Middle East
End to hostilities: Afghanistan and Pakistan must search way forward
Instead, hostilities between the two neighboring countries are fueling with each passing day as Islamabad and Kabul are stick to its inflexible stances and reluctant to accept each other’s autonomous and sovereign status. Pakistan along with recognition of controversial Durand Line as a permanent International border also forcing Taliban (Emirate Islami Afghanistan) to take action against banned Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants or to surrender them. But despite their staunch stance on own interpretation of Islamic doctrine, Taliban are firm to defend Afghanistan historical traditions of hospitality, “saying banned TTP militants are guests and guests are not forced to return or will be handed over to their enemies.” Taliban rulers are suggesting Pakistan to go for reconciliation with TTP instead threatening them of dire consequences.
Amidst hectic preparation on the part of UN sponsored third Doha Conference on Afghanistan scheduled to be held, the Taliban regime yet to get support from other countries especially those having direct or indirect stakes in the long awaited conflict. Earlier Taliban have not only got but Pakistan worked like its attorney in both the previous held conferences in Doha. But this time Pakistan is attaching or making conditional its support to Afghanistan. Most recently Pakistan’s high level team headed by Interior secretary had visited Kabul and held series of talks with the Taliban ministers but the results seems disappointing. On return of interior secretary lead delegation from Kabul, Pakistan has stimulated further security measures along with Pak Afghan border. Similarly terrorists also intensified its attacks and threats to tribesmen, especially in Kurram region. The extra ordinary activism on the part of security forces in different merged tribal districts portray something else.
Reginal countries are in direct talk with the Taliban and Pakistan needs to learn from this.
Whatever might be strategies of Pakistan but one thing is very clear. Compare to recent past, situation is different in Afghanistan. Like of former Peshawar manufactured Jehadi groups. Almost top Taliban leaders are also made disheartened. Instead Rawalpindi-Islamabad, now major stake holders i.e. US lead allies are engaging Taliban through Qatar, whereas China and Russian Federation succeeded in establishing own links with Kabul and Kandahar. Saudi Arab is completely reshuffling its internal and external policies. On such grounds instead becoming sentimental, Pakistan must review its failed even flopped policies towards Afghanistan. In the wake of poor or even “BIG NO” response from Taliban regime, Pakistan instead, has declared, “no more talks with TTP.” But it doesn’t resolve the issue. The issue could easily be resolved through peaceful and political means. Instead dictating Taliban (Emirate Islami Afghanistan) like masters, Pakistan needs to behave like friend and contemporary, if it really wants settling its own scores in that war ravaged country.
No one deny the fact that Pakistan suffered a lot on its involvement in prolonged conflict in Afghanistan but its trade and diplomatic relations remained satisfactory even during the hostile or unfriendly regimes in Kabul. But now when Kabul is governed by Pakistan backed Taliban, clashes between and across the border encounters, closure of border for bilateral trade and pedestrians and war of words between the two neighboring countries become a routine matter. Almost Afghan traders have diverted trade and business affairs from Karachi Port to Bandar Abbass Iran and other Central Asian countries. Construction of Railway track with technical and logistic support of India likely to smash dreams of Pakistan regard establishing and dominating consumer markets in CAR states through Afghanistan. Pakistan’s most sincere friend also seems disappointed as it has established direct links with Afghanistan. In such a circumstances, Pakistan must realize gravity of ground situation and remain careful regarding insisting on Zia-Hameed Gul framed strategic depth policies in Afghanistan.
Afghans could easily be controlled through friendly attitude be not possible through sticks and guns.
“Afghans could easily be governed and controlled through friendly attitude but seems impossible to be controlled through sticks and guns,” it is the most readable and circulated proverb. Long standing conflict in Afghanistan is a political issue and could easily be settled through political means. Unfortunately since along the main stake holder-US lead allies remained reluctant to let resolve or let political awareness and unification in Afghanistan for settling the issue through political means. Whatever may be claims but anger and hate against Taliban is stimulating day by day. Pakistan as immediate neighbor can play a vital role in permanent and durable solution to the conflict.
Pakistan deserves peace and tranquility as its leaders are ahead with huge issues of governance, security, poverty, unemployment and deteriorating economy. Unless and until return of complete peace and tranquility in Afghanistan, it could be hard for Pakistan to put its own house in order, therefore, Pakistan needs to play a rule as a “mediator” instead of a “partisan.” Pakistan could easily convince Taliban for transferring power to an inclusive interim government, which go for strengthening of political process before holding of elections. Only a democratically elected political government may be capable of settling the long standing conflict in Afghanistan. And this democratically elected government may be in interests of Pakistan.
Middle East
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Middle East
Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Middle East
Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
