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
ASEAN and China deepen ties amid threat of new US tariffs

On Thursday, ASEAN foreign ministers emphasized the strength of the bloc’s relationship with China as they sought to deepen ties with Beijing in the face of new “reciprocal” punitive tariffs threatened by US President Donald Trump. Experts believe Trump’s aggressive tariff policy is bringing ASEAN and China even closer.
In his opening speech at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur with ASEAN foreign ministers and their Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan said that China is “one of ASEAN’s most important and dynamic partners.”
“This relationship is built on mutual trust, common interests, and growing economic interdependence,” he said.
Wang echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the countries’ shared Asian identity and goals. “China has always seen ASEAN as a priority in its neighborhood diplomacy and sees the region as a pioneer in building a global community with a shared future for humanity,” he said.
The meeting was part of the annual Ministerial Conference of ASEAN foreign ministers. Following the meeting, there will be meetings with Japan, China, and South Korea, as well as with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other dialogue partners.
Addressing the ongoing geopolitical shifts, Wang noted that the current global turmoil and transformation raise questions of unity or division, peace or conflict, and cooperation or confrontation.
“We must learn from history, actively promote an equal and structured world order, and push the international system toward greater justice and equality by supporting inclusive and shared economic globalization,” he said.
Trade relations
Since 2020, ASEAN and China have remained each other’s largest trading partners, with total trade volume reaching $770.9 billion in 2024, a 10.6% increase from the previous year.
In May, the two sides announced the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) 3.0 agreement after nine rounds of negotiations spanning two and a half years.
The upgraded agreement includes nine new chapters covering the digital economy, green economy, and supply chain connectivity. China’s Ministry of Commerce described this framework as a gateway to building the China-ASEAN mega-market.
Meanwhile, ASEAN members are preparing for new US tariffs set to take effect on August 1. The tariffs are set at 40% for Myanmar and Laos, 36% for Cambodia and Thailand, 32% for Indonesia, 25% for Malaysia and Brunei, and 20% for Vietnam and the Philippines. Washington has not yet announced an updated rate for Singapore, which was taxed at a 10% rate when the tariffs were announced in April.
Response to tariffs
On Wednesday, at the start of the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim stated that trade is being used as a tool for “pressure, isolation, and control,” adding that “tariffs, export restrictions, and investment barriers have now become sharp instruments of geopolitical competition.”
In a speech to parliament on Wednesday, Indonesian Finance Minister Sri Mulyani called for multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the UN, and the World Bank to play a more significant role in the trade war. “The role of these multilateral institutions has been greatly weakened and is not even respected,” she said.
Thailand announced $1.22 billion in mitigation measures. According to Deputy Finance Minister Paopoom Rojanasakul, Thailand’s central bank is also expected to further loosen its monetary policy to reduce tariffs.
A draft of the joint communique from the foreign ministers’ meeting, seen by Nikkei Asia, describes unilateral tariffs as “counterproductive” and warns that they “risk exacerbating global economic fragmentation and posing complex challenges to ASEAN’s economic stability and growth.” The draft, expected to be released on Friday, affirms that ASEAN is “committed to working constructively with all partners to this end.”
Asia
Chinese navy chief and top nuclear scientist expelled from legislature

The chief of staff for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy, Vice Admiral Li Hanjun, and Liu Shipeng, the deputy chief engineer of the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation, were removed from their positions in the country’s legislative body.
Li is the latest in a series of PLA generals and a handful of defense industry executives implicated in a widespread investigation within the military.
In a statement on Friday, the NPC Standing Committee announced, “The Navy Soldiers’ Congress has decided to remove Li Hanjun from his post as a representative to the 14th National People’s Congress.”
The Gansu People’s Congress also dismissed Liu Shipeng from his role as an NPC deputy.
Additionally, the Standing Committee revealed it had voted to remove Miao Hua, a former top general who previously oversaw the PLA’s ideological work, from the Central Military Commission (CMC), China’s highest military command body led by President Xi Jinping.
The removal of Li and Liu from their NPC memberships suggests they are facing serious disciplinary action.
China typically remains silent about purges within the military, and announcements from the NPC are one of the few indicators of such campaigns.
There is little public information available about Li and Liu, as both have worked in sensitive positions.
Before becoming the navy’s chief of staff, Li, 60, was the deputy director of the CMC’s Training and Administration Department. He was appointed to this role after serving for a year in the CMC’s Office for Reform and Organisational Structure.
In 2014, he was promoted to vice admiral upon his appointment as commander of the naval base in Fujian province, where Miao also spent a significant part of his career. At that time, he was the director of training at the China Naval Command College and was soon promoted to president of the school.
According to official media reports, nuclear scientist Liu was born into a family that “served China’s nuclear dream for three generations.”
As the deputy chief engineer at CNNC, which oversees all aspects of China’s civil and military nuclear programs, Liu also served as the Communist Party secretary and president of CNNC’s “404 base” in Gansu.
Covering an area of over 1,000 square kilometers, the base was established in 1958 and is the country’s first and largest nuclear research center. It played a crucial role in the development of China’s first atomic bomb in 1964 and its first hydrogen bomb three years later.
This secretive base is still considered a key hub for China’s nuclear deterrence and nuclear industry.
According to statements from provincial authorities, Liu was named “Gansu’s outstanding entrepreneur” in 2023.
Asia
China, US reach agreement on export controls

The Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced on Friday afternoon that Beijing and Washington have remained in close contact since the two-day trade talks in London earlier this month, confirming the details of a framework agreement.
“China will review and approve export applications for controlled items in accordance with its laws and regulations, and the US side will, in turn, lift a series of restrictive measures against China,” the ministry stated.
“We hope the US side will cooperate with China in line with the important consensus and conditions established during the conversation between the two presidents on June 5,” the statement continued.
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump said the US had “signed” a trade deal with China the previous day, without providing details.
“We signed the deal with China yesterday, right? We signed the deal with China,” Trump said at a White House event introducing a budget law. “With the China deal, we are starting to open up China,” he added.
He also mentioned that a “very big” deal, likely with India, would be signed soon.
Rare earth elements
Following the event, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters that the US and China had signed an agreement codifying the terms decided upon in previous trade negotiations.
“They will deliver rare earth elements to us,” Lutnick said in a televised interview with Bloomberg, adding that if this commitment is fulfilled, Washington will lift its “countermeasures.”
Rare earth elements, essential for producing high-tech products, including those for the defense industry, were a major point of contention in the trade talks. China holds a near-monopoly on the supply of these minerals due to its massive share of global refining capacity.
Responding to a question on Thursday about rare earth exports, ministry spokesman He Yadong said China had approved a “certain number” of applications and would “continue to strengthen” the review and approval process for eligible applications.
He added that Beijing is willing to “strengthen communication and dialogue” with other countries on export controls and actively promote appropriate trade.
Lutnick also stated that the US plans to reach agreements with 10 major trading partners in the coming weeks. The deadline for countries to negotiate trade terms before higher tariffs are reinstated was July 9, following a 90-day suspension of import tariff hikes announced on April 2.
The two negotiating teams concluded the London talks by announcing they had agreed “in principle” on a “framework” that both sides would take home for their respective leaders to review, as they sought to get their uneasy truce, signed last month in Geneva, back on track.
The negotiations began after a highly anticipated phone call between Xi Jinping and Trump, which seemingly ended an intractable stalemate.
In the weeks following the initial agreement in Switzerland, Washington claimed China was restricting exports of critical minerals, while Beijing reacted to US restrictions on semiconductors and threats to impose visa barriers on Chinese students.
-
Europe2 weeks ago
New MI6 chief’s grandfather was a Nazi collaborator known as ‘The Butcher’
-
Middle East3 days ago
Israel details plan for ‘humanitarian zone’ in Rafah, called a ‘concentration camp’ by critics
-
Asia2 weeks ago
Chinese navy chief and top nuclear scientist expelled from legislature
-
Middle East2 weeks ago
US proposes $30 billion deal to Iran for halting uranium enrichment
-
Diplomacy2 weeks ago
Armenia signals potential complete withdrawal from CSTO
-
Asia2 weeks ago
China, US reach agreement on export controls
-
Diplomacy4 days ago
Iran must reverse religious fatwa to develop nuclear weapons, says McGovern
-
Diplomacy4 days ago
BlackRock halts work on Ukraine reconstruction fund amid Trump uncertainty