objects again, thinking they’d been sold piecemeal into the illicit antiquities trade or destroyed by the Taliban in their final, iconoclastic frenzy.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

The United States’ government announced on August 2 that it will provide Afghan nationals working at US-based media outlets and NGOs an opportunity to resettle as refugees in America. The Biden administration designated Afghan nationals working at US-based media and the US-based NGOs as Priority 2 individuals under the US Refugee Admissions Programme. This provides them with an opportunity to resettle as refugees in the short term and with an opportunity to permanently resettle in the United States. According to the US state department’s announcement, spouses and children of these workers will also be eligible for the refugee programme. The programme will mean that thousands of Afghan nationals, who are prone to attacks from the Taliban due to their US connections, will get an opportunity to resettle as refugees in the United States as well. The announcement came amid increased targeted attacks on the media and journalists and killing of a journalist on the pretext of heightened fighting between Afghan National Security Forces and Taliban militants. According to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission’s report civilians, including government employees, journalists, activists, tribal elders, and religious figures have been targeted and killed at alarming rates following the commencement of the Taliban’s offensive in early May. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its Afghan affiliate, the Afghanistan Independent Journalists’ Association (AIJA) welcome the government’s decision and urge that this process start as soon as possible due to the tumultuous situation in Afghanistan. On July 21, the IFJ issued a statement welcoming the advocacy efforts of a group of US news and press freedom organisations for media workers in Afghanistan. The statement pointed out the heightened risk these workers face in Afghanistan’s volatile political climate. According to AIJA, “The AIJA leadership welcomes US action to protect journalists working with US media in Afghanistan. But this had to be done in coordination with organisations supporting Afghan journalists. Otherwise, it will have a detrimental effect on the fledgling media work and freedom of expression in Afghanistan, which will not be remedied any time soon.” On its part, the Afghanistan’s National Journalists Union said, “The ANJU doesn’t welcome the US government’s decision as we believe that Afghanistan needs these professionals to build its future.” “The IFJ is happy about the recent decision of the US government to resettle Afghan journalists working for US media outlets as refugees in the United States. The IFJ also urges the US government to move ahead with the implementation of this decision as soon as possible in order to protect media workers who are at risk,” IFJ observed. - A Tell report

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

[This is a roundup of news articles and other materials circulating on Turkey and reflects a wide variety of opinions. It does not reflect the views of the Turkey Page Editors or of Jadaliyya.] Turkey and the World Turkey-centric thinking and world politics. “As Turkey continues to shine in political, economic and military fields, the Western way of thinking is being replaced by Turkey-centric thinking,” writes Sabah columnist İhsan Aktaş, arguing that President Erdoğan “influences Turkish intellectuals to prioritize the values and interests of their own country.” Turkey gears up for tougher challenge in Libya as conflict heats up. “Despite cease-fire calls in Libya,” argues Metin Gürcan, “Turkey and its allies might be readying for a push toward the strategically important areas of Sirte and al-Jufra next month.” Who would pick up the phone in Washington during a Greek-Turkish crisis? Commenting on recent tensions between Ankara and Athens, Alexis Papachelas argues that, “if something serious occurs in the Aegean or south of Crete no one knows who to call in Washington or what response will be given from the other side of the Atlantic.” Israel is the greatest threat to global security. Yeni Şafak columnist Yasin Aktay comments on Israeli plans to annex part of the West Bank. “Back in time, the Pharaoh had also taken ‘security measures’ against Prophet Moses. The resentment accumulated had brought his end. Roles have changed today, but their fate is the same, and Israel is fast approaching its own end..” Claw operations key part of Turkey’s counterterrorism strategy. Talha Köse evaluates on his column on Daily Sabah two operations recently launched by Turkish armed forces against the Kurdistan Workers' Party. Claw Tiger and Claw Eagle “constitute some of the broadest cross-border military operations against PKK targets in northern Iraq in recent years.” This is how both ‘terror’ and ‘sea’ corridors were collapsed. İbrahim Karagül, editor-in-chief of the conservative newspaper Yeni Şafak, argues that recent events showed that “Turkey is a regional powerhouse. Every step it takes further boosts this power. The steps it has taken in the north of Syria and Iraq, in the Mediterranean, in North Africa and in the Aegean involve serious geopolitical intelligence. Its next steps will be no different.” Turkish First Lady’s Hermes bag and a pair of jeans. An Istanbul court recently heard the case of Evrensel writer Erdal İmrek, charged with insult over a column about Emine Erdoğan’s Hermes handbag. “To mention it is a no-no,” writes Mehveş Evin, referring to the first lady’s interest in high end products. Newspaper used to “advise not to touch upon the subject of Erdoğan family’s private affairs. It “would lead to a phone call from Ankara.” Populism in Turkish politics and the LGBTI community. “LGBTI people are still becoming the victims of honor killings in Turkey,” writes Nevşin Mengü. “Now that a narrative of hatred against LGBTI people is gaining traction in Turkish politics, harder days await members of the community.” The fight over the “restless conservative” in Turkish politics. “Five years back, their ears would have been sealed off to other politicians, as they were more or less content with the government. Nowadays,” argues Can Selçuki, “they are more susceptible to other political actors. In the future, the restless conservatives will be the centre-right battleground and will determine the outcome of the elections.” Turkey’s Great New Hope Is the Same Old News. “Babacan’s Democracy and Progress Party has sparked excitement among Turkey’s pollsters and pundits. That’s because he has presented himself as a force of wide-reaching change.” However, writes Selim Sazak, “there’s good reason to doubt Babacan’s promise as a national leader and his commitment to liberal democratic values.” Erdoğan’ın kadınları. AKP MP Özlem Zengin recently caused a stir by arguing that before the AKP came to power women had no voice in Turkey. Birgün columnist Ayşenur Arslan argues that, when referring to conservative women, “what she said is true, yet that story has come to an end,” and the party “now wants women to close themselves at home again.” Böyle habercilik olur mu? Commenting on the broader problem of femicides in Turkey, HaberTürk columnist Kübra Par argues that “leaving the political fights aside, women deputies should come together and take a common stance” on the issue. Onu da yakın. “Şehir University, of which Ahmet Davutoğlu was the founder, was closed. Why? Apparently because the university administration is close to Ahmet Davutoğlu,” writes HaberTürk columnist Fatih Altaylı. “Sanki Şehir Üniversitesi ortadan kaldırılıyormuş, sanki imha ediliyormuş gibi…”Karar columnist Elif Çakır comments on the decision to shut down İstanbul Şehir Üniversitesi, which according to many is politically motivated. “It is a fact that the whole country knows for what reason the university's doors were locked.” she argues. Koronaya şimdi mi yakalansak? HaberTürk columnist Muharrem Sarıkaya worries that the university entry exams, held despite COVID-19 and involving 2.5 million students, might bring an increase in Coronavirus cases. The authorities have issued a limited lockdown to try and halt the possible spread of the virus. Kabinede önemli değişiklikler geliyor. According to Hürriyet columnist Abdülkadir Selvi, major cabinet changes are expected for 10 July, on the anniversary of the inauguration of the executive presidential system in 2018. Changes might also come for the parliament’s specialized commissions. Kabine değişimi. “There are signals that there will be not only a cabinet shuffle, but a much more radical change,” writes Sabah columnist Mahmut Övür, according to whom the date chosen is the fourth anniversary of the 15 July failed coup d’état. Uzun aradan sonra HDP ziyareti… Commenting on the recent visit of a delegation from the ruling party to the pro-Kurdish HDP, which the AKP accuses of having ties with terrorists, Posta columnist Oral Çalışlar asks whether this is “the beginning of new initiatives.” Despite all the pressure, he writes, the HDP still attracts ten percent of national votes. “İsraf” diyerek geldi, Bellini’nin resmine 6.5 milyon bayıldı!Yeni Akit editor-in-chief Ali Karahasanoğlu criticized Istanbul mayor İmamoğlu. The mayor recently announced that the municipality has acquired a fifteenth-century portrait of Sultan Mehmed II for 770,000 British pounds. “Low-income families who cannot put bread to their table,” writes Karahasanoğlu, “will feel fed by looking at the portrait.” İmamoğlu şimdi kazandı. Sözcü columnist Soner Yalçın argues that, when discussing the recent acquisition by the municipality of Istanbul, the focus should not be on the price paid, but on the value of the portrait. The painting, he proposes, should be hanged at the Topkapı palace.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has arrived in the Afghan capital Kabul on Saturday for talks with President Hamid Karzai. High on the agenda will be efforts to revive Afghanistan’s peace process before Nato troops withdraw next year. Mr Karzai has said he wants Islamabad “to facilitate peace talks” with the Taliban, over whom – he says – Pakistan has a high degree of influence. It is believed the Taliban launch attacks from bases inside Pakistan. Elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service have also been accused of backing the Afghan Taliban, although Islamabad strongly denies this. “Both the leaders will discuss the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan,” Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said. The Taliban have refused direct contact with President Karzai or with the Afghan High Peace Council, dismissing them as puppets of Washington. The High Peace Council wants to open negotiations with Taliban insurgents who have fought US-led Nato and Afghan forces since 2001. President Karzai was also angered when the Taliban opened an office in Qatar in June, dealing another blow to reconciliation hopes. Mr Karzai visited Islamabad in August for talks with the Pakistani prime minister but Saturday’s one-day visit is Mr Sharif’s first to Kabul since he took office in May. The two leaders also met British Prime Minister David Cameron in London last month for the fourth of a series of trilateral meetings designed to foster regional stability. One of President Karzai’s main demands has been the release of high-profile Taliban prisoners held in Pakistan in the hope that this will help jump-start direct talks with insurgents. Pakistan said it recently released former Taliban military commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who is seen by Kabul as a key figure in bringing militants to the negotiating table. But Taliban sources have complained that Baradar is in effect still behind bars in Pakistan. Meanwhile, Washington and Kabul are still finalising a deal allowing US troops to remain in Afghanistan after 2014. Mr Karzai has so far refused to sign the pact, seeking further assurances from the US.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

The Taliban’s Afghan takeover might advance multipolar processes The Taliban’s rapid takeover of Afghanistan has resulted in a plethora of predictions about what might come next for the broader Central & South Asian region. Most of these forecasts are negative considering the group’s prior ties with international terrorist organisations and its previous history of ruling over the country with a very heavy hand. Moreover, the Taliban is still designated as a terrorist group by the international community, including Russia and China despite those two having developed pragmatic political ties with it throughout the course of the Afghan peace process. The challenges ahead for a Taliban-led Afghanistan are therefore very formidable and shouldn’t be downplayed, but the future might not be full of doom and gloom either. There’s close to no realistic chance that the Taliban will be overthrown again anytime soon so the world will have to learn to live with it once more. The international situation has drastically changed since the group was last in power and this time some members of the international community might cautiously welcome it into their ranks for reasons of simple pragmatism. This is conditional of course on the Taliban keeping its promises to cut ties with international terrorist organisations and to respect minorities and women’s rights. It remains to be seen how sincere it is in these respects, but Russian officials have expressed optimism about everything since the Taliban returned to power. This suggests that the group might have truly changed. If Russia’s and China’s high hopes about the Taliban’s new leadership style are met, then Afghanistan has a chance to function as the integral component of Central and South Asia’s multipolar future if those two eventually recognise the group as that country’s legitimate government. These Great Powers have very ambitious plans for turning Afghanistan into the fulcrum of their complementary regional integration visions. February’s agreement to build a Pakistan-Afghanistan-Uzbekistan (PAKAFUZ) railway will enable Russia to reach the Indian Ocean like it’s wanted to do for centuries while China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) can transit through Tajikistan and Afghanistan via a ‘Persian Corridor’ to reach Beijing’s new strategic partners in Iran. These crisscrossing connectivity projects intersect in Taliban-led Afghanistan, which is another reason why it’s so important for both of them to retain pragmatic ties with that country’s de facto leaders. They also want the Taliban to fight against international terrorist groups like ISIS-K, which is in everyone’s security interests and would greatly assist the group’s global rehabilitation if it presents itself as the world’s vanguard force against one of the most infamous organisations in history. Only by ruling Afghanistan in a just manner which ensures its domestic stability in parallel with rooting out all regional terrorist threats can the Taliban earn Russia’s and China’s trust enough to play this integral role in the broader region’s multipolar future. Although the Taliban of course aspires for greater recognition than from just those two Great Powers, Russia and China are influential enough to inspire their regional partners to follow their lead with time. Even if only they, Pakistan, Iran, the Central Asian Republics, and perhaps Turkey too, recognise the group as Afghanistan’s legitimate government, that would still be sufficient for starting Afghanistan’s multipolar reconstruction process. The estimated USD3 trillion of rare earth minerals under its soil can be extracted by some of those countries’ companies after they develop the appropriate infrastructure for doing so, with the proceeds possibly being redistributed throughout society in order to help average Afghans if the Taliban has the will to do so. You must be logged in to view this content.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Every serious person knows that President Joe Biden is responsible for the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, says Ambassador Robert C. O’Brien, former National Security Adviser to President Trump. For days, Biden has tried to pin the unfurling Afghanistan crisis on his predecessor. But O’Brien insisted the Republican administration would’ve handled the withdrawal differently. “The first and obvious question, would this have happened had President Trump been reelected?” host Hugh Hewitt asked O’Brien on Monday’s “Hugh Hewitt Show.” “No, look, it would have never happened in this manner. I mean, the President was committed to drawing down troops from Afghanistan, but when he left office, there were 2,500 American troops, importantly, 5,000 NATO troops. Kabul was free,” O’Brien said. “Look, domestically on both sides of the aisle, everyone who is honest who will talk to you knows that President Trump would have never presided over a situation like this. That goes for our foreign friends and our foes alike. President Trump was all about peace through strength and America first,” he added. “And I don’t think anyone in an honest moment, whatever they’re saying now, believes that this could have happened under President Trump and the strength that he projected. And so you know, it’s a sad situation for America.” In addition to noting that Trump promised he “would not preside over a Saigon-style retreat from Afghanistan,” O’Brien said “all the civilians would have had to have been evacuated” before withdrawing the military. “He was not interested in at all seeing our foes driving around in American-made Humvees or vehicles or getting access to American weapons. So you know, it was critical that he wanted all the equipment retrograded back to America before we left,” O’Brien added. “And then of course, with the Taliban, any attacks on the United States which they have engaged in with our troops, failure to negotiate in good faith with the government of Afghanistan, those would have all been conditions that would have been, you know, slowed down or stopped withdrawal. So this wouldn’t have happened under [Trump].” O’Brien then called on Americans to “pray for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and the leadership of this country” and implored the current administration to “evacuate our friends, the interpreters and other enablers, locally-employed staff of the embassy.” “We’ve got to focus right now on making this evacuation work, as bad as things look,” O’Brien said.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said, on Monday, that Pakistan will keep on playing a constructive role to ensure the success of Intra-Afghan peace talks. He was addressing an opening session of the Pak-Afghan Bilateral Dialogue, where he said that Pakistan is now recognized as a part of the solution and not the problems at the global level. He reiterated Pakistan’s longstanding stance that there is no military solution to the Afghan issue. Moreover, he also added that a stable and peaceful Afghanistan is beneficial for Pakistan and the region as a whole. The foreign minister said Pakistan has always wanted to resolve its mutual issues with Afghanistan. Stressing upon the rule of geo-economics, he said, stability was not attainable without peace in the region and peace was indispensable to promote trade and investment, he added. Read Also | Minal Khan jumps on the SnackVideo bandwagon FM Qureshi said Pakistan was always committed to aiding the Afghans in rebuilding their country and was working with the international community to sincerely ensure peace. Qureshi termed the conflict of Afghanistan “political in nature” and said that Pakistan was also advocating a political solution via comprehensive dialogue. He said reconciliation and violence could not go side by side and stressed moving towards a ceasefire by curbing the incidents of violence. He expressed delight that the ambassador of Afghanistan identified the usefulness of the APP APS. He recalled his interaction with members of the United States Congress in the emergency session of the General Assembly in New York. He termed it as ‘a paradigm shift’ compared to the past. Qureshi said the biggest barrier to peace was ‘the lack of trust,’ adding that Pakistan and Afghanistan should ‘move beyond their past’. He said peace in Afghanistan would benefit Pakistan from projects of regional connectivity including the TAPI gas pipeline and CASA-1000. He said Pakistan won’t interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

BACKGROUND: President Ghani’s visit to Delhi on April 28-29 was his first to India since he was sworn in as Afghanistan’s president in late September. While it took him seven months to visit India, he visited Pakistan twice in the same period. Pakistan was the destination of his second state visit after assuming the presidency, the first being China. Some analysts in Delhi have interpreted this as signaling India’s falling priority on Afghanistan’s foreign policy radar, and have described Ghani as pro-Pakistan. Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, was seen as pro-India. He was often openly hostile to Pakistan, even accusing its intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), of masterminding terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. Ghani’s approach to Pakistan has been conciliatory so far. It is believed that his overtures are aimed at winning Pakistan’s support for Afghan reconciliation. He has sent Afghan army officials for training in Pakistan’s military academies and responded positively to Islamabad’s request for military operations against Pakistan Taliban hideouts in eastern Afghanistan. His government has arrested several suspected Pakistan Taliban fighters on Pakistan’s request and has allowed ISI officials to interrogate terrorists in Afghan jails. Ghani is hoping that Pakistan will respond to his overtures by using its influence over the Afghan Taliban to nudge it to the negotiation table. He has roped in China too to facilitate the talks and to participate in Afghanistan’s economic development. The influence of Pakistan and China in Afghanistan has grown remarkably in recent months. India’s profile in Afghanistan grew in the wake of the Taliban’s ouster in 2001, through major contributions to Afghanistan’s reconstruction. India has funded infrastructure, health, education and capacity-building projects to the tune of US$ 2 billion, making it the sixth largest donor in the war-torn country. In 2011, the two countries signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement. However, in recent months India appears to be losing ground in Afghanistan, raising the question whether Ghani is tilting towards Pakistan and China. In November, he shelved a request made by Karzai for military aid from India, a decision ostensibly made under pressure from Pakistan. Is Ghani’s warming to Pakistan and China putting the close Delhi-Kabul relationship built during Karzai’s presidency in jeopardy? IMPLICATIONS: Ghani’s visit to India may not have produced grand outcomes – no agreements were signed – but it signaled that his wooing of Pakistan notwithstanding, Kabul and Delhi remain on the same page on economic issues. The two countries share a vision for regional trade. During the visit, India and Afghanistan decided to sign within the next three months an extradition treaty, a mutual legal assistance treaty, an agreement on the transfer of sentenced persons, a bilateral motor vehicles treaty and a consular pact for diplomatic passport holders. The proposed pacts may not be as headline-grabbing as lucrative defense deals. But they are important. Take the proposed motor vehicles agreement, for instance, which aims at facilitating the entry of Afghan and Indian vehicles into each other’s territory. If it materializes, it has the potential to transform regional trade; goods from Kolkata could travel overland to Kabul and beyond to Central Asia and vice versa. South Asia’s trade with Central Asia could grow manifold. However, the India-Afghanistan motor vehicles treaty seems a non-starter. It can work only if Pakistan is also a part of the agreement, as it is the shortest overland route between India and Afghanistan. But Islamabad is reluctant. At the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) summit at Kathmandu in November last year, it was the only member-state to hold out on signing the SAARC Motor Vehicles Agreement. At present, Pakistan permits Afghan trucks carrying goods for India only up to its last checkpoint at Wagah near the India-Pakistan border, and not to the Indian checkpoint at Attari, which is situated less than a kilometer away. During Ghani’s visit, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that India is ready to receive Afghan trucks at Attari. Will Pakistan respond positively? Ghani has made his impatience, even anger, with Pakistan’s obstructionist attitude to regional trade quite clear. In an interview to The Hindu he called on Islamabad to allow direct trade with India via the Wagah border, warning that if it did not do so, his government would not “provide equal transit access to Central Asia [for Pakistani trucks].” It is a violation of “sovereign equality”, he said, drawing attention to the “national treatment” clause in the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit and Trade Agreement, 2011, which provides both countries with equal access up to each other’s national borders. India need not worry over Ghani’s outreach to Pakistan. Reconciliation in Afghanistan is important. An end to the turbulence there is essential not just for the Afghan people but to the entire region. Stability there is essential for the security of India’s investments in Afghanistan, for the realization of its trade and other ambitions in Afghanistan as well as Central Asia. If China and Pakistan can help bring the Taliban to agree to a negotiated settlement of the conflict, India should welcome it as it could pave the way for India playing a larger role in Central Asia. It is true that Ghani was late in coming to India but if he was busy visiting China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the U.S. and the UK – all countries whose backing he needs to push Islamabad to mend its ways – India should not be unduly anxious. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than feeling insecure with the recent Kabul-Islamabad rapprochement, India should wish Ghani well in his outreach to Pakistan. The Afghan president is testing the waters on how to go about the peace process and Delhi must be patient. His visit to India should have allayed anxieties in Delhi that the Kabul-Delhi bond has enough substance to hold it together. Meanwhile, India must press ahead with its plans for trade with Afghanistan via the Iranian port of Chabahar. It has dragged its feet on this option for far too long. Accelerating this Afghan-Iran-India venture will open up the full potential of regional and inter-regional trade. Drawing China into this project will, in fact, put pressure on Pakistan to fix its short-sighted vision. Image Attribution: Scott Sutherland & Wikimedia Commons

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Wednesday, 23 December As New Zealanders prepare for Christmas and enjoy food grown using fertilisers from Western Sahara, we hope they spare a thought for the Sahara people who continue to face serious challenges in occupied areas and refugee camps. On December 10, President Trump announced that the United States in return for Morocco’s establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, would recognise its claim to Western Sahara, a Territory considered by the UN as Africa’s last colony whose people are entitled to the right to self-determination. Trump’s decision is entirely contrary to what the International Court of Justice concluded in 1975, that Morocco did not have any claim to territorial rights in Western Sahara. Much of U.S. diplomacy in Africa and standing in the world has been damaged by the announcement on December 10 as Trump upended a longstanding bipartisan US policy on Western Sahara that has stood the test of time. Commenting on Trump’s announcement, former Secretary of State James Baker who served as the UN Secretary General Personal Envoy for Western Sahara said “it would appear that the United States of America, which was founded first and foremost on the principle of self-determination, has walked away from that principle regarding the people of Western Sahara. This is very regrettable.” Another former UN envoy for Western Sahara, Christophe Ross, described Trump’s decision as “foolish and ill-considered decision flies in the face of the US commitment to the principles of the non-acquisition of territory by force and the right of peoples to self-determination.” John Bolton, former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and who worked with the UN mission in Western Sahara said that “Trump was wrong to abandon thirty years of US policy on Western Sahara just to score a fast foreign policy victory. An Israel-Morocco deal was possible without abandoning US commitment to Sahrawi referendum on WS future, as Sen. Jim Inhofe rightly said.” Responses to Trump’s surprising and controversial announcement have been quick to come from different parts of the world. The UN, the African Union, the European Union and many other nations have all reaffirmed that their positions on Western Sahara remain unchanged and that they support the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination. New Zealand Minister for Foreign Affairs, Nanaia Mahuta, reaffirmed on Tuesday in a statement posted on her Twitter account that “New Zealand’s long-standing position on Western Sahara is unchanged and we remain strongly supportive of the United Nations peace process.” New Zealand could play a positive role in encouraging the UN and the two parties involved to find a a just and lasting solution to the decolonisation process in Western Sahara. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is well placed to play such a role given given her firsthand knowledge of the issue and the respect and credibility she enjoys on the international arena. A solution to the question of Western Sahara is in the interest of New Zealand as it faces constant criticism for its controversial role in importing phosphates from the Non-Self-Governing Territory. Many around the world have realised that Trump’s announcement sets a dangerous precedent and gives the green light for any despot or expansionist regime to grab the territory of another country by force. This would have a negative impact on international order and stability in a world that is already facing many trouble spots. Trump’s decision seriously damages the credibility and reputation of the United States as a permanent member of the UN Security Council entrusted with maintenance of international peace and security. The US is the pen-holder of resolutions on Western Sahara and would draft the resolutions and supposed to seek consensus before their adoption by the Council. Trump’s announcement comes at a time when the Northwest Africa region is facing serious challenges following the resumption of hostilities in Western Sahara last month. Trump’s decision is likely to increase further tension in the region. On November 13 Morocco moved its army out of the heavily garrisoned sand ‘berm’ that partitions Western Sahara, into a UN-patrolled buffer strip. Morocco’s military operation objective was to chase out Saharawi civilians protesting peacefully to call for a closing of an illegal frontier crossing at Guerguerat and demand a UN-promised referendum which had been promised to the Saharawi people almost 30 years ago after a long war for independence that begun against Spain and continued against Morocco after Spain’s withdrawal in 1975. With last month’s armed incursion into the UN-monitored buffer strip at Guerguerat in the southern part of Western Sahara, a fragile ceasefire ended, one that had held since 1991. Morocco’s violation of the ceasefire at Guerguerat is the latest of many violations met by inaction from the international community. Such passivity reinforces a message to the people of Western Sahara that they’ve been ignored and seemingly abandoned. The regime managed to get away with such serious violations thanks to France which uses a veto power in the UN Security Council to protect what it still considers as its chasse gardée. As we face the prospect of a long war, we still hope for a just and lasting peace. As a peace-loving people, we desire no war, but we have been left with no alternative but to return to the legitimate struggle to achieve our inalienable rights and freedom. The people of Western Sahara have determined afresh to take their destiny into their own hands while offering, as they always have, to engage in meaningful negotiations of a just and lasting peace. What has become a return to armed struggle in Western Sahara should predictably pressure Morocco to cooperate with the UN and achieve real peace. That is because the missing link in the past three decades has been the absence of tangible pressure on Morocco, until now allowed to thwart the UN Settlement Plan. Another means of pressure, one shown to have contributed to the end of apartheid in South Africa, will be to impose sanctions against the regime in Rabat. Here, it can be recalled Morocco’s responsibility is for what is an act of aggression, invading and occupying Western Sahara and otherwise violating UN resolutions and settled international law. We’re hopeful that the U.S. president-elect Joe Biden, a man of integrity, familiar with the legacy of colonialism in Africa, and well-versed in foreign policy, will have a positive influence on self-determination in Western Sahara and reverse Trump’s erroneous decision. A just and lasting solution – one in conformance with long-established human rights and international law – in Africa’s last colony will reliably contribute to stability in northwest Africa. Polisario (Western Sahara) Representative to Australia and New Zealand

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

A story run by the New York Times last Sunday, claiming that the U.S. government had spent a huge amount of money on secretly aiding Pakistan in securing its nuclear weapons, were "distorted and exaggerated," the Pakistani government has said in a statement. "The story titled 'U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms' gives a distorted and exaggerated picture of our efforts to learn from best practices of other countries with regard to their nuclear safety and export controls," a foreign ministry spokesman said. The story published by the U.S. newspaper claimed the U.S. government has, over the past six years, spent almost 100 million U.S. dollars on a highly classified program to help Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons. "The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security-training center in Pakistan," the report said. The foreign ministry spokesman said Monday it was in everyone's interest to ensure that the best possible procedures are in place in nuclear security. "Pakistan and the United States have been engaged in mutually agreeable cooperation which is essentially in the nature of rudimentary training and ideas to strength security and surveillance," he said, adding that Pakistan, as a responsible nuclear power, has always attached great significance to the security of its strategic assets. The assets "are completely safe and secure under multi-layered security and Command and Control structures that are fully indigenous," he said. Pakistan authorities, during briefings to the media and the parliament, had been talking about this matter and there was nothing sensational about the cooperation, as the NYT story appeared to imply, he said.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

An interesting episode unfolded Dec. 13 in the Turkish parliament as Osman Baydemir, a deputy from the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) representing the province of Sanliurfa, took the rostrum and began talking about his and his party’s “mission.” “I, as a Kurd, as a representative of Kurdistan,” he said at one point, “I believe I have a role, a mission to make this roof the common roof of the Turk and Kurd.” Baydemir could not continue much beyond that, as Deputy Speaker Aysenur Bahcekapili from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) asked Baydemir to stop talking, muted his microphone, and then asked him, “Where is Kurdistan? There is no such region in Turkey.” Baydemir responded, “It is right here,” thumping the left side of his chest, over his heart. Most of the deputies were not impressed with his response. A quick vote was taken, resulting in Baydemir being found guilty by the AKP and its new ally, the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), of using the word “Kurdistan.” As punishment, Baydemir was banned from two parliamentary sessions and had his monthly salary cut by two-thirds. In defense of Baydemir, other HDP deputies reminded those present about someone else who had uttered the word “Kurdistan” from the very same pulpit: Turkey’s current president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Back in 2013, Erdogan had slammed the two opposition parties, the People’s Republican Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), both of which were opposed to Erdogan’s “Kurdish opening.” Erdogan had said, “MHP and CHP [parliament members] should read the first official records of the parliament. They will see the word ‘Kurdistan’ in those records. When they look into the past, they will see that the eastern and southeastern [regions] are the Kurdistan region of the Ottoman [Empire].” So how is it that the concept of Kurdistan, which Erdogan defended four years ago in reference to the Ottoman past, is now punishable by Erdogan’s own party? The simple answer is that the Turkey of 2013 and the Turkey of 2017 are very different places. In 2013, the AKP still imagined itself as a Reformist party questioning the century-old political taboos of the republic, including the hypersensitive “Kurdish question.” That is why the party that represents the most uncompromising version of Turkish nationalism, the MHP, was up-in-arms over the AKP, constantly accusing it of “high treason.” The Gulenists, also key actors at the time, likewise opposed certain aspects of Erdogan’s Kurdish opening, such as the “peace process” with the armed and outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). In today’s Turkey, however, the reforms and openings of the AKP have long passed. The party today only speaks in the most ominous language of “old Turkey,” which is all about deadly threats, pernicious enemies, evil traitors and the ruthless power of the state. The peace process with the PKK collapsed in summer 2015, with the AKP embracing the hawkish security policies that it had formerly opposed. As a result, the MHP became the AKP’s new best friend. In fact, the parties now co-exist as if two pillars of an Islamo-nationalist regime spearheaded by Erdogan. Such dramatic swings in politics are a bit bizarre, but they are not unusual. Yet there is something more to Turkey’s swings: When politics in Turkey go in a certain direction, everything else follows. The media follows. Academia follows. The very concept of “truth” follows. Here is the truth about “Kurdistan,” at least in my view: An independent country of Kurdistan has never existed, but Kurdistan has always existed as a cultural region. The Ottomans, as Erdogan rightly noted, never shied away from using the term “Kurdistan” to define their predominantly Kurdish provinces. They even created an administrative unit called Kurdistan in 1847, which was renamed Diyarbakir in 1867. So, today, can a parliamentarian from Turkey’s predominantly Kurdish provinces claim to be “from Kurdistan”? If he or she is referring to a historical-cultural region, yes. By doing so, he or she would also be echoing the political movements, as well as terrorist groups like the PKK, that aim to create an “independent Kurdistan” by carving large chunks of land from Turkey. Most Turks are rightly concerned about this, as would anyone facing a violent “separatist” movement. The solution, however, is not to deny historical terms or ban their mere utterance, but to have an open, honest dialogue about the political meaning we impart on them today. Yet such a dialogue is either impossible or ineffective in Turkey, precisely because of the aforementioned problem of politics. In Turkey, politics — and sometimes a single political leader — defines everything. In the current climate, Erdogan defines everything, and all else follows: the entire AKP, the whole bureaucracy, pro-Erdogan media, pro-Erdogan “intellectuals,” university administrations, and countless numbers of “NGOs” that are in fact under the government’s thumb. If Erdogan initiates a “Kurdish opening,” then “Kurdistan” exists for them. If the “Kurdish opening” closes, “Kurdistan” ceases to exist for them. The same relativism applies in every other arena. The entire world gets defined and redefined according to the machinations of Turkey’s leader. Thus, the European Union can go from being a beacon of democracy that Turkey should emulate to being a “crusader alliance” that Turks should be alarmed about. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can go from best friend to evil dictator and then back to being not so bad again. Ahmet Davutoglu can be hailed as the great “teacher” who will lead the AKP for the next decade and then be dismissed as someone compromised by the Western cabals conspiring against Erdogan. Yesterday’s heroes can be today’s traitors, and today’s heroes can be gone tomorrow. There is only one constant “truth” — the will of the leader. All else is contingent. One could call the prevailing situation Turkey’s “post-truth moment.” In it, truth does exist, but only as defined by power. Turkey will not make much progress, however, unless it reverses the nature of this relationship: determining power according to the truth, instead of determining the truth according to power.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Sweden’s Turkey stance to determine government vote of confidence The Swedish parliament will hold a vote of confidence on June 7 for Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson’s government following Friday’s motion submitted by the Swedish Democrats. In the evenly divided parliament, the tie-breaking vote will be cast by Kurdish-Swedish deputy Amina Kakabaveh, Fox News reported on Friday. Kakabaveh played a crucial role in Andersson taking office in November, agreeing to support the Social Democratic politician following a promise to expand cooperation with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Unity Party (PYD), the political party in charge of north and east Syria. The former Kurdish peshmerga fighter has indicated she may support the no confidence vote if the government does not uphold its end of their agreement. Turkey considers the PYD to be affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), with which it has been involved in a bloody conflict for four decades. While PKK is designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey and the European Union, only Ankara recognises PYD as one. Sweden may take action against the PYD, despite previous relations with the party, as a stricter crackdown on terrorism is one of the demands Turkey has put forth in order to not use its authority to veto the country’s bid to join NATO. Finland and Sweden submitted applications to join NATO after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. NATO’s rules require approval from all current members for any expansion. Kakabaveh has had issues with Turkey since her time in the Iranian Kurdish Komala group, where she was a guerrilla fighter. She spent a year in Turkey on the run, before settling in Sweden as a quota refugee in 1992. Hakkı Emre Yunt, Turkey’s ambassador to Sweden, accused Kakabaveh of having ties to the PKK last week, and called for her extradition to Turkey, as reported by Swedish news website The Local. The deputy has never held Turkish citizenship. “Although I have never been in an open fight against Turkey, I have been in a democratic fight for human rights and women’s rights,” she told Swedish daily Dagbladet.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Panic gripped Afghanistan when the Taliban took over it and declared war over earlier this month. The Taliban issued statements aimed at calming the fear in Kabul and other cities. Streets that were once bustling with life fell silent. Few women dare to leave their homes. Fighters patrol the neighborhoods. Welcome to the new Afghanistan, a country now ruled by fear of the Taliban. The militants, who ruled from 1996 to 2001, routed the US-backed government’s forces easily. President Ashraf Ghani fled from the country as the Taliban entered Kabul virtually unopposed. Ghani claimed he wanted to avoid bloodshed. Afghanis are at the mercy of the Taliban now. Many Afghans fear a repeat of the wrong interpretation of Islamic law that the Taliban implemented when first in power from 1996-2001. The Taliban have vowed a softer, more inclusive regime this time around, offering assurances of rights to women. But should can they believe them? Ever since the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, a fierce battle of leaving the country is on at Kabul airport. The evacuation operations resumed even after the deadly attack on Thursday that killed 85. US President Joe Biden vowed that the United States would hunt down those responsible for twin explosions at the airport. Many nations have already ended their evacuation process from Afghanistan. The UK joins that very list of countries to cease evacuation operations. Earlier, Spain, Canada, and France have also halted their operations. Meanwhile, the US will roll out its evacuation operation on August 31. ‘Free Meals’ for refugees Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has operated many special flights. It has repatriated thousands of people, most of them foreigners, stranded in Afghanistan. And, now Islamabad’s administration has taken control of all hotels in the capital for weeks to arrange accommodation for Afghans and foreigners being evacuated from Afghanistan, as per Dawn. Under such circumstances, a Pakistani businessman has offered his bit to support the process by offering free meals for the refugees coming from Afghanistan to Islamabad. Faizan Khan announced it on Twitter. Faizan Khan also added that his restaurant is in “F10 Markaz Islamabad with a rickshaw on display.” Wow! It feels good to even report about it and thanking our good stars that humanity is still alive. Tired and scared Afghan families are still at Kabul airport, waiting for their turn to start a new life elsewhere. However, only a few lucky ones have managed to get out of Afghanistan. In a bid to flee Afghanistan, two Afghans had also fallen from a US military plane earlier after clinging to it. What do you think of this story? Let us know in the comments section below.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

The research reported here was funded in part by the Minerva Research Initiative (OUSD(R&E)) and the Army Research Office/Army Research Laboratory via grant #W911-NF-17-1-0569 to George Mason University. Any errors and opinions are not those of the Department of Defense and are attributable solely to the author(s). The deal that the United States and the Taliban signed on Saturday allows the United States to extract itself from a stalled war. For years, the fighting showed no signs of battlefield breakthrough, while the United States held the Afghan security forces and Afghan government on life support. Since at least 2015, U.S. policy has been one of wishing and hoping — hoping that the Taliban would commit enough strategic and technical blunders to do itself in. But the Taliban has not. The negotiated deal promises to secure basic U.S. counterterrorism interests and also provides a chance that peace will eventually come to Afghanistan — something Afghan people badly crave. Afghan security forces have lost perhaps as many as 50,000 fighters in the past five years, the Taliban perhaps the same number, and Afghan civilians have been dying at a rate of low thousands annually. In fact, both peace negotiations and intense fighting can go on for a long time, long after U.S. troops have left Afghanistan. In a recent piece, I explored the divergent models of negotiations that various Afghan actors — such as the Afghan government and Taliban — and international partners have in mind for negotiations, and how these may unfold over the next several years. Here, I discuss some of the immediate issues over the next 14 months as U.S. troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan. The deal itself The basic parameters of the deal the United States and the Taliban signed have been known for almost a year. The United States has committed to withdraw its 12,800 forces from Afghanistan within 14 months, with the first 5,000 withdrawn in 135 days since the signing of the deal. The Taliban has promised not to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States or allow its territory to be used for that purpose. And the Taliban and the Afghan government have vowed not to militarily attack each other as U.S. troops withdraw. Meanwhile, within 12 days of deal being signed, the Taliban agreed to start engaging in a so-called intra-Afghan dialogue that will also include the Afghan government, and which will seek to arrive at a negotiated settlement among the Afghan parties. Those talks can take months, and more likely years. To the extent that the announced deal contained any surprise at all, it was the speed of U.S. withdrawal: It has been estimated that the fastest possible timeframe for the U.S. military to leave, pack up and lift out its equipment, and dismantle its bases is actually 12 to 14 months. The Taliban had been asking for an unrealistic 6 months, but many analysts in Washington maintained that the speed of the negotiated withdrawal would be much slower. The deal does not imply or guarantee that any intra-Afghan negotiated settlement will be signed before the U.S. withdraws its forces. Nor does it imply that the United States will slow or reverse its withdrawal if the talks are stuck and Afghan security forces are taking a pounding from the Taliban on the battlefield. Only a major terrorist attack against U.S. assets (such as the U.S. embassy or homeland) by the Taliban or a group linked to it — or from Taliban-controlled territories — would put the Taliban in breach of the deal and likely therefore halt or reverse the U.S. withdrawal. Such direct breaches are unlikely. Nor will significant military pressure against Afghan security forces (which the Taliban probably will mount) necessarily be regarded as a violation of the accord. The U.S. military in Afghanistan declared Taliban attacks on Afghan security forces since Sunday a violation of the deal, or at least the non-published U.S. interpretation of the deal. And the U.S. military already responded with its first air attack against the Taliban to help Afghan security forces since the deal was signed. But how long will the response be maintained as the U.S. departs, as has already started happening? Any hope that a permanent or lengthy ceasefire would be established before the start of an intra-Afghan dialogue died a long time ago. As soon as the seven-day violence reduction was over, the Taliban issued directives to its fighters to restart attacks on Afghan security forces. To some extent, battlefield commanders fear that their fighters could get too cozy with the barbershops and ice cream parlors that they could visit during an earlier ceasefire and then the seven-day violence reduction, making it hard to bring them back to the battlefield. The Taliban’s broader strategy At a more strategic level, the Taliban well understands that its battlefield performance will enhance its negotiating hand. Though hardly 10 feet tall, the Taliban has systematically managed to increase the battlefield operational tempo since 2015. U.S. airpower has limited its ability to take over provincial capitals and inflict even greater casualties to Afghan security forces. That counter will soon be removed as U.S. troop numbers go significantly down. Still, the group may well hold off taking over a provincial capital and a province until spring 2021, when the U.S. military presence in the country has dropped dramatically and NATO and the other allies may also have removed many of their trainers and advisers. Till then, the Taliban is likely to mount the same type and perhaps even the tempo of military operations as it did in 2019, hitting Afghan security forces left and right and inducing units to sign local non-aggression pacts with the Taliban (a growing trend in 2019, as former Afghan defense and military officials told me during my fieldwork in Afghanistan in October 2019). Perhaps the biggest limitation on how much the Taliban heats up the battlefield is its need not to alienate the Afghan public too much, given the greater difficulty it will have in justifying violence against Afghan people once the U.S. troop presence has been substantially reduced. It won’t be a small task for Taliban leadership to control the battlefield ambitions of its mid-level commanders. As the deal was signed, the Taliban had to engage in triangulated communication: Its spokesman gloated of victory (“the defeat of the arrogance of the White House in the face of the white turban”), clearly addressing mid-level battlefield commanders. But the Taliban’s negotiators in Doha issued a counterstatement, warning commanders against too much hubris and also seeking to reassure the United States. And the Taliban’s leader Haibatullah Akhundzada issued a peaches-and-cream statement to the Afghan people, promising peace, no revenge against those who fought the Taliban, and freedom and happiness under Islamic values. Many young urban Afghans are not reassured, and fear the change in power distribution and political dispensation that negotiations with the Taliban are likely to produce. In contrast, in rural areas of Afghanistan, many Afghans want peace above all: They may have experienced little economic improvement and political and social freedoms over the past two decades. What they experience daily is the war and the loss of male breadwinners to fighting. The Afghan government has long objected to the agreed parameters of the deal. In October 2019, it issued its own roadmap to negotiations, which was sensible but disconnected from the well-known U.S.-Taliban deal in the making. Hoping that the deal can yet be avoided, the government has not developed bargaining positions, such as redlines for which it will fight against the Taliban without the U.S. military around, perhaps for years to come. Even in late winter, it was still focused on composing its negotiating team while courting allies such as India, hoping it could derail the U.S.-Taliban deal. The political tensions over the reelection of President Ashraf Ghani, contested by rival Abdullah Abdullah, have only compounded the lack of a unified negotiating front among Afghan politicians vis-à-vis the Taliban. Come December, when many fewer U.S. troops are around, it’s easily possible that the level of conversation between the Taliban and the Afghan counterparts is merely at the broad level of generalities. It is not surprising that President Ghani has refused to release the 5,000 Taliban prisoners, something that the Taliban has long been asking for and expected after the signing of the U.S.-Taliban deal. The Afghan government understands that come winter 2020 and spring 2021, as the U.S. troop presence declines, holding at least some Taliban prisoners may be one of the government’s few precious levers in negotiations. If, at that time, the intra-Afghan talks are stalled, pressures for a side deal between Afghan opposition politicians and the Taliban — perhaps seeking to overthrow the Ghani government and establish an interim one — will only grow. Rumblings to that effect have been bubbling in Afghanistan since fall 2019. If that happened, would the Afghan military hold or break up into ethnic factions? Would one of its powerful leaders attempt a military counter coup d’état? Would the United States continue to fund the Afghan security forces (without which Afghan forces would melt down), as it reiterated just this week? Those are some of the questions the Trump administration and its possible successor will need to grapple with. Only under an extremely optimistic scenario would the intra-Afghan negotiations produce a reasonably stable settlement within 14 months. (Under much more auspicious circumstances, Colombia’s negotiations with the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or FARC, took four years; the Philippines’ talks with the Moro insurgents took 13 years and counting; Guatemala’s post-civil war peace accords took three years; and Nepal’s took over five years.) What’s in store However long the process takes and however much fighting occurs before that, the Taliban will likely continue to hold significant if not dominant power in Afghanistan. As Taliban-linked interlocutors told me, the Taliban wants to avoid a civil war and was very keen to avoid an “irresponsible” departure of U.S. forces — in other words, a departure without a deal with the Taliban, since the Taliban believes that would have pushed the country closer to a civil war and impeded intra-Afghan negotiations. The Taliban maintains that once U.S. troops are out and it is in power, the group can have good relations with the United States and very much wants to maintain the flow of U.S. economic aid. Whatever power (and in whatever form) the Taliban has after the U.S. military departure, U.S. economic aid may ironically be one of the most important mechanisms to shape the Taliban’s behavior toward more inclusion, pluralism, and some respect for women’s and human rights.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

China and Russia are expected to recognise Taliban-governed Afghanistan, as their embassies remain in Kabul while the US and its Western allies evacuate the country. They join neighbouring Pakistan, Iran in addition to Turkey who is on course to formally recognise the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. According to the South China Morning Post, both countries have no plans of leaving Afghanistan with their embassies remaining open. Today China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said that Beijing "respects the wishes and choices of the Afghan people" and added that it hoped the Taliban will rule the country under an "open, inclusive Islamic government". Russia, meanwhile, is in contact with Taliban authorities via its envoy, according to Moscow's special representative in the country. "They are talking in Kabul. All contacts are being made there at the moment. The embassy is dealing with this," the representative, Zamir Kabulov, was quoted as telling Reuters today. In a statement, the Taliban said that the group assured "all embassies, diplomatic centres, institutions, places and foreign nationals" in the capital that they would be protected. Russia and China, which have maintained diplomatic ties with the Taliban for several years, also concluded a week-long military exercise, for the first time using a joint command and control system. A joint statement issued today by more than 65 countries, excluding China and Russia, called on the Taliban to ensure the safe passage of foreign nationals and Afghans wishing to leave the country. There have already been reports of fatalities after US troops overseeing the evacuation of the last flights out of the country fired shots in the air, amid chaotic scenes at Kabul airport. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has since fled the country after stepping down as leader following negotiations with the Taliban who entered the Presidential Palace yesterday.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

null Islamic economy shaping future of global trade, say experts Islamic economy shaping future of global trade, say experts 22 Feb 2021 | Monday Source: Zawya Islamic economy and finance have become a critical component of the global economy, said experts at the recently-concluded Dubai Week in Africa 2021 virtual conference. A unique virtual trade mission designed by the UAE Trade Centre from February 15 to 18, the Dubai Week in Africa 2021 hosted inspiring panel discussions on vibrant business segments like Export and Trade, Free zone & Investment, E-Commerce and Islamic Economy. Read more here

