Connect with us

ASIA

A total failure of US war on terror in Afghanistan

Published

on

Whatever is the views of analysts regarding evacuation of NATO or US troops from Afghanistan and letting Taliban to occupy power corridors in Afghanistan through Doha Qatar Peace Accord but it could be considered part of America spy master’s strategies for exposing the “hidden militants and militant groups” in the region. In fact, the US made changes in its Afghan policies after 2009 and gave it final touches after targeting Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011 last.

In fact, for a very brief period after 9/11, Pakistan, considered a major stakeholder in Afghan conflict, extended visible support to US led allied troops but internally Pakistan’s intelligence agencies remained busy in patronization of Taliban, especially its faction called Haqqani network. Both Haqqani Network and its patrons Pakistan’s secret agencies remained very careful in its acts of carrying out deadly terror acts against the NATO troops throughout Afghanistan. And the US after thorough consultation and in connection with its strategies, offered office in Doha, Qatar. The move remained very successful and now not only Haqqani network but even Al Qaeda fugitives are visible in Kabul and other areas of Afghanistan.

On the other hand, the US has stakes not only in Afghanistan but also in Central Asian Republics, Middle East and especially in Iran. Iran since the failure of US in Syria war, becoming a serious threat to US influence in the region. In particular, Chinese attempts to get occupation of all trade routes in the region is also a serious threat to the US interests in the region. At the moment, Pakistan is in a dominant position in Afghanistan and Pakistan is in close links with Iran. So far the US is very careful in its strategies for tackling the situation that erupted in Afghanistan.

US invaded Afghanistan on pretext of war on terror 

In 2001, the USA invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of the war on terror with the support of NATO and over 40 countries. On September 11, 2001, 19 members of al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airliners, crashing the first two into the World Trade Center in NYC, and the third into the Pentagon. In NYC, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives and over 2,500 others received injuries.

US blamed al-Qaeda for the attacks and decided to send troops to Afghanistan on the pretext of war on terror. The US was in Afghanistan for the last 20 years and eventually withdrew in August 2021.

20 years of US involvement in the Afghan conflict is considered the longest war in the history of the USA.

The highest number of US troops in Afghanistan was in 2011 after then-President Barack Obama decided to increase the number of US forces, which reportedly around 140,000 US and NATO troops were present in Afghanistan.

NATO officially ended its military mission in Afghanistan in 2014 and handed over security responsibility to the Afghan National Security and Defense Forces (ANDSF).

Unwinnable war in Afghanistan

Realizing the fact that war is not winnable in Afghanistan, the former US President Donald Trump pursued the path of reconciliation and appointed Afghan-born US veteran diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad to continue the peace negotiations with the Islamic Emirate’s Qatar-based political office.

After more than 10 rounds of negotiations, Khalilzad reached a peace deal on February 29th, 2020, in Doha.

When the incumbent president Joe Biden won the election, echoed Trump’s policy and openly said they are not interested in nation-building in Afghanistan and stressed on the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan no matter even if it resulted into the collapse of western-backed government they supported in the last 20 years.

Finally after spending trillion dollars on training and equipping hundreds of thousands of (ANSDF) and with casualties of 2,448 US forces while another 20,722 were wounded, US accepted defeat and went out of Afghanistan.

Former Afghan National Army and US forces in Afghanistan.

Reality check:

The main reason behind US presence in Afghanistan was to fight against terrorist group, but is that happened so. With one word we can describe that US not only waged a flop war against terrorist group, but many other groups emerged under the very noise of US presence and the most terrible example is the emerge of the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.

In its July report, the UN Security Council warned that the Daesh group has expanded to other provinces, including Nuristan, Badghis, Sar-e-Pul, Baghlan, Badakhshan, Kunduz, and Kabul, where fighters formed a slipper cell.

The report said: “In its efforts to resurge, ISIL-K has prioritized the recurrent and training of new supporters and to recruit fighters from the Syrian Arab Republic (Assad regime) Iraq and other conflict zones.” Daesh has strength of some 500-1500 militant in Afghanistan and its three key commanders namely Sanaullah Ghafari, a key commander of the terror group, and two so-called spokesmen of the group Sultan Aiz Azam, and Maulaw Rajab were placed on the US specially designated global terrorist list.

The US left Afghanistan at the mercy of Daesh, with many experts believing that the US has been deliberately supporting Daesh to use it as a pressure tool against the current Taliban government. The US reportedly also started supporting the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) aimed at further destabilizing Afghanistan and from there to destabilize its rival countries in the neighboring Afghanistan and regional countries.

US aim of Afghanistan occupation

Afghanistan is located on the heart of Asia. It has borders with most rival countries of the US. Afghanistan has borders with Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and a tiny border with China. Afghanistan is also very near to Russia, another biggest rival of US. There is believe that US tried to penetrated  into these countries through its 20 years of presence, but these countries were smart enough to prevent any such designs. At one hand, US was trying to pretend that Washington is in Afghanistan to fight terrorist groups, but covertly they were pursing secret agenda, in other hand, the Afghans were very hopeful that US presence is for the betterment of the country, which proved false. US time and again said they were not in Afghanistan for any nation-building purposes, but a simple question arise that why US interfered into internal affairs of Afghanistan, especially in elections and appointing top ministers, especially the Interior, Defense and  head of intelligence department. Once US realized they can’t reach its goal to these countries from Afghanistan, they changed their policy in which Afghanistan gradually become insecure after 2006, and many more terrorist groups started emerging. The neighbors and regional countries, especially Iran, the Central Asian states, China and Russia started to strengthen its intelligence department to avoid any terrorist activities inside their soil from Afghanistan.

Jeopardizing regional security

US has a scenario to destabilize Afghanistan similar like Iraq and Syria, to threat its rival countries and now after withdrawing from Afghanistan they still did not recognize the Taliban, and indirectly supporting Daesh to change Afghanistan into a ruin just to reach its goal of destabilizing other countries from the Afghan soil.

Afghanistan and regional countries in map.

Afghanistan Overview map, ColorIn July, five rockets presumably fired from Afghanistan fell on the border town of Termez in the south of Uzbekistan, a move that raised speculation that the US is pursuing a different agenda. Taliban should also be very careful in its relation with US because Washington abandoned its 20 years allies and let the Taliban to took control of Afghanistan, the same US can support other groups, probably Daesh is in the line, against the Taliban just to reach its goal.  The US has approximately left behind $7 billion of military equipment in Afghanistan after withdrawal from the country in August. The equipment is now in a country that is controlled by enemy the US was trying to drive out over the past two decades. This is shocking reality that US has a very secret agenda behind this. US is trying to support other groups, most likely Daesh, and once the terrorist group took control of Afghanistan with $7 billion of military equipment, they can easily threat any country they want and this the long-term policy of US.

ASIA

5 points in the indictment of Indian billionaire Gautam Adani

Published

on

The indictment of Indian tycoon Gautam Adani, Asia’s second richest man, on bribery charges in a U.S. federal court on Wednesday shocked India.

The charges put his empire under renewed scrutiny less than two years after allegations of financial irregularities by short-seller Hindenburg Research wiped $130bn off the group’s public market value.

Who is Gautam Adani?

Gautam Adani is the founder and chairman of the Adani Group, which has interests in renewable energy, ports, airports, construction materials, food and media. He is often referred to as ‘Number 1’ and ‘Big Man’ by other defendants in the case.

Adani, 62, from a middle-income textile family in the western Indian state of Gujarat, set up his group in 1988 to trade in commodities. Over time, Adani grew his business through an aggressive leverage strategy, moving into many sectors critical to the country’s infrastructure. The group was worth around $170 billion before the indictment led to the sale of its listed assets.

Adani’s rise mirrors that of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, himself from Gujarat. Modi’s political opponents have often claimed that Modi has favored the billionaire, as Adani has benefited greatly from the tenders it has won for public projects thanks to the Modi government’s infrastructure development drive. Both Adani and the government have denied any special treatment.

What are the charges?

U.S. prosecutors allege that Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and six other defendants conspired to pay $265 million in bribes to Indian government officials to secure ‘lucrative solar power supply contracts’. The defendants also allegedly ‘concealed’ the bribes from U.S.-based investors in order to ‘obtain billions of dollars in financing’.

The bribery scheme, dubbed the ‘Corrupt Solar Power Project’ in the indictment, centered on numerous solar power contracts awarded by the state-owned Solar Energy Corporation of India to Adani’s renewable energy unit and another Indian company, Azure Power.

Adani and others have also been charged by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with making ‘materially false or misleading’ statements about anti-bribery practices when raising $750 million from investors in September 2021, including $175 million from U.S. investors.

How will the indictment affect the Group’s business?

Following the indictment, 11 of the conglomerate’s twelve companies collectively lost around $27 billion in value on Thursday, a repeat of the collapse in January 2023, when Hindenburg Research accused the group of stock manipulation and improper use of offshore tax havens, among other allegations.

Shares in holding company Adani Enterprises fell more than 22%, while shares in Adani Green Energy, the focus of the investigation, fell nearly 19%. Only New Delhi Television (NDTV), the news media arm of the conglomerate, closed marginally higher. Shares in most Adani companies continued to fall in early trading on Friday.

“The indictment could affect Adani’s upcoming fundraising plans. Adani Green Energy has reportedly cancelled the sale of $600 million in U.S. dollar-denominated bonds. The biggest short-term impact of this development is that the Adani Group may find it difficult to raise new funds, especially from leading financial institutions, until its name is cleared,” said Abhishek Basumallick, founder of investment advisory firm Intelsense.

Late on Thursday, Kenyan President William Ruto said he was cancelling Adani’s purchase of a controlling stake in the country’s main airport and a $736 million public-private partnership with the company to build power transmission lines.

How have the Adani Group and the Indian government responded?

In a statement on Thursday, the Adani Group rejected the charges in the indictment, calling them ‘baseless’.

As the U.S. Department of Justice has stated, the charges in the indictment are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty,’ the group said in a statement: ‘All available legal remedies will be pursued.

There has been no official reaction from the Indian government.

Jaideep Mazumdar, Joint Secretary (East) in the Ministry of External Affairs, declined to comment when asked about the Adani issue during a press conference on Modi’s visit to Guyana in South America. “This is a press conference organised for the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Guyana and the India-CARICOM (Caribbean Community) Summit, and I am not in a position to respond to questions beyond this mandate,” he said in Guyana’s capital, Georgetown.

Modi’s political rivals have launched a series of attacks on the billionaire.

Rahul Gandhi, senior leader of the Indian National Congress, said at a press conference on Thursday: “Adani has in a way taken over India; the country is in the grip of Adani. So, India’s airports, ports, defence industry… it is a partnership. Modi is on one side of the partnership and Adani is on the other,” he said.

Gandhi is also the leader of the opposition in the lower house of parliament and is in a powerful position to have a say in the appointment of a director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the country’s anti-crime agency. Gandhi said his party would raise Adani’s charges in the winter session of parliament, which begins on Monday.

Is extradition expected to come up?

There is an ongoing investigation into Adani, launched last year by India’s securities regulator in the wake of the Hindenburg Research allegations.

Lawyers in India and the U.S. have said that U.S. prosecutors may seek the extradition of Adani and other defendants in the latest charges. The two countries have had an extradition treaty in place since 1997.

Prashant Mendiratta, a lawyer at the Delhi High Court, said the Indian Ministry of External Affairs would be the primary decision-maker if the U.S. government made an extradition request.

“If the Indian government refuses extradition, the prosecution can approach the Indian judiciary with a petition against the decision … there is a high probability that this will turn into a two-front legal battle,” Mendiratta added.

The Indo-U.S. extradition treaty also stipulates that an offence must be punishable by imprisonment of one year or more before extradition can be granted. Under India’s Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, bribery is only punishable by up to one year in prison.

The more stringent Prevention of Corruption Act (PoCA) can also be applied in this case.

However, for the PoCA to apply, it must be proven that a bribe was solicited and accepted by the government official.

“Obviously we are aware of these allegations,” White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said at a press briefing on Thursday when asked if the U.S. was concerned that the charges against Adani could damage bilateral relations: “What I would say is that we believe that the relationship between the United States and India rests on an extremely strong foundation based on the relationship between our peoples and cooperation on the full range of global issues.”

Continue Reading

ASIA

Trump’s trade stance pushes Asian countries toward regional alliances

Published

on

Asian countries are responding to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s protectionist rhetoric by placing greater emphasis on regional and bilateral trade agreements aimed at promoting transnational economic cooperation without U.S. involvement, analysts say.

After being sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2024, Trump made tariffs a cornerstone of his campaign, pledging to impose duties of up to 20% on U.S. imports across the board, as well as a 60% tariff on Chinese goods.

At the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Peru, leaders from many of the 21 member economies called for greater regional economic integration as geopolitical tensions rise and supply chains become increasingly fragile.

China signed a stronger trade agreement with Peru.

Indonesia finalized a trade deal with Canada.

Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, emphasized the importance of reviving the Asia-Pacific Free Trade Area, an agreement still under negotiation among APEC economies.

“APEC is more important now than it was before,” Wong said, highlighting the urgency of collaboration.

Multilateral regional economic partnerships

Trade deals excluding Washington, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), are expected to become more vital for Asian countries in the coming years.

“This will help us manage some of the chaos and damage from the collapsing global system,” said Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation, an Asia-based group promoting sustainable trade, in an interview with Nikkei Asia.

The RCEP, a trade agreement involving 15 Asia-Pacific countries—including China, Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN members—was signed in November 2020 after eight years of negotiation. Together, these countries account for roughly 30% of global GDP.

In 2017, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), leaving Japan to lead the revised agreement. Renamed the CPTPP, the 11-member group, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam, is entering its sixth year. Trade between members rose 5.5% between 2018 and 2021. The United Kingdom joined in December, while China has expressed interest in becoming a member.

Given Trump’s anti-globalization stance, analysts suggest that Japan should expand the CPTPP by adding members and deepening cooperation with the European Union.

A Chinese delegate at APEC remarked, “At the end of the day, we have many trading partners.”

However, China’s own economic policies could pose challenges to regional trade cooperation.

Priyanka Kishore, founder of consultancy Asia Decoded, emphasized that China must boost domestic consumption and increase imports to strengthen regional trade.

“China has a crucial role to play in supporting the region’s external demand,” Kishore told Nikkei Asia, adding, “It needs to do more if it wants to be the champion of intra-regional trade.”

Finding new trading partners could take years

Higher U.S. tariffs could hit Asian economies hard, particularly those with trade-to-GDP ratios exceeding 100%, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. Currently, only Singapore and South Korea have free trade agreements with the U.S.

Tariffs, paid by importers in the U.S. and collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, raise costs that are often passed on to consumers. However, they also hurt foreign exporters by making their goods less competitive.

According to research by Yang Zhou, an economist at Fudan University, the U.S.-China trade war cost China $35 billion, and the U.S. $15 billion in 2018 alone.

A study by Global Trade Alert, an independent organization monitoring world trade policies, explored how Asian countries might cope with losing access to the U.S. market. It concluded that it would take these countries an average of five years to establish new trade partnerships.

For countries like Thailand, the timeline could extend to 24 years, as they shift trade to China, the EU, Vietnam, and Japan. For South Korea, it might take until 2038 to fully replace the U.S. as a trading partner.

Continue Reading

ASIA

China resumes visa-free travel for Japanese citizens

Published

on

China’s Foreign Ministry announced on Friday that the government will waive visa requirements for Japanese citizens traveling to the country starting 30 November.

Japan now joins a group of European countries, including Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia, that have been added to China’s visa-free travel list. This arrangement will remain in effect until the end of next year.

The latest exemptions bring the total number of eligible countries to 38. Additionally, Beijing has extended the visa-free stay duration from 15 to 30 days.

This decision follows a meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and Chinese President Xi Jinping during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Peru last week. Both leaders agreed to cooperate based on their “common strategic interests.”

China had suspended visa exemptions for Japanese and other travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since lifting its zero-COVID policy in 2023, Beijing has reinstated visa-free entry for dozens of countries in Europe and Southeast Asia. However, Japanese citizens still required visas for stays of 15 days or less—until now.

Japanese authorities have been urging Beijing to relax visa policies, aiming to facilitate travel for business and leisure. While this latest move simplifies access, it remains unclear if it will lead to a substantial rise in Japanese visitors to China, given ongoing challenges such as the weak yen, which has dampened outbound travel from Japan.

Conversely, Chinese citizens traveling to Japan must still obtain visas, a policy that predates the pandemic. According to Japanese media, Tokyo is not planning to offer reciprocal visa-free travel to China but is considering simplifying visa procedures to ease the process for Chinese visitors.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey