Asia
Dynamics of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations
Afghanistan-Pakistan relations are characterized by a complex interplay of historical grievances, geopolitical controversies, security dilemmas, economic dependencies, and ethnic identities. Unless and until, understanding these layers, it could be hard for all those interested in fostering peace and cooperation in this volatile region, which is much more essential for people of both the neighboring countries facing similar security, economic and political issues.
No one can neglect the fact that the historical narrative of Afghanistan and Pakistan is linked in a very complicated manner, characterized by a series of complex interactions and interferences that have frequently involved accusations, blame-shifting, and concealed motives. Beginning from the British colonial period, various events have played pivotal roles in shaping these dynamics. Prior to the British Empire’s involvement in the region laid the groundwork for future geopolitical tensions and alliances, almost all parts and parcels of both the neighboring countries remained part of one or several empires and intruded rulers, which is now considered bone of contention between the two. Following this era, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan marked a critical turning point, as it not only altered local power structures but also drew international attention and intervention into the whole region. This was further complicated by the subsequent involvement of the United States lead allies, which aimed at countering Soviet influence, commenced during the Cold War.
What went wrong in the past five decades
Focusing on the past five decades, Pakistan has consistently altered its approach to each new Afghan government that has emerged following various political transitions and takeovers. This pattern of behavior is often viewed as a strategic maneuver, deeply rooted in Pakistan’s desire for what it terms “strategic depth.” This concept refers to the idea that an unstable Afghanistan serves Pakistan’s geopolitical ambitions by providing a buffer zone against perceived threats, particularly from India. Visibly, the instability in Afghanistan allows Pakistan to exert influence over its neighbor while simultaneously pursuing its own national interests but internally it causes stock of issues and hurdles to its powerful military establishment.
Pakistan’s well discussed “strategic depth”, that was planned or originated in the early years following its independence, aimed to counterbalance India’s regional influence. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 marked a significant turning point that reinforced this outlook, when Pakistan emerged as a pivotal player in supporting Afghan’s armed resistance by (Afghan Mujahideen calling them freedom fighters, scattered in various armed groups, thereby deepening its involvement in Afghan affairs and solidifying its role in the geopolitical dynamics of South Asia.
The biggest issue is the use of proxy’s forces on the part of Pakistan’s policy toward Afghanistan
The usage of proxies policy represents a significant miscalculation on the part of Pakistan’s policy makers responsible for ups and downs in neighboring Afghanistan. No doubt to mention that this perspective complicates Pakistan’s foreign policy and undermines the possibility of establishing a stable and cooperative relationship with Afghanistan, ultimately jeopardizing Pakistan’s security as well. By framing its approach to Afghanistan apparently through the lens of rivalry with India, Pakistan risks intensifying tensions and conflicts that could further destabilize both nations. Such a strategy fails to acknowledge the intricate socio-political dynamics within Afghanistan and neglects the opportunities for collaboration that could yield mutual benefits for both countries.
Problematic domestic and isolated foreign policies
No one can neglect that the problematic domestic and isolated foreign policies of Taliban-led Afghan government, has further fuelled hardships for Pakistan as, “no other than Pakistan is considered responsible for its (Taliban)re-empowering.” By patronizing Tehrik Taliban Afghanistan also called Emirate Islami Afghanistan, Pakistan’s powerful junta had ignored the fact that TTA founder Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund has been declared as their unanimous supreme leader by like minded islamists from both the countries. Afghan Taliban in accordance with the guidelines of Mullah Omar are reluctant to honor Pakistan’s demand of either extraditing banned TTP militants or taking action against them. Pakistan is also ignoring another fact that TT established by Mullah Omar Akhund is trying for Islamic State of Khurasan, which is also a threat to geographical limits of several regional countries.
Calling them as Taliban are not new but they are creation or production of US patronized Afghan War. Majority of them were part of different Jihadic groups. Amongst the Jihadis, Haqqannis headed by late Maulvi Jalal Ud Din Haqqani, Hizb-e-Islami Afghanistan faction headed by Maulvi Younas Khalis and several others like Ustad Yasar of Prof. Abdul Rab Rasool Sayaf led Ittehad Islami were the first one who had announced joining of TTA soon after its inception.
Pakistan is suffering from his persistently unsuccessful policies toward its neighbor Afghanistan
No one having the intention to oppose or under mind Pakistan’s harsh criticisms concerning the presence of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) sanctuaries on Afghan soil, but no one can neglect the fact that both countries they have suffered significant harm as a result of Pakistan’s persistently unsuccessful Afghan policies. Instead pursuing failed or flop policies, Pakistan is in possession of stock of opportunities, entering into friendly and trustworthy relations with Afghanistan. Moreover, they could strengthen their ties through economic collaboration, including the negotiations of trade agreements, joint infrastructure development projects, and partnerships in the long-awaited mega energy projects in the region. From a geopolitical perspective, Pakistan and Afghanistan have the opportunity to collaborate on initiatives aimed at promoting regional connectivity and engage in diplomatic endeavors to foster peace and stability within the region.
The conflicting narratives from both sides, especially Pakistani leaders’ remarks only serve to fuel mistrust and escalate tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Instead of working towards resolving their differences and addressing common security challenges, each side continues to point fingers at the other. This vicious cycle of blame and counter-blame not only undermines efforts towards regional peace but also creates an environment conducive to the growth and spread of extremist groups. It’s generally believed in Afghanistan that Pakistan’s assertions are driven by this country’s long-term policy of strategic depth of having an unstable and unsecured Afghanistan in its western border, rather than a genuine concern for security. They think that Pakistan uses the threat of TTP presence in Afghanistan as a pretext to justify its continued involvement in Afghan affairs or to divert attention from internal issues. Others suggest that Pakistan is seeking international support and sympathy by portraying itself as a victim of terrorism.
Meanwhile, Pakistani Taliban (TTP) cannot be defeated through military means
The assertion that the Pakistan establishment is behind the turmoil in Afghanistan is a complex issue with multiple factors at play and holds merit based on historical context, strategic interests, support for insurgent groups, geopolitical considerations, and implications for regional stability.
Regardless of the motives behind Pakistan’s assertions, it is clear that the current strategy of relying on military action alone will not address the security challenges facing Pakistan. The TTP is an adaptive adversary that cannot be defeated through military means alone. A more realistic and comprehensive approach is needed, one that addresses the root causes of extremism and terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan, such as poverty eradication, depreciation, lack of education, and political instability.
Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan are diverse, covering economic, security, stability, and regional influence considerations. However, significant challenges arise when Pakistan engages in proxy conflicts against successive Afghan governments regardless of their prior friendly relations. This long standing policy of supporting armed opposition groups against ruling authorities has persisted for decades, harming trust and posing a dual threat to both countries. From the last couple of years, the exchanges between Pakistani officials and Taliban representatives highlights a complex web of accusations regarding terrorism and security in South Asia. Both sides appear to be deflecting responsibility while emphasizing the other’s role in perpetuating regional instability. Instead, results oriented dialogues may be encouraged for building up consensus on both sides for addressing common issues of security, extremism, poverty and backwardness.
The issue of IS and controversy surrounding Bagram Airfield to the US drones is a big challenge
Across the border in Afghanistan, the reports of Pakistan’s recent engagement with Afghan warlords, the allegations of harboring ISKP terrorists on its soil against Afghanistan, and the controversy surrounding the provision of air bases to U.S. drones are issues that promote anti Pakistan sentiment and raise concerns for Afghanistan. It is crucial for Pakistan to promptly and effectively address these matters. In their pursuit of military and political strategies, Pakistani policymakers intentionally create an imaginary emotional narrative that positions Pakistan as a nation sandwiched between two antagonistic neighbors, which serves to rationalize their actions on both domestic and international fronts. This approach not only marks a shift from previous alliances but also underscores the intricate nature of regional politics, where allegiances can swiftly alter in response to immediate strategic requirements.
The implications of this evolving policy are profound for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. For Afghanistan, continued instability may hinder economic development and exacerbate humanitarian crises. For Pakistan, while it may gain short-term advantages through manipulation of Afghan politics, its long-term consequences could include increased militancy within its borders and strained relations with international partners who advocate for stability in the region.
Asia
South Korea emerges as major beneficiary of shifts in global arms market
Uncertainty in the global arms market, driven by the United States reassessing its relationships with allies and a broad rearmament drive across many countries, is creating major commercial opportunities for South Korea. According to an analysis published by Politico, Seoul has become the world’s fastest-growing supplier of military equipment.
The report said that large-scale conflicts around the world have created urgent demand for weapons as countries seek both to support allies and strengthen their own defenses against potential future confrontations. At the same time, changes in the US role within the global arms market have opened new opportunities for South Korean manufacturers. Statements and policy decisions by US President Donald Trump regarding NATO have led allies to question Washington’s reliability in times of crisis, increasing uncertainty across the global market. In addition, the diversion of a large share of US weapons supplies to the Middle East because of ongoing conflicts has placed further strain on already overstretched supply chains.
European countries increase purchases from South Korea
Faced with what Politico described as the Trump administration’s more distant approach toward allies, European countries in particular have accelerated arms purchases from South Korea. The publication noted that Seoul’s growing influence as a supplier has been driven largely by major defense contracts signed with Poland.
Following the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, several Eastern European capitals, including Warsaw, transferred portions of their military inventories to Kyiv, relying on German support to replenish their arsenals. However, Berlin’s slow pace in replacing allied stockpiles generated frustration across the region.
South Korea emerged as an alternative supplier during this period and became a reliable source of military equipment for Eastern European countries. Poland became Seoul’s largest customer through a $13.7 billion agreement covering the purchase of tanks, rocket launchers, self-propelled howitzers and other military equipment.
“We were originally preparing against North Korea, but now we are ready to provide these solutions to customers around the world,” said Choo Hyung-kim, head of the Security Management Institute, a defense analysis organization affiliated with South Korea’s National Assembly.
Lack of political baggage gives Seoul an advantage
Politico reported that one of the greatest advantages enjoyed by South Korean defense companies is the absence of the “political baggage” associated with major arms exporters such as the United States, China, Russia and Israel.
According to the figures cited, the combined projected revenue of South Korea’s largest defense companies, including Hanwha Group, Hyundai Rotem, LIG Nex1 and Korea Aerospace Industries, is expected to reach approximately $37 billion in 2026. That would represent a fourfold increase from their combined revenues in 2021.
Meanwhile, an official from the office of former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol told the Yonhap news agency in 2024 that the scale of any weapons shipments to Ukraine would depend on Russia’s approach to its relationship with North Korea. Seoul later clarified that it had no plans to provide ammunition directly to Ukraine.
Asia
DeepSeek raises $7.4 billion in funding round, surpasses $50 billion valuation
Chinese artificial intelligence startup DeepSeek has raised more than 50 billion yuan ($7.4 billion) in its first funding round. According to Reuters, citing The Information, the company’s valuation has surpassed $50 billion.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the capital will be used to support the costly development of advanced artificial intelligence technologies.
According to the newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, investors valued the company at more than $50 billion. The valuation makes DeepSeek the most valuable AI startup in China.
DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng reportedly owned about 90% of the company before the funding round. Liang is said to have contributed roughly $3 billion during the fundraising process, making him the largest participant in the round.
According to Reuters, the transaction was structured in an unusual way that allows Liang to retain control of the company.
Rather than investing directly in DeepSeek, investors were required to invest through a limited partnership managed by a senior executive of the startup. Under the arrangement, investors were not granted voting rights. The report also said restrictions were placed on the use of invested funds for a period of five years.
The sole exception was the China National Artificial Intelligence Industry Investment Fund. The fund reportedly invested approximately $150 million directly in DeepSeek, allowing it to retain both voting rights and full discretion over its stake.
Other major investors in the funding round included Tencent, which invested approximately $1.5 billion, and Contemporary Amperex Technology, which invested about $740 million.
Bloomberg previously described the transaction as one of the largest fundraising rounds undertaken by a Chinese startup. According to the agency, the investment marks a new stage in the efforts of leading Chinese AI companies to compete with their US rivals.
DeepSeek told prospective investors that it would prioritize foundational and transformative AI research over short-term commercialization.
Based in the Chinese city of Hangzhou, DeepSeek emerged as one of Beijing’s most prominent AI companies after unveiling a more powerful and lower-cost model more than a year ago. The WSJ reported that interest surrounding the company has accelerated AI adoption in China and increased investor appetite for domestic startups.
Liang Wenfeng has previously said he intends to continue developing open-source AI models and ultimately aims to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI). According to Bloomberg, the strategy continues an approach that has contributed to the spread of open models and influenced companies across China’s AI market, including Alibaba’s Qwen platform.
Bloomberg added that while global rivals such as OpenAI and Anthropic are exploring public offerings and revenue-generation strategies, DeepSeek has maintained its “research first” approach.
Asia
China issues white paper on global governance reform, urging support for UN-centered international system
China’s State Council Information Office on Wednesday released a white paper titled “A More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China’s Principles, Proposals and Actions.”
The white paper was issued to introduce China’s principles, proposals, and actions regarding global governance, to foster a broader consensus within the international community, to enable more effective responses to global challenges, and to build a more just and equitable global governance system.
The document states that global governance is a common endeavor concerning the well-being of all humanity, and that building a just and equitable global governance system is a shared vision long pursued by people around the world. It also emphasizes that China has always been an active participant, contributor, and builder of global governance.
According to the white paper, in the new era, Chinese President Xi Jinping has put forward the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind. Advancing a global governance system shaped on the basis of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, Xi has called for true multilateralism to promote an equal and orderly multipolar world and an economic globalization that is inclusive and beneficial for all.
In 2025, Xi proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI). This initiative was designed to offer China’s solutions to two urgent questions of the era: What kind of global governance system should be established, and how should global governance be reformed and improved?
The white paper notes that shortly after its introduction, the GGI received support from approximately 160 countries and international organizations, with more than 60 countries joining the Group of Friends of the Global Governance Initiative. It states that the international community is of the view that the GGI sends a clear message: to defend multilateralism, join forces, and strive for a just future.
According to the white paper, the GGI aligns with the growing trend toward greater democracy in international relations and strengthens international confidence in the practice of multilateralism. The initiative provides a clear and actionable roadmap for the improvement of global governance, injecting valuable stability and positive energy into a turbulent world.
The white paper emphasizes that China proposed the GGI to accelerate the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system. The document states that firmly defending the authority and status of the United Nations is of fundamental importance for the effective implementation of this initiative.
According to the white paper, success will also depend on major countries acting with a sense of responsibility and all nations working together in unity to bridge deficits in peace and development. It states that rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel, all countries must firmly defend the international system with the UN at its core, maintain the international order based on international law, and uphold the fundamental norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
In addition to the preface and conclusion, the white paper consists of five chapters: “Today’s World Faces Severe and Complex Challenges,” “The Global Governance Initiative Responds to the Challenges of Our Era,” “China’s Contribution to the Development of Global Governance,” “Directing the Course of Change Toward a Bright Future,” and “Advancing Hand in Hand at a Critical Juncture in History.”
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoEU authorizes Mediterranean naval mission to intercept suspected Russian shadow fleet tankers
-
Europe2 weeks agoUK underwater deterrent facing scrutiny as all active Astute-class submarines remain in port
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Opinion7 days agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Opinion2 weeks agoNATO as the apparatus of aggression and occupation of US imperialism
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