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Foreign Minister Winston Peters says the US-Taliban peace agreement is a major step forward, as the government considers the implications for New Zealand troops. The US and the Taliban signed the peace agreement today in an effort to end more than 18 years of conflict. Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters described the agreement as a major step forward and said it signalled the start of negotiations between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan. He said it may take some time before it was clear what would happen with New Zealand's troop deployment to Afghanistan. Waikato University law professor Alexander Gillespie said the potential peace treaty was the same precedent as ending the Vietnam war, and a huge deal. "It's great that we've got to this point so far. We have spent literally trillions of dollars, there have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost and all we've achieved after 18 years of fighting is that Taliban's agreed that Al Qaeda and similar groups like Islamic State will not be resident in Afghanistan anymore." Prof Gillespie said it set a very clear road map for the more than 3800 Coalition troops in the area, including 10 soldiers from New Zealand. "It's a two-step process, it's the Coalition troops will slowly be drawn down but in exchange there will be formal recognition of the Taliban, sanctions will be lifted, and they will start negotiations directly with the Afghanistan government." He said the deal could lead to New Zealand's troops exiting, depending on the result of negotiations.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Turks were at the polls on August 10 to vote in the first direct presidential election in their country's history. Since the founding of the Republic of Turkey more than 90 years ago, the president had been chosen by parliament. Outgoing Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a dominant figure in Turkish politics for over a decade, was widely expected to win the election. Erdogan has served three terms in office and is barred from running again as prime minister according to the rules of his party, the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP). Around 55 million people were eligible to vote in the historic election, which could shift the nature of political power in Turkey if Erdogan indeed wins and fulfills his stated intention to expand the powers of the presidential office. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is the joint candidate of the main opposition parties in parliament. But the 71-year-old -- an academic and veteran diplomat -- is relatively unknown as a political figure. Ihsanoglu has presented himself as a moderate, and has sought to attract youths and middle-class liberals who have become disaffected with Erdogan's stewardship of the government, which critics say has bordered on authoritarianism. The third candidate is Selahattin Demirtas, 41-year-old Kurd who leads the left-wing People's Democratic Party. Demirtas has campaigned on a platform of diversity and is hoping to draw support from left-leaning Turks. Opinion polls predicted Erdogan would garner about 55 percent of the vote. Ihsanoglu was polling around 40 percent, while Demirtas was a distant third. If no candidate won more than 50 percent, then a runoff would be held on August 24. Erdogan's Popularity Unscathed Sinan Ulgen, a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, says Erdogan's commanding position going into election day is due not only to his popularity but also the weak candidates he is facing. "Erdogan is, and remains, the most popular politician in Turkey even though he is a very polarizing figure," says Ulgen. "The candidate put forward by the main opposition is someone who has no name recognition in Turkey. They fielded him too late and he doesn't have enough time to overcome this difficulty." Erdogan's popularity appears unscathed after large antigovernment protests and a damaging corruption scandal. Erdogan's supporters point to his success in overseeing rapid economic growth, his reconciliation effort with the banned Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), and keeping the country's powerful military out of politics. Is Erdogan Pulling A Putin? The election is not only about who becomes president but also how much power that president should wield. In Turkey, the president has been a largely ceremonial role, but Erdogan has vowed to revamp the post by pressing for a change in the constitution to grant the head of state more powers. Erdogan has said he will be a strong, hands-on president if elected. He has called on the country to "make a jump" toward a U.S.-style presidential system that would give the president considerable power. Erdogan's critics fears that if elected he could look to control parliament, government, and the judiciary and to consolidate power. "Turkey could find itself with an autocratic regime in a system that is without checks and balances," columnist Ahmet Ozer wrote in the "Milliyet" newspaper. "The danger exists." If Erdogan wins the election he would become the longest serving ruler since Turkey's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Erdogan can serve up to two five-year terms as president. In order to make any constitutional changes to broaden the president's powers, the AKP would need to have a constitutional majority in parliament, which they do not have. That makes next year's parliamentary elections all the more significant. "Even though Erdogan wants to change the constitution he may eventually have to work with the current constitution because his party may not get the kind of support within parliament to adopt those changes," says Ulgen. President Abdullah Gul is seen as the likely new prime minister. Observers have speculated that Gul and Erdogan could swap roles -- much like what happened with Putin and Dmitry Medvedev in Russia. When Putin was constitutionally barred from seeking a third consecutive term as president in 2008, he became prime minister and eased Medvedev into the presidency. Four years later, the two swapped roles. Erdogan's critics have accused him of using his position as prime minister to make the election lopsided. Erdogan's rivals claim they have been given uneven air time by both state and private television and radio stations, leading Turkey's electoral authorities and media watchdogs to step in. Turkey's Press Council has called for the resignation of the head of state broadcaster TRT for failing to give candidates equal air time. Most of the private media is owned by businessmen associated with Erdogan's party, which has rejected accusations of unfair campaigning. Laughing Is No Joke Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, from the AKP, caused consternation when he said women should not laugh loudly in public. "A man should be moral but women should be moral as well, they should know what is decent and what is not decent," Arinc said in a speech in early August. "Chastity is so important.... She should not laugh loudly in front of all the world and should preserve her decency at all times." His comments have become a rallying cause for secular Turks who accuse Erdogan of showing increasingly autocratic tendencies and presiding over a creeping Islamization of Turkey. Arinc's remarks sparked a campaign on Twitter where thousands of Turkish women posted pictures of themselves laughing which went viral. Playing The Sectarian And Ethnic Cards Erdogan sparked a storm of controversy this week after using what critics said was an ethnic slur against Armenians. During a live interview on the private NTV channel on August 5, Erdogan said the opposition was carrying out a smear campaign against him by suggesting that he was not ethnic Turkish. "They called me a Georgian. Pardon me for saying this, but they said even uglier things: They called me an Armenian!" Erdogan said. His comments have drawn criticism on social media and from members of Turkey's Armenian minority. That came after Erdogan urged Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), last week to publicly say he belongs to the country's minority Alevi community, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. "Kilicdaroglu, you can be an Alevi. I respect you. Don't be afraid to say it. I am Sunni and can say it without fear. There is no need to deceive people," said Erdogan, a member of the country's Sunni majority.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Erdogan Blocks Wikipedia, Bans TV Dating Shows, Purges Another 4,000 Public Officials Two weeks after winning the Turkish constitutional referendum by a modest but decisive margin, president – or perhaps it is now despot – Erdogan decided to take his newly decreed powers for a spin and overnight in rapid succession surprised foreign observers when Turkey decreed that it would ban TV dating shows, fire an additional 4,000 public officials and also ban Wikipedia. TURKEY BANS DATING PROGRAMS ON TV AND RADIO: OFFICIAL GAZETTE — zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 29, 2017 The country’s Official Gazette published the decrees on Saturday evening. The first named thousands of civil servants to be dismissed, including nearly 500 academics and more than 1,000 Turkish military personnel. The decree also reinstated 236 people to their jobs. The second decree, among other things, bans radio and television programs for “finding friends and spouses” according to AP. The latest purge follows more than 47,000 people have been arrested and 100,000 have been terminated for alleged connections to terror organizations, and takes place with Turkey under a state of emergency resulting from last summer’s failed “coup” attempt which Erdogan blamed on the “shadow state” directed by the cleric Fethullah Gulen, who currently resides in rural Pennsylvania. “In radio and television broadcasting services, such programmes in which people are introduced to find a friend…. cannot be permitted,” said the text of the decree. Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said in March that the ban was in the pipeline, arguing the shows do not fit in with Turkish traditions and customs. “There are some strange programmes that would scrap the institution of family, take away its nobility and sanctity,” Kurtulmus said at the time. Some see in this decree the first traces of Turkey sliding back away from the secular state, established less than a century ago by the creator of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and toward conservative Islam under Erdogan. However, AKP supporters have responded that dating shows receive thousands of complaints every year and the ban is in the public interest. Separately, Turkey also said it had blocked all access to Wikipedia; the country’s Information and Communication Technologies Authority implemented the ban against the online encyclopedia because Wikipedia “had failed to remove content promoting terror and accusing Turkey of cooperation with various terror groups” according to AFP. “There was no indication when the ban might be removed, with a formal court order expected to follow in the coming days.” In response to the news, Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales tweeted that “access to information is a fundamental human right. Turkish people, I will always stand with you to fight for this right.” On the morning of 29 April 2017, following news from Turkey Blocks that all language versions of Wikipedia had been blocked in Turkey, several reports were published of the event. The BBC reported that the Turkish authorities had blocked all access to Wikipedia in the country from 8.00 GMT. No reason was given by Turkey’s Information and Communication Technologies Authority which simply stated: “”After technical analysis and legal consideration based on the Law Nr. 5651 [governing the internet], an administrative measure has been taken for this website.” Voice of America reported that Turkish media had explained the blockage was a result of “terror-related content”. NDTV said that the move had caused strong reactions on the social media against the decision to deny access to “one of the world’s most popular websites”. Law No. 5651, known as the Internet Act (IA), was enacted on 4 May 2007. The purpose of this law has been described by the PTC as follows: “There are 2 reasons for the law to be brought out. The first reason; determining the liability and the responsibility of collective use providers, access providers, location providers and content providers which are the main actors of the Internet. The other reason is to determine the procedures and fundamentals related to the specific crimes committed over the Internet and fighting these through content, location and access providers.” More recently, the law has been used to censor individuals, journalists and the media. The European Council’s Venice Commission has found the law to be particularly controversial. Now Wikipedia is readable but not editable with FreeWiki by Crypt.space in Turkey Over the past several years, Turkey has repeatedly blocked – so far on a temporary basis – popular websites such as Facebook and Twitter, usually shortly after major events such as mass protests or terror attacks take place. Which is to be expected with Europe constantly turning a blind eye to Erdogan’s transgressions due to his strategic location at the nexus between Asia and Europe. In the past two years, Erdogan’s leverage has only grown as there are now over 2 million Syrian refugees held inside Turkey’s borders, which could be deployed in direction Europe, any time Brussels, or Berlin, engages in any activity that Erdogan disproves of. Which also explains how Erdogan managed to accumulate virtually supreme power while all of Turkey’s “democratic” peers and neighbors looked the other way.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

President Obama didn't take sagging polls into account that show Americans are more than weary of waging wars overseas before deciding how many troops he would pull out of Afghanistan. "It really doesn't play a role," a senior administration official said Wednesday when asked about the public's souring opinion. "He looks at the objectives that we're trying to meet in Afghanistan and the resources that are necessary to meet those objectives." The number of people in favor of bringing troops home from Afghanistan as quickly as possible is now at an all time high of 56 percent, according to a new Pew poll - indicating the strong support for the fight when Mr. Obama was elected has turned to almost as strong opposition to it. But while public opinion may not have dictated President Obama's decision, his administration was careful to point out overall troop numbers in both Afghanistan and Iraq that they think most Americans will see as steps in a positive direction. "If you look at the total number of U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan," another official told reporters in a conference call ahead of President Obama's speech, "it was roughly 180,000 when the president took office." "Given this decision today and our plans in Iraq, by the end of this year that number should be at under 100,000," he continued. "[T]he number of U.S. troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan is already reduced by several tens of thousands and will be even more dramatically reduced by the end of this year." And by the end of next summer, significantly more troops will be back at home bases in Europe and the United States.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) International Operation Name: United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan International Mission Name: United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) Mandating Organization: United Nations Region Name: Asia Mission Date: 28 March 2002 - 30 June 2005 Mission Mandate: UNAMA’s mandate includes promoting national reconciliation; fulfilling the tasks and responsibilities entrusted to the United Nations in the Bonn Agreement, including those related to human rights, the rule of law and gender issues; and managing all UN humanitarian, relief, recovery and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan in coordination with the Afghan Administration. Mission/Operation Notes: In early 2002, there were 16 UN organizations active in Afghanistan, working with Afghani and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). With the overthrow of the Taliban regime, the opportunity existed for a greater international effort to assist the Afghani people in reconstructing their shattered society after 23 years of war. On 28 March 2002, the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). UNAMA is responsible for the planning and conduct of all UN activities in Afghanistan. These focus on political affairs, and relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts in coordination with the Afghan Transitional Authority. Officers from three countries, under the command of a Brigadier-General, form the UNAMA Military Advisory Unit (MAU). They are employed as military advisors to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General who has overall responsibility for all UN activity in Afghanistan. The MAU’s main work consists of the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of over 100,000 Afghan soldiers from various factions. The MAU work with the Japanese-led International Observers’ Group to ensure the DDR process is fair, accurate and timely. The MAU also provide a liaison function between UNAMA and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Canadian Forces (CF) Information (ACCIUS) Date: 28 November 2002 - 21 June 2005 On 28 November 2002, the Minister of National Defence announced that Canada would be contributing one senior officer to serve as the military advisor to UNAMA. The lieutenant-colonel departed Ottawa on 21 November, arriving in Kabul on the 28th. Canada continued to provide one officer at six-month intervals until June 2005. Report a problem or mistake on this page - Date modified:

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

U.S.: Delay could cost Afghanistan WASHINGTON - U.S. willingness to wait to sign a new security pact with the next Afghan president offers hope that a deal can still be made, but the ongoing delay could mean fewer American troops and fewer dollars for the impoverished country, the top U.S. envoy to Afghanistan said Friday. American support of the war continues to wane with Afghan President Hamid Karzai's refusal to sign a bilateral security agreement, which would provide a legal basis for some U.S. troops to stay in the country after the international combat mission ends this year. The agreement was to have been signed in the fall. "Unfortunately, President Karzai's decision not to sign the accord that he negotiated, that he, in fact, is not seeking to change, and that he agrees is important to Afghanistan has thrown this timetable badly off," James Dobbins said in a speech at the United States Institute of Peace. On Tuesday, President Obama told Karzai that he's open to waiting until later this year to conclude the bilateral security agreement with Karzai's successor but that "this delay would not be without cost." Despite widespread support in his country for signing the deal, Karzai has said he would prefer that his successor be the one to sign it. "While we still continue to plan for a residual force to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces and to conduct limited counterterrorism missions, the scale of this commitment may well wane as uncertainty over our welcome persists, and we will also need to plan for the alternative of full withdrawal," Dobbins said. Dobbins spent most of his speech citing scores of examples of progress that has been made in Afghanistan related to health, education, the upcoming presidential election, business and development and the building of institutions. But he said those advances remain fragile. He also cited a recent study, ordered by Congress, which said international trainers and advisers will be needed in Afghanistan at least through 2018. The study was conducted by CNA Strategic Studies, a federally funded research group. Dobbins acknowledged Americans' fatigue over U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, but he said most Americans favor a gradual, responsible withdrawal and a residual force to stay in the country after the end of this year. "This margin of support is narrow and likely to diminish further as long as uncertainty about our welcome persists," Dobbins said.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

For the latest updates, news, and events of Saudi Arabia you can join our WhatsApp group A Saudi-bound ship capsized on the Romania port along with 14,600 sheep loaded in it. Queen Hind bound for Saudi Arabia capsized in the Black Sea off the coast of Romania soon after leaving Romania Midia port. The reason for its overturned has yet not disclosed and is still unknown. All the humans on the sheep were rescued - All the humans on the sheep were rescued - The ship had been overloaded Initially, the crew members including 20 Syrians and one Lebanese that were present in the ship were rescued along with 254 sheep, two of them were pulled out of the water. AFP is hoping that the sheep present in the ship are still alive and will be recovered soon as the rescue operation is ongoing. Rescuers are supported by the military, police, and divers. They are trying to pull the Palau-flagged ship to the port. On the other side Romania’s main livestock breeder and exporter association, Acebop called for an urgent investigation soon after the disaster. The Acebop president Mary Pana said that their association was shocked by the disaster. Moreover, she also said that we should outright ban the livestock if we could not protect them during long-distance transports. The ship had been overloaded Furthermore, Gabriel Paun of NGO Animals International alleged that the ship had been overloaded and also that Queen Hind, the Saudi bound Ship was having engine problems since last December. He also urged to AFP that the investigation on the incident should be immediately opened. Vytenis Andriukaitis, who is the European Commissioner in charge of health and food safety has asked the European Commission to investigate Romania’s incident because in July while citing animal welfare, he demanded Romania to stop the transport of 70,000 sheep to the Gulf. Romania joined the EU in 2007 is the third-largest sheep breeder and a top exporter of livestock mainly to the Middle Eastern countries. On the other side, the objectors have also criticized and labeled nearly 100 of livestock vessels as ‘Death ships’ that leave Midia port every year. They say that the sheep are being cooked alive on the board under the open sun in hot summers. The authorities should investigate the root cause analysis and take the required action. What's your reaction about this news🥰𝙒𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙥𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝘼𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚. 𝙋𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙁𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙨𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙗𝙮 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘽𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙄𝙘𝙤𝙣 (𝙇𝙚𝙛𝙩 𝘽𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙤𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚) 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙏𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚.🥰 Add us on Snapchat Follow Us On Google News Find Jobs Online in any region of Saudi Arabia on KSA Job Site

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

The war in Iraq is not going as smoothly as the Bush administration would like and the conflict is looking less and less like a walkover by the day. Yet there can be little doubt that the US, backed by Britain, its loyal junior ally, will eventually prevail. The conflict will bring the US little glory, pitting the world's most powerful military machine against a dilapidated army, but when American and British troops enter Baghdad, the US will surely cement its status as a hyperpower. But does the US colossus have feet of clay? It takes a brave soul to argue that America, the world's largest economy and by far its most potent military power, is about to go into decline, when it is widely perceived as a hyperpower. But Independent Strategy, a financial research company for institutional investors, has made the case in a paper that is making the rounds of big investment banks such as Goldman Sachs. Independent Strategy believes that the US shows many symptoms of an empire that is cresting. First, it sees deepening mistrust of the US and predicts a rise in terrorism in reaction to US unilateralism. That is certainly the case with the Bush administration, which has made a habit of tearing up international treaties from Kyoto to the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Iraq is the culmination of the Bush administration's unilateralist streak, as the White House plunges into an unpopular war in disregard of the UN security council. Second, Independent Strategy sees trouble ahead for US economic policy. It notes that Mr Bush has boosted discretionary government spending more than at any time since the Vietnam war. Inheriting big budgetary surpluses from the Clinton administration, the Bush White House is heading for record deficits. True, budget deficits were probably unavoidable as a 10-year economic expansion ran out of steam. But Mr Bush is not helping matters with a $726bn (£462bn) tax cut that, even though reduced by the senate to $350bn, benefits mostly the rich and a war that will add at least $74bn to the books, and probably considerably more. Third, what was known as the Washington consensus - free market economics and deregulation - has broken down. As Bob McKee, chief economist with Independent Strategy, notes, a populist reaction has taken hold in Latin America, while in Asia, Malaysia has gone its own way economically. Moreover, South Korea and Taiwan never really bought into supply side reform. "Empires work best when they project power through the successful export of a social model or ideology," argues Independent Strategy. "The rot started when the US failed to project its economic ideology and social model globally. Japan and Europe have long rejected both, at least implicitly, as inimical to their culture and alien to their social contract." Independent Strategy sees the weakening dollar as the fourth strand in the decline of empire. "The dollar will go on down because the good empire has the same faultlines as many other empires: unsustainable living standards at the core depend on flows of wealth from the periphery," says Independent Strategy in terms that would not be out of a place in a Marxist textbook. "The US no longer earns the return needed to sustain these flows. The costs of war and unilateralism will increase the thirst for capital, but reduce the return earned by it." In plain English, America relies on the rest of the world to finance its deficits. The rest of the world was happy to do so when the US economy was strong and returns were high, but investors will put their cash elsewhere if America looks weak economically. America borrows hundreds of millions of dollars from the rest of the world each day to cover its savings gap and, under George Bush, US dependence on foreign capital is set to increase. The decline of empire thesis is not exactly new. Paul Kennedy, the British historian, wrote the best-selling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers back in 1988, where he coined the phrase "imperial overstretch". It was a great read, but then the US embarked on a record-breaking expansion that lasted 10 years and saw Wall Street shoot up to over 11,000 points. But that great economic expansion turned out not to be so great after all, culminating in a wave of financial misreporting and outright fraud at Enron and WorldCom. The twilight of empires can last a long time, but judging from his reckless unilateralism and his economic vandalism, George Bush seems to be determined to do his level best to hasten that decline. · Mark Tran is business editor of Guardian Unlimited

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Afghanistan (/æfˈɡænɪstæn, æfˈɡɑːnɪstɑːn/ (About this soundlisten); Pashto/Dari: افغانستان, Pashto: Afġānistān [avɣɒnisˈtɒn, ab-], Dari: Afġānestān [avɣɒnesˈtɒn]), officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is a landlocked country located in South-Central Asia. Afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan in the south and east; Iran in the west; Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan in the north; and in the far northeast, China. Much of its 652,000 square kilometers (252,000 sq mi) is covered by the Hindu Kush mountain range at the western end of the Himalayas, separating the Amu Darya and Indus valleys. Kabul is the capital and largest city. 37 172 386 Persian, Pashto, Uzbek, Turkmen Minister of Agriculture Minister of Agriculture, Irrigation & Livestock Nasir Ahmad Durrani

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

By Rana Athar Javed Irritated by the US Afghan policy and loss of credibility as partner in peace, President Hamid Karzai managed to expose his temper, and thereby raising serious questions about a “real and sustainable” peace plan for Afghanistan. What puzzles the regional powers including Pakistan is that withdrawal is predicted and planned, but complex reality of establishing peace is mostly driven by assumptions and one-sided decisions both by Afghanistan and the US. Expecting that a comprehensive withdrawal is possible under highly contentious diplomatic conditions means to damage the future of political transformation and transition in Afghanistan. On the matter of reconciliation with the Taliban, the “going alone” stance of Afghanistan is purely a threat rather than solution to peace in the region. Similarly, the US has taken upon itself the task to define the nature/composition of conflict between Pashtun and Persian speakers of Afghanistan. Why, because US recognition of the Taliban at this critical stage will muster political support for its plan to control major negotiation partner in the foreseeable future. For Pakistan, the fundamental concern is the effectiveness of Afghan National Security Force (ANSF). Partly, because the unprepared withdrawal will weaken Afghan’s control over rough elements in ANSF, and partly the threat of civil war between the traditional warlords and the Taliban could further burden the Pak-military and its security forces. Hence, assessing the risks of further infiltration from the side of Afghanistan is vital for the security of its Western borders. On the other hand, both Afghanistan and the US need to resolve their internal rift over who is “really” the chief sponsor of reconciliation project. As the post-2014 fears of insecurity are growing, the assurances and excuses are too being propagated by the US/Afghan governments. How the “transformation phase” (2015-2024) will be supervised, and to which extent economic and military resources will be at Afghan government’s discretion are vital sources of concern for regional partners. The problem in each of these arguments is the narrative of “lack of confidence in the country’s future stability, and the memory of the post-Soviet era also constitute a driving force of fear that pushes people of all classes to flee. It affects both Afghans from rural areas exposed to Taliban violence and qualified middle classes from the business and political elites in Kabul.” The order with which current narrative is being debated is remarkably traditional both in terms of Afghan conflict and the consequences of “Great Games” of the world superpowers. Since the future stability in Afghanistan relates to how the Karzai government characterizes its original responsibility of building peaceful Afghanistan, disengagement and one-man-show would open more channels of diplomatic battles with the regional/international partners. The US downplays the fact of Taliban/Pashtun dominance, and already went into mode of transformation, and thereby hints at insufficient interest in really striking a “peace deal” before the US withdrawal in 2014. For Pakistan, the military importance of such a scenario is crucial, and needs broader approach to deal with future threats, and thus taking initiatives along with international community to highlight the implications for regional instability. On papers, negotiation & reconciliation are sought to show responsibility toward the Afghan nation, but decades-old-ideological convictions of different groups and lack of intense interest by the current Afghan government in people’s welfare demonstrate a very bleak reality. For this reason, Pakistan beyond 2014 needs a clear and concrete rules of engagement policy with Afghan government. The diplomatic dichotomy being displayed by Karzai government now would change the contextual character of peace deal in future. This reflection is in line with the argument that negative consequences of an ambiguous and complex withdrawal plan will directly impact the internal security situation of Pakistan. There have, of course, been some successful decisions of strategic importance taken by Pakistani government including the releasing key Taliban leaders and, supporting an Afghan-led peace plan. To be concluded, Pakistan is facing a variety of unusually difficult security threats today, in some cases, unprecedented complexity (e.g. Baluchistan). As the issues of internal security and activities of foreign sponsored networks of militants has grown, Pakistan’s ability to improvise and make decisions that “only” benefits Pakistan’s territorial integrity and stability appears to be tempered by regional powers. The potential security vacuum in the post-2014 largely depends upon the “control & support” system of the US because fear of collapse after withdrawal would create further insecurity for all the key players. Pakistan requires a comprehensive interactive/diplomatic communication initiative to convince the US and NATO, in order to protect its “own” security and economic interests.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Armenia is facing a serious concurrent political crisis following the recent 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. The Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenian and Azerbaijan, which lasted 44 days, ended with a Russian-brokered ceasefire on November 9th, 2020. According to the signed ceasefire agreement, Armenia was forced to make concessions (handing over significant landmarks alongside Armenian populated towns and villages). Many Armenians were against this move, with some opponents calling it a capitulation, storming into parliament and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s residence the night the agreement was signed. On the same day, following the signing of the agreement, a total of 17 opposition parties issued a joint statement demanding the resignation of PM Pashinyan and his government. Amongst the 17 parties, only one of which is parliamentary, were other prominent figures closely tied to the previous government, including Former Prime Minister Vazgen Manukyan, Former President’s Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan. Notably, in 2018 Pashinyan was democratically elected Prime Minister after appraisal for leading a peaceful (‘velvet’) revolution to topple the decadelong rule of Sargsyan and the corrupt system associated with his government. Furthermore, Kocharyan has been put under a currently standing trial with an official charge of ‘overthrowing the constitutional order‘ in 2008. Upon Pashinyan’s claim to not resign, there have been rising political tensions between the two factions: on one side being Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his government; on the other, the 17 political parties organized against him. Protests have simmered since, with demands for Armenian PM’s resignation, organized by opposition parties’ alliance calling itself the ‘Homeland Salvation Movement’. Manukyan, who has been put forward by the opposition as a replacement for Pashinyan, called on all Armenians to join the protest, threatening around-the-clock protests until an extraordinary parliament meeting to remove Pashinyan and call early elections. Pashinyan and his government have since suggested that the opposition parties hold snap parliamentary elections to reaffirm the ‘power of the people’; an offer that was rejected by all 17 opposing powers. The mounting tensions have further been exacerbated following the General Chief of Staff of the Armenian Armed Forces’ public statement on February 25th, 2021. The statement called for the resignation of the Armenian PM and his government, accusing them of misrule and incompetence. The statement comes following public questions over the efficacy of Russian-provided Iskander missiles during the recent Nagorno-Karabakh war. This subject was broached by former-President Serzh Sargsyan and triggered a rebuke from Pashinyan. The subsequent response by Tiran Khachatryan, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Armenian Armed Forces, in which the Pashinyan’s claims were ridiculed, caused the firing of Khachatryan himself. Pashinyan has now also dismissed the Chief of General Staff Armed Forces Onik Gasrparyan. Yet, both decrees have been sent to President Armen Sarkissian for his signature, where a decision to sign has not been made. However, in response to the statement, Pashinyan described it as a “military coup” attempt and invited all pro-government supporters to the Republic Square to deliberate reasons behind such a call from the military. The Prime Minister emphasized that the Armenian Army is always loved, highlighting that he believes many generals and high-ranking officers have signed the announcement under the order of the general’s superior to them. Pashinyan called for the Army to not object to the Armenian population’s political will and withhold from being involved in the political process. A statement was also issued by the Defence Ministry declaring any involvement of the military in politics as “unacceptable.” Furthermore, Pashinyan has again ruled out his resignation, emphasizing that the problem will not be solved, claiming that he will resign only when the democratically voted out or demanded resignation by the Armenian population. The 17 opposition parties have sided with the General Chief of Staff of the Armenian Armed Force’s public statement. Manukyan told supporters at a rally that the Army would never allow Gasparyan to be sacked. Some opposition demonstrators have now put-up tents outside the government headquarters and barricaded the main avenue to press their demand for Pashinyan’s resignation. To break the impasse, conversation around peaceful democratic elections itself may be plausible Assuming the role of political peacemaker, President Sarkissian held a meeting with Gasparyan, the President’s office said, without further details. As a result, Sarkissian returned the proposal to dismiss Gasparyan of Pashinyan, noting in the statement that the PM’s mediation apparently contradicts the Constitution. Pashinyan, without making any concessions, announced that he was returning the document to the President, with the hope that it would be signed this time. However, since Sarkissian has already stated that he sees a problem with the Constitution, he will likely use his authority to apply to the Constitutional Court, for which he has a three-day term. The Constitutional Court must consider the case within ten days after receiving the President’s application. Thus, Armenia remains in a state of uncertainty for another thirteen days, with no particular steps being taken as of yet to resolve the internal political crisis. The country is targeted by uncertainty, shocks, which may have serious consequences. With the foundations of Armenia’s democratic transition linked to Pashinyan’s power under question, civil society’s level of support remains divided, with most not taking any side. The war’s stressors and its aftermath have revived pre-existing political division, and the outlook on Armenia’s political future remains uncertain. There are chances of a new opening for the pre-revolution political elites to regain influence, that was lost within the post-revolution parliamentary election in 2018. Despite failing to achieve any electoral representation in the post-revolution parliament, Armenia’s former government has remained well-resourced with a strong institutional presence in the judiciary and media. Thus, whether the current Armenian government and former political oppositions can manage their competition and disputes within parliamentary politics’s constitutional parameters will be a meaningful moment within the county’s sovereignty and prospects as a democratic state. The Vice President of the National Assembly, Alen Simonyan, has stated that consultation for election will start again soon. To break the impasse, a conversation around peaceful democratic elections may be plausible. This will decide whether the current PM remains in power and may potentially ensure a governing structure with a broader mandate and greater legitimacy with a broader coalition running Armenia rather than the current one-party rule. The Editor: Vanouhi Petrosyan Vanouhi Petrosyan is a MSc International Relations Student at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and holds a First-Class BA in International Development from King’s College London. She has significant experience in research and has conducted critical policy and political analysis particularly within European and international politics. Vanouhi also has well-founded knowledge of Transcaucasia with focus on security issues and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

ISTANBUL — Efforts to clear mines have been launched on Mount Ararat in Turkey’s eastern province of Igdir as part of a project financed by the European Union and Turkey in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Hurriyet Daily News reports. According to the source, the project aims to clear Turkey’s eastern border of mines to increase Ankara’s ability to control the border and provide socio-economic development. As part of the project, mines along the borders with Armenia, Iran and Azerbaijan will be cleared within two years. South African firm DENEL-MECHEM will conduct the mine-clearing works as part of the project. Company officials said a total of 15 square kilometers will be cleared of 222,000 mines in 511 areas near the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Iranian borders within two years. Speaking at the ceremony, the head of the EU delegation in Ankara, Ambassador Christian Berger, said hundreds of innocent people, including children, die each year after stepping on mines. Berger also said land mines produce serious societal and financial effects and prevent development, as well as killing individuals. “This project aims to reduce these effects by taking plenty of precautions including clearing the area of mines and helping the victims. The support given by the EU to mine activities is a part of our support for border management. The mines were planted between 1984 and 1999 for border security. Turkey, the EU and the U.N. are jointly working to clear the area of mines, as well as creating a modern, humanitarian and strong border security,” Berger said on April 4.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

How to erode the world’s greatest military The U.S. Army has met only 40 percent of its 2022 recruiting goals. In fact, all branches of the military are facing historic resistance to their current recruiting efforts. If some solution is not found quickly, the armed forces will radically shrink or be forced to lower standards—or both. Such a crisis occurs importunely as an aggressive Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea believe the Biden Administration and the Pentagon have lost traditional U.S. deterrence. That pessimistic view abroad unfortunately is now shared by many Americans at home. In 2021, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute conducted its periodic poll of attitudes toward the U.S. military. The result was astonishing. Currently, only 45 percent of Americans polled expressed a great deal of trust in their armed forces. Confidence had dived 25 points since an early 2018 poll. Military officials cite both the usual and a new array of challenges in finding suitable young soldiers—drug use, gang affiliation, physical and mental incapacities, and the dislocations arising from the COVID pandemic and vaccination mandates. But they are too quiet about why such supposedly longer-term obstacles suddenly coalesced in 2022—as if their own leadership and policies have had no effect in discouraging tens of thousands of young men and women to join them.

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Campaigners call for action on Turkey’s alleged use of chemical weapons Human rights activist and Kurdish rights campaigner Strasburg Sarah Glynn and trade union activist and member of the National Executive of UNISON, Stephen Smellie, called for action on Turkey's alleged use of chemical weapons. Human rights activist and Kurdish rights campaigner Strasbourg-based Sarah Glynn and trade union activist and member of the National Executive of the UK’s biggest union, UNISON, Stephen Smellie, joined the European Agenda programme on Medya Haber TV to speak about the Coalition Against Chemical Weapons in Kurdistan set up in the UK, in conjunction with Peace in Kurdistan. Speaking to journalist, Erem Kansoy, Sarah Glynn underlined the importance of an investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in South Kurdistan. Stephen Smellie called for pressure to be put on international institutions to investigate these allegations immediately. The interview was prepared with the support of the Freedom for Ocalan Campaign and the Peace in Kurdistan campaign in collaboration with the Kurdistan Against Chemical Weapons in UK Medya Haber TV and Sterk TV. Peace in Kurdistan Campaign: Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC):

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

I believe that as an Afghan and as a youth, after the full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, no pretext and justification will exist for the Taliban to continue the war - the jihad against a foreign power, writes Bator Arsalan for South Asia Monitor Afghanistan’s people are the real victims of war; it’s been four decades that Afghans are fighting against terrorism, barbarism and extremism on behalf of the world. It is critical that the US stays engaged in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of its troops and provides military support and sustained aid to the security forces. After two decades of US military presence in Afghanistan, Afghans are still suffering, for not owning a sustainable, prosperous and peaceful country. On Thursday, July 8, 2021, US President Joe Biden declared the troop withdrawal will be completed by August 31 and said "We did not go to Afghanistan to nation-build. it's the right and the responsibility of the Afghan people alone to decide their future and how they want to run their country. " "I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome,' he asserted, claiming the US mission has achieved its objectives. 'The United States did what we went to do in Afghanistan: to get the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and to deliver justice to Osama Bin Laden, and to degrade the terrorist threat to keep Afghanistan from becoming a base from which attacks could be continued against the United States," said Biden. Biden said the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) are fully capable of repelling the Taliban attack, refuting reports that US intelligence authorities felt the government in Kabul could collapse within six months. According to Biden, about 650 US troops will remain in Afghanistan to sustain the security of the US embassy in Kabul. Pullout a big opportunity Over the past two decades, nearly 36 different countries deployed their troops in Afghanistan. The withdrawal of foreign troops presents a unique opportunity for the Afghanistan government to take all decisions on its own regarding military approaches to the Taliban and other insurgent groups. In recent days, the Taliban have taken a large number of districts in the northern and northeastern provinces of Afghanistan, which was no surprise, but what surprised the government and its strategic allies was the speed with which the Taliban progressed. I believe that as an Afghan and as a youth, after the full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, no pretext and justification will exist for the Taliban to continue the war - the jihad against a foreign power. All Islam scholars have declared that the war which the Taliban is fighting has no legitimacy according to Sharia law (Islamic law). There is no military solution for the Afghanistan problem, but a political settlement. However, the Taliban may choose to portray the Afghan government as a US proxy. But it will be a miscalculation on the part of the Taliban if they think they can overthrow the government militarily. ANDSF now has considerable expertise to simultaneously manage both military operations and negotiation. The US withdrawal also appears as an opportunity for the Afghan people to acquire actual sovereignty and prosperity. Afghanistan has been fighting on three fronts - internal terrorism, regional terrorism and International terrorism. It is incumbent upon Afghan politicians, influential figures and tribal leaders to keep aside the resentments and political dissensions. The Taliban are Afghans, they are inhabitants of Afghanistan, and the priority is to make a deal with the Taliban and prevent fratricidal war. Taliban must see reason President Ashraf Ghani successfully implemented a ceasefire during the Eid festival in 2018 for three days with the Taliban, He has called upon the Taliban numerous times to stop violence against civilians, desist from destroying infrastructure and say yes to a comprehensive ceasefire. However, the Taliban has yet to categorically put forth their stand on the issues. Their statements have so far only offered ambiguous answers. The Taliban, one feels, remains more interested in power than peace. A political agreement and integration of the Taliban into the society and the government is the only way out. They can decide their future, but the ball is on their court. Over the past two decades, Afghanistan has changed; now Afghans in parts of the country live in a democratic environment. In the previous elections, people came out of their homes and cast their votes for prosperity, sovereignty, and most importantly, for the peaceful Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that explicitly signaled a firm no to terrorism and barbarism. The achievements of the past 20 years (democracy, women's rights, freedom of speech and human rights) in Afghanistan are non-negotiable. During the Taliban domination in Afghanistan, women were denied even their basic rights. Now Afghanistan has four female ministers in its cabinet. The Islamic Emirate that the Taliban imposed in the 1990s is unacceptable to Afghan people and the world. If the Taliban still scoffs at a settlement process that would be at their peril. The Afghan security forces are well-trained and well-equipped to sustain the government. There are a few steps to reach a political settlement, to put an end to this endless war. It’s been almost a year since the Intra-Afghan dialogue started in Doha, However slow the progress is, it has kindled the hopes of the Afghan people. Now it’s a momentous opportunity for both sides to formalize a reconciliation process by discussing with all urgency the issues regarding comprehensive ceasefire and peace. Regional countries' role The regional and international communities have to use their influences and cut off the Taliban's financial resources. The group’s (Taliban) annual income from 2011 onward was estimated to be USD 400 million. But the amount is believed to have dramatically increased in recent years and could be as high as USD 1.5 billion from exporting opium, levying taxes and resorting to extortion. Regional and international consensus is a must for reaching a political settlement. Pakistan is a country known as a haven for terrorist groups. The Taliban has been backed by Pakistan for years; Pakistan is still equipping and providing financial assistance to the Taliban. Pakistan has had a strong influence on the Taliban. It can play a significant role in making the Taliban see reason. A peaceful Afghanistan means a peaceful Pakistan and it will help the region to be stable. Iran can also play an important part. The Islam Qala border town, one of the key trade gateway of Afghanistan into Iran, has fallen to the Taliban. On July 8, Iran hosted the first crucial high-level talks in months between the Taliban and the Afghan government. In a joint statement after the peace talks, both sides agreed that “war is not the solution to the Afghanistan problem” and that all efforts must be directed toward achieving a peaceful political solution. In a welcome move, the two sides agreed to continue the talks, and condemned attacks targeting "people’s homes, mosques and hospitals" and "destruction of public institutions" and called for "punishment of the perpetrators". This is a positive development, but it's just a fresh beginning. President Ghani has said he wants an urgent solution and is willing to negotiate, with an unbiased and neutral mediator under UN supervision between the government and the Taliban. An interim administration may be there for governance purposes during the negotiating process, but it has to be of short duration until the elections are held. Moreover, he is eager to resign and give up his presidency for the sake of peace in the country before his term comes to an end. The Taliban are claiming they have changed, and are not the Taliban of the 1990s anymore. Now it is incumbent upon the Taliban to agree to the Afghan government's appeal and stop the violence. During a transitional administration, the Taliban will be able to integrate into the government and society. And thereafter they can smoothly join the election. Finally, one needs to accept that the conflict in Afghanistan is not a war against any occupation, but one run by regional rivalries and ignited by competing ideologies and escalated by the rise of a brand of violent extremism. Mutual acceptance is a must in a multi-ethnic country, Afghanistan cannot be conquered by one side, nor divided among all. Now is the time for both sides as Afghans to take action, put an end to the endless conflict and lead Afghanistan to peace and prosperity. If the Afghan government and Taliban fail to establish a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, the consequence can only be calamitous. (The writer, an Afghanistan citizen, is an International Relations student at the University of Mysore, Karnataka, India. The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at email@example.com. He tweets @Baturarsalan Obaidi)

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Kazakhstan is a young state with a dual history: both Kazakh and Russian. The two histories are intertwined even if Astana may wish it weren’t so. And in recent years, as Russian revanchism spilled over its borders into both Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, Kazakhstan has taken steps to define its own unique place as a state. The recent trial and conviction of Yermek Narymbayev and Serikzhan Mambetalin, a pair of Kazakh activists, illustrated not only the arbitrariness of Kazakh justice but a facet of Astana’s drive to control messaging regarding the image of the state and its unity of thought. The two, after all, were sentenced to three and two years respectively for “inciting national discord” through Facebook posts. Mambetalin’s early release pending appeal and statement of repentance only underscore that conclusion. Joanna Lillis, who has been following the trial from Almaty for Eurasianet, wrote in early January that the two activists were “active online dissenters, but wield little on-the-ground influence to rally crowds against the government…” (read the rest of her writing regarding the trial and fallout here and here). Small players or not, the trial and easy conviction certainly sends a powerful message to Kazakhs to keep quiet if they have criticisms of the state. As reported by RFE/RL, Mambetalin’s release came along with a letter posted to Facebook “in which he wrote that he was ‘guilty and sorry for his mistakes,’ adding that he ‘committed the crime unintentionally.’” As Lillis noted, it was quite the change from the trial in which he plead not guilty, denounced the proceedings, and made a lively defense which cited the shuttering of opposition parties and media outlets as leaving Kazakhs with only the Internet to voice their opinions. But the only opinions Astana is keen to hear are those praising the state and the president. In unrelated news, though decidedly linked in the impression it makes, Kazakh police have reportedly detained a prominent, and pro-Russian, businessman in Shymkent over the weekend. Tokhtar Tuleshov has had his hands in a number of pies; Reuters says he is the chief executive of one of the country’s largest breweries and owns business assets in horses and watches. Reuters also reported that Tuleshov has run the Kazakh office for the Russia-based Center for the Analysis of Terrorist Threats, writing that “Its website catu.kz published anti-Western and pro-Russian articles, such as a piece alleging Islamic State militants were sending reinforcements to Ukrainian nationalists.” On one hand, Astana wants to be understood as a state with a long and independent history of its own. On the other hand, Nazarbayev was a direct product of the Soviet system (as are the institutions of the modern Kazakh state). If the praise slathered on Nazarbayev during a recent party congress is any indication, his cult of personality is growing to astounding levels. One speaker, per a video from RFE/RL’s Kazakh service, said to Nazarbayev: “You are a figure who raises us and protects us all, like baby birds.”

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

Christians hope decision will lead to greater religious freedom. ISTANBUL, December 18 (CDN) — In a decision many hope will lead to greater religious freedom in Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that a Turkish court ruling barring a church from starting a foundation violated the congregation’s right to freedom of association. Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a Turkish attorney and legal advisor for the litigants, said the decision earlier this year was the first time the ECHR has held that religious organizations have a right to exist in Turkey. Other issues the court addressed dealt with organizations’ rights to own property, he said. Cengiz added that this case is just the first of many needed to correct conflicts within the Turkish legal system in regard to freedom of association, known in Turkey as the concept of “legal personality.” “This case is a significant victory, but it is the first case in a long line of cases to come,” Cengiz said. Ihsan Ozbek, pastor of Kurtulus Church in northeast Turkey, which set out to establish the foundation, said he was pleased with the court’s decision. “It’s a good thing to have that decision,” he said. “It will help future churches and Christian organizations.” On Dec. 21, 2000, Ozbek and 15 other Turkish nationals applied to a court in Ankara to form the “Foundation of Liberation Churches,” to provide assistance to victims of disasters. The court referred the matter to the Directorate General of Foundations, which opposed it because, according to its interpretation of the organization’s constitution, the foundation sought to help only other Protestants. Such a purpose would be in violation of the Turkish civil code, which states that establishing a foundation to assist a specific community at the exclusion of others was prohibited. On Jan. 22, 2002, the church group appealed the decision to the higher Court of Cassation. They agreed that the constitution should be changed to more accurately reflect the true nature of the organization, which was to give assistance to victims of natural disasters regardless of their spiritual beliefs. In February of the same year, the court rejected their appeal. Later that year, on Aug. 29, 2002, under the guidance of Cengiz, the group appealed the decision to the ECHR. Founded in 1959 by the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECHR is the highest civil human rights court in Europe. Of the 47 countries that are signatories to the convention, Turkey accounts for more that 11 percent of the court’s caseload. On Oct. 11, 2005 the court agreed to hear the case. More than four years later, on June 10, it publicly issued a verdict. In its decision, the court unanimously found that the Turkish Courts’ “refusal to register the foundation, although permitted under Turkish law, had not been necessary in a democratic society, and that there had been a violation of Article 11.” Article 11 of the convention deals with the rights of people to associate and assemble with others. “The applicants had been willing to amend the constitution of their foundation both to reflect their true aims and to comply with the legal requirements for registration,” the court decision stated. “However, by not allowing them time to do this – something they had done in a similar case – the Court of Cassation had prevented them from setting up a foundation that would have had legal status.” The decision was issued by seven judges, one of them Turkish. The court awarded 2,500 euros (US$3,600) to each of the 16 members of the group, in addition to 5,200 euros (US$7,490) to the group as a whole. After being forbidden to open a foundation, the Protestant group opened an association in 2004, after Turkish law had been amended allowing them to do so. Foundations and associations in Turkey differ mostly in their ability to collect and distribute money. The aims of the association were similar to that of the proposed foundation, with the exception of reference to supporting one particular community. Ozbek said the directorate’s office has been the main obstacle in preventing people from forming Christian foundations. “Now that they have the decision, they will be forced to say yes,” he said. Report from Compass Direct News

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9

WASHINGTON — British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s advisor on LGBTQ issues last week applauded his government’s efforts to help facilitate the successful evacuation of LGBTQ Afghans from the country. “I’m very proud of the tremendous work that’s been done by the U.K. government,” Nick Herbert, a member of the British House of Lords, told the Los Angeles Blade on Dec. 1 during an interview in D.C. “The U.K. has shown global leadership here.” A group of 29 LGBTQ Afghans who Stonewall, Rainbow Railroad and Micro Rainbow evacuated from Afghanistan with the help of the British government arrived in the U.K. on Oct. 29. Herbert on Nov. 6 announced a second group of LGBTQ Afghans had reached the country. “It took … a strong effort with different parts of government working together and the determination that this was really important and that people’s safety was…

International Relations and Political Conflicts

9