Connect with us

Asia

Dynamics of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations

Published

on

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

Japan diverges from G7, urging restraint in Israel-Iran conflict

Published

on

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has affirmed Tokyo’s position of calling for “maximum restraint” from both Israel and Iran, despite a G7 statement earlier this week that supported Israel’s “right to self-defense.”

During a meeting of ruling and opposition party leaders on Thursday, Ishiba stated, “What the foreign minister said is the stance of the Japanese government. The G7 is the G7,” as reported by Tomoko Tamura, head of the Japanese Communist Party.

Japan, a close US ally in Asia, has long maintained friendly relations with Iran and has historically adopted a neutral approach to Middle East diplomacy, distinguishing itself from the pro-Israel stance of US administrations. Tokyo relies on the Middle East for the overwhelming majority of its crude oil imports.

G7 leaders convened in Kananaskis, Canada, and issued a statement backing Israel’s attacks on Iran. The statement affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense and condemned Iran as the “main source of regional instability and terrorism.” On June 13, when Israel’s attacks on Iran began, Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya declared: “The use of military force while diplomatic efforts are ongoing… is completely unacceptable and a source of deep regret. The Japanese government strongly condemns these actions.”

Iwaya added, “Japan is gravely concerned about the continuation of retaliatory attacks and strongly condemns any actions that could further escalate the situation.”

He continued, “Japan urges all parties to exercise maximum restraint and strongly calls for a de-escalation of tensions.”

During the meeting of party leaders, Tomoko Tamura, head of the Japanese Communist Party, highlighted the apparent contradiction between Iwaya’s statements and the joint G7 communiqué, suggesting the government was applying a “double standard.”

Prime Minister Ishiba responded, “What the foreign minister said is the stance of the Japanese government. The G7 is the G7.”

Meanwhile, the foreign minister announced at a press conference on Friday that a total of 87 Japanese nationals and their family members had been evacuated by land from Iran and Israel. Sixty-six individuals were evacuated from Iran to neighboring Azerbaijan, and 21 were evacuated from Israel to Jordan.

Following additional requests from Japanese citizens, a second land evacuation from Iran is scheduled for Saturday. Currently, there are approximately 220 Japanese nationals in Iran and about 1,000 in Israel.

In preparation for potential air evacuations, the government plans to dispatch two Air Self-Defense Force military transport aircraft to Djibouti in East Africa to have them on standby. With airports in Iran and Israel closed, Iwaya noted that the aircraft could be used if, for example, the airports reopen and conditions permit an airlift.

Continue Reading

Asia

Iran-Israel war: Why US discusses regional conflict with Pakistan

Published

on

US President Donald Trump and Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir held a special and important meeting during a time when tensions are rising in the Asian region. The meeting was held on Trump’s invitation and was not open to the media. However, both sides have released official statements afterward, which states that the main topics were discussed

The meeting focused on the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel, Pakistan–India relations, especially the Kashmir issue, the situation in Afghanistan and future US–Pakistan cooperation.

Pakistan has recently improved its strategic position in the region. It has shown strong ties with China and is the only South Asian country openly supporting Iran in its conflict with Israel. Meanwhile, Pakistan remains an important player in Afghanistan.

Why the Pakistani Army Chief was invited to the US?

Although Pakistan has an elected civilian government, important decisions—especially related to foreign affairs and security—are often handled by the military. That’s why General Asim Munir was invited to meet Trump instead of the Prime Minister, General Munir’s influence has grown recently. After tensions with India, he was given the title of Field Marshal. His meeting with Trump is seen as a sign of his importance in both Pakistani and international politics.

According to the Pakistan Army’s media wing (ISPR): General Munir thanked President Trump for helping to ease recent tensions between Pakistan and India. Trump praised Pakistan’s role in fighting terrorism. Both agreed to work together in the future, especially in: Trade, Technology Minerals and energy Artificial intelligence Crypto currency and regional peace efforts as well.

President Trump also appreciated General Munir’s leadership during difficult times. Munir invited Trump to visit Pakistan, and Trump reportedly accepted the offer in principle.

Why US former peace envoy to Afghanistan, Khalilzad is not trusting Pakistan’s army chief

Former U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad criticized the meeting. He said General Munir cannot be trusted and reminded the U.S. that Pakistan has supported groups that harmed American soldiers in the past. According to Khalilzad, General Munir may be trying to get U.S. support for his interests in Afghanistan, which he believes could be risky for America.

Though no official list of US demands was made public, reports suggest a meeting was held in Saudi Arabia earlier, where American officials spoke with top Pakistani leaders. During that meeting, the U.S. reportedly made four key requests:  Pakistan should help the U.S. in counterterrorism operations when needed. Pakistan should slowly reduce its relations with China. Pakistan should recognize Israel after Saudi Arabia does. If the U.S. attacks Iran, Pakistan should support the U.S. instead of staying neutral.

