Connect with us

MIDDLE EAST

India’s foreign policy and relations with the Taliban

Published

on

Indian diplomat J.P Singh, who is in charge of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan affairs in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, visited Kabul recently and held enormous meetings and discussions with senior Taliban officials, including Defense Minister Mullah Yaqoob and Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi. Although many details of these meetings have not been published, the Times of India in a report on this trip called it a “fundamental progress” in the relations between India and the Taliban.

The Ministry of Defense of the Taliban also said that the two sides emphasized their common desire to expand bilateral relations, especially in the fields of humanitarian cooperation and other issues, and expressed their interest in strengthening more interactions between Afghanistan and India.

The Times of India has evaluated this meeting as a “strategic change in India’s approach to Afghanistan”; in the sense that the Taliban’s repeated assurances that Afghanistan’s soil will not be used against India, probably influenced India’s decision to increase its interactions with Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban.

This shows that the Taliban, after taking control of Afghanistan, do not shy away from any attempt for international and regional recognition as well as interaction with the regional and world powers, that is just for the purpose of legitimizing their ruling.

India’s relations with the Taliban and its challenges for the country’s regional strategies is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a more detailed analysis.

After the Taliban’s control of Afghanistan and the fundamental change in the political and security equations of the region, India also sought to review its policies towards Afghanistan and the Taliban. This relationship, although designed to protect India’s immediate interests in the region, is undoubtedly not without significant strategic concerns.

India’s instrumental policy in Afghanistan

India’s foreign policy in Afghanistan was not originally based on the values ​​of the Non-Aligned Movement and its historical relations with Afghanistan. This has become more intense especially after the coming to power of the Hindu Nationalist Party led by Narendra Modi. Since Modi’s party came to power, India’s policy towards Afghanistan has become more of a political game focused on short-term interests. In this policy, the element of enmity with Islam and negation of cultural and historical relations with the Muslim countries of the region has become a decisive element.

Joint secretary of India’s Ministry of External Affairs, J.P. Singh, meets with acting Afghanistan defense minister of Taliban Muhammad Yaqoob Mujahid.

As tensions escalate between Pakistan and the Taliban, known as Pakistan’s former proxies, India is once again considering using Afghanistan as a tool to counter Pakistan. In this framework, while establishing relations with the Taliban on the one hand, on the other hand, India seeks to create more tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to somehow achieve its goals against Pakistan.

India’s policies in this regard have not only led to the consolidation of the Taliban’s power in Afghanistan, but have also indirectly fueled the expansion of tensions and instability in the region. The instrumental use of Afghanistan and the escalation of differences between Afghanistan and Pakistan have generally been the defining element of India’s foreign policy.

India has always tried to use every opportunity to weaken Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan, even if this leads to the strengthening of extremist groups such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). This approach is not only harmful for India in the long run, but it can turn the region into a clash of strategic and security interests, which will not benefit any of the countries in the region.

India’s transactional and dual policy in Afghanistan

India has always abandoned its allies in Afghanistan and has never acted as a strategic partner during difficult times, especially after the collapse of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 15 August 2021 at least.

This is evident from India’s behavior towards Dawood Khan’s government, Dr. Najibullah and his government members and even Hamid Karzai and his government members who had close relations with India and considered India as their natural ally. After the Taliban came to power, India cut ties with these people, which shows the instability and lack of loyalty in India’s foreign policy. Even when Afghanistan needed vital and strategic help, India did not stand by the people of Afghanistan as a strategic ally.

This fact can be seen in India’s severance of relations with Hamid Karzai and members of his government who strongly trusted India. This move of India even shows lack of commitment to strategic cooperation and disloyalty to diplomatic principles.

India prevented Afghan students from entering the country even in critical situations when Afghan youth needed support, and many Afghan students who were studying in Indian universities were not allowed to finish their studies.

Unlike Pakistan, India has never been loyal to its allies in Afghanistan as strategic partners. Even when many Afghans were trying to escape from Taliban rule, India closed its gates to them and many people who took refuge in India did not have their visas extended.

Security challenges and threats

Strengthening India’s relations with the Taliban can bring new security threats to Afghanistan in the long run. One of the most important risks arising from these relations is the strengthening of (TTP), which has now become one of the serious threats to the security of Pakistan and the region.

TTP has had influence in the border areas of Afghanistan since the past, and even in some areas, it is difficult to separate them from the Afghan Taliban. This influence and links have made the Pakistani Taliban to enjoy a powerful position and, regardless of the official relations between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan, they have organized themselves and organized complex attacks inside Pakistan.

India must understand that this situation could even be considered as a serious threat to India itself, because TTP can become a symbol of inspiration for Islamic extremist forces inside India and endanger India’s security by expanding the scope of violence and instability in the region.

Long-term consequences and strategic problems

In the long term, strengthening India’s relationship with the Taliban will lead to other regional actors, including Pakistan, taking advantage of this situation to weaken India’s position. This approach can strengthen extremist ideologies and asymmetry in India’s policies towards Afghanistan.

The Taliban, who present themselves as a “legitimate” government, will use these relationships to strengthen their international standing. While this can introduce India as an unstable actor without a clear policy in the region.

Already, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said that instability in Pakistan was fueled by an “Indian proxy war”, pointing to regional rivalries as a key factor. Asif also described the use of Afghanistan’s territory for attacks on Pakistan as an “action of aggression” following a deadly explosion in Quetta of Pakistan that killed at least 26 people, including 16 soldiers and 61 others received injuries.

MIDDLE EAST

ICC issues arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant on war Crimes charges

Published

on

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, citing war crimes in Gaza.

Despite sanctions and threats from Israel and the United States, the ICC’s decision was based on overwhelming evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians. Among the charges, Netanyahu and Gallant were accused of using starvation as a weapon, with the court stating these allegations are founded on “reasonable grounds.”

Israel reportedly employed its intelligence agency, the Mossad, to spy on, hack, pressure, defame, and allegedly threaten senior ICC officials in an effort to obstruct investigations. Although these efforts were partially exposed through the international press and statements from ICC staff, they failed to deter the Court’s proceedings.

The ICC also clarified that it is undeterred by Israel’s non-recognition of the Court’s authority or its rulings.

Additionally, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masr on related charges.

While this ruling may not immediately halt Israeli military actions in Gaza or reduce U.S. support for Israel, it is likely to deepen divisions among European nations over their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Continue Reading

MIDDLE EAST

Hamas: No hostages-for-prisoners swap deal with Israel unless Gaza war ends

Published

on

Khalil al-Hayya, a senior member of the Hamas Political Bureau, announced on Al-Aqsa TV that Hamas had accepted a proposal to form a committee to administer Gaza, with the condition that its operations be entirely local.

In his statement regarding the ongoing Gaza ceasefire talks, al-Hayya said: “An idea has been proposed to establish a committee for the administration of Gaza. This suggestion was made by our Egyptian brothers. We have responded responsibly and positively. We accept this proposal on the condition that the committee will operate in a fully localized manner, overseeing all aspects of daily life in Gaza.”

Earlier this month, representatives from both the Hamas and Fatah movements convened in Cairo, Egypt, to discuss a potential ceasefire and the establishment of this administrative committee.

Commenting on the indirect ceasefire and prisoner exchange negotiations between Hamas and Israel, al-Hayya stated: “There will be no prisoner exchange until the Israeli genocide stops. This is an interconnected equation. We are very clear on this: we want this aggression to end. These attacks must cease before any prisoner exchange can take place.”

Al-Hayya added that Hamas remains ready for a ceasefire agreement but emphasized that Israel must demonstrate genuine willingness to proceed. “We are engaging with mediating countries to advance ceasefire negotiations. However, Netanyahu is hindering progress in these talks for political reasons,” he said.

Since the escalation of violence on October 7, 2023, indirect negotiations between the parties have continued, with countries like Qatar mediating ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreements. Both the United States and Egypt have played supporting roles in these efforts.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has faced criticism domestically and from the international community for failing to secure a prisoner exchange agreement with Hamas. Analysts highlight those additional conditions introduced by Israel, particularly its insistence on maintaining control over the Egypt-Gaza border and the Philadelphi Corridor, have further complicated the negotiations.

Continue Reading

MIDDLE EAST

Argentina becomes first nation to withdraw troops from UNIFIL

Published

on

As Israeli attacks on the UN peacekeeping force on the Lebanese border persist, Argentina has announced the withdrawal of its personnel from UNIFIL. Despite the UN’s assertion that some attacks are deliberate, sanctions against Israel are not currently on the agenda.

Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the United Nations (UN) Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations, reported that attacks on the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) are ongoing, with evidence suggesting that certain incidents were “clearly deliberate.”

Speaking at a press conference at UN Headquarters in New York following a visit to the region, Lacroix expressed concern about continued clashes in southern Lebanon. He revealed that four UN personnel were injured by a bomb that struck the UNIFIL perimeter. Additionally, a UNIFIL patrol came under fire, and five rockets hit a maintenance workshop within the UN compound. While these attacks caused significant structural damage, there were no reported casualties.

Although Lacroix refrained from identifying those responsible, he emphasized the obligation of all parties to ensure the safety of UN personnel and facilities. He stated: “We remind all parties of their obligations to ensure and protect the security of UN personnel and facilities.”

Addressing whether these attacks were intentional, Lacroix clarified: “It is difficult to speak about all cases, but we have some videos that show that some attacks were clearly intentional, even implying something more than intentional.”

Lacroix also highlighted another category of incidents he described as “semi-intentional,” where military operations near UN positions expose peacekeepers to danger. He underscored the responsibility of all parties to safeguard UN peacekeepers.

Responding to inquiries about white phosphorus bombs allegedly used by Israel in southern Lebanon, Lacroix confirmed ongoing investigations by the UN. He reiterated the call for adherence to international law to protect civilians.

Separately, Lacroix announced Argentina’s decision to withdraw its personnel from UNIFIL. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti later confirmed the withdrawal, noting that Argentina had “asked its personnel to return.” However, Tenenti declined to elaborate on the reasons for this decision.

According to the UN website, Argentina had a total of three personnel in Lebanon. Despite evidence and statements from UN officials suggesting deliberate attacks by Israel, sanctions against Israel remain absent from the agenda.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey