Showing posts sorted by relevance for query PAKISTAN TALIBAN. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query PAKISTAN TALIBAN. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

Asian powers plot to fill US vacuum in Afghanistan

From Beijing to Ankara, the race for influence in Kabul is underway

A U.S. Marine shouts as he tries to protect an Afghan man and his child after Taliban fighters opened fire in the Helmand Province town of Marjah in Afghanistan in 2010. 
 © Reuters 
A PHOTO WOPTHY OF A FRANK CAPRA


WAJAHAT KHAN, Nikkei staff writer
June 17, 2021


NEW YORK -- Forty-eight hours after meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Brussels, U.S. President Joe Biden met Wednesday with another leader of a country Washington has thorny ties to: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As with Turkey, Biden seeks to build a constructive relationship with Russia as he tries to reestablish America's international alliances and partnerships. He also wants to clear his desk while setting his sights on China, Washington's primary "strategic competitor." But an additional factor driving Biden to push for normalized ties, even cooperation, with Ankara and Moscow is the increasingly fraught situation in Afghanistan.

Biden's decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan has spurred internal instability in the country, where violence is escalating as the Taliban score more battlefield victories against the Afghan government and foreign forces disengage. But Washington's decision to pull out has also triggered a regional power play, with different actors -- from China to Turkey, from Russia to India -- looking to take advantage of the diplomatic power vacuum in Kabul.


Afghanistan's political, economic and military dynamics have long been influenced by larger and more powerful neighbors Pakistan and Iran. But one regional player, Turkey, is positioning itself in a key security role after the Americans withdraw.

While other NATO members will have fully pulled out their forces by Sept. 11, 2021 -- the U.S. Central Command said last week that it had completed more than 50% of the "retrograde process," the Pentagon's version of withdrawal -- Ankara has announced that its forces will stay.

Turkey is not an immediate neighbor. It does not share a border with landlocked Afghanistan but lies further west, past Iran. But analysts see Turkey spotting a dual opportunity in Afghanistan. First, Ankara seeks to leverage some