These demands are similar to earlier U.S.–Pakistan arrangements during the Cold War and the War on Terror.

What could be expected in the future?

This meeting could mark the beginning of a new phase in US–Pakistan relations. In the past, Pakistan helped the U.S. during the Soviet-Afghan War and after 9/11. Now, with tensions involving Iran, India, and Afghanistan—and China expanding its role—the U.S. may again be looking to Pakistan as a key partner in the region.

Time will tell whether this leads to a long-term partnership or just another temporary agreement based on short-term goals.

Continue Reading

Asia

China pledges aid and signs friendship treaty at Central Asia summit

Published

on

China concluded its latest engagement efforts in Central Asia on Tuesday by pledging 1.5 billion yuan (US$209 million) for livelihood and development projects in the region.

The six nations participating in the second China-Central Asia Summit also signed a historic permanent friendship treaty.

“China is ready to provide 1.5 billion yuan in grant assistance to Central Asian countries this year to support livelihood and development projects of common interest to each country,” Chinese President Xi Jinping stated in his opening address at the summit in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan.

“Additionally, China will offer 3,000 training opportunities to Central Asian countries over the next two years.”

Xi described the signing of the Permanent Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Agreement as a milestone in relations between the six countries, calling it “an innovative initiative in China’s neighborhood diplomacy and a contribution that will benefit future generations.”

China has signed similar agreements with Russia and Pakistan.

Xi also emphasized the need for cooperation in a world that has entered “a new period of turbulence and transformation.”

State news agency Xinhua quoted Xi as saying, “There will be no winner in a tariff and trade war. Protectionists and hegemonists will harm both others and themselves.”

“The world should not be divided, but united; humanity should not revert to the law of the jungle, but work to build a common future for mankind,” he added.

Xi also announced the establishment of three cooperation centers focusing on poverty reduction, educational exchange, and desertification control, as well as a trade facilitation platform under the China-Central Asia cooperation framework.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that China and the Central Asian countries are eager to improve road and rail connectivity and plan to open more direct flights to and from China to increase mutual exchange.

China will consider simplifying visa procedures with the five Central Asian countries, while all parties will study the feasibility of opening consulates.

Together with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, China will accelerate the modernization of existing port facilities and assess the need for new ones.

The summit was the second of its kind, following the inaugural one held two years ago in Xian, China.

These efforts reflect a deepening of China’s relations with Central Asia, which have historically focused on areas such as transportation infrastructure.

The region is a key part of the Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing’s global development strategy, and China has invested heavily in energy pipelines, infrastructure, and mining projects in Central Asia.

However, China also wants to expand cooperation into sustainable development and renewable energy.

These investments were a major focus of Xi’s meetings with the leaders of the five Central Asian states.

During the meetings, Xi stressed the need to uphold multilateralism and the global trade order. This is part of Beijing’s effort to position itself as a more reliable partner following the US tariff war.

Meeting with Turkmen President Serdar Berdimuhamedov, Xi called for expanding gas cooperation and exploring opportunities in non-resource sectors.

Security was also on the agenda.

“The two countries should further strengthen law enforcement, security, and defense cooperation, jointly combat the ‘three forces,’ and enhance cooperation in cybersecurity,” Xi said, referring to “terrorism, separatism, and extremism.”

Beijing views these forces as threats to national and regional security, and Xi has repeatedly emphasized this stance in his meetings with Central Asian leaders.

While China’s presence in Central Asia has historically focused on economic investments, its influence in the security sphere is growing through joint counter-terrorism drills, training programs, and aid.

This is particularly true in Tajikistan, which shares a long border with Afghanistan, where China is concerned about terrorists returning to carry out operations in its western Xinjiang region.

In his meeting with Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, Xi called for deeper cooperation in law enforcement and security to combat the three forces.

He also called for increasing bilateral trade and investment and improving transportation infrastructure.

Rahmon said Dushanbe would expand cooperation in new areas such as new energy, green industries, and artificial intelligence, and would “strengthen coordination with Beijing for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to play a greater role.”

The SCO is the main forum for relations between China and the landlocked region. This political, economic, and security bloc was founded in 2001 by China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan, reflecting its commitment to “permanent neutrality,” is the only Central Asian country outside the organization.

On Tuesday, Xi also held talks with Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov, describing relations between the two countries as being in “the best period in history.”

Xi said the construction of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway is a top priority, but new growth drivers such as clean energy, green mining, and artificial intelligence should also be developed.

The talks followed the signing of cooperation documents between China and the summit’s host country, Kazakhstan, covering trade, investment, technology, tourism, and customs.

Xi asked his Kazakh counterpart, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, to accelerate cross-border railway projects and the improvement of port infrastructure.

Xi also stated, “Beijing and Astana should be strong supporters of each other in turbulent times.”

According to the Kazakh presidential office, Tokayev described relations between the two countries as stable and “not negatively affected by geopolitical challenges and turmoil or the international situation.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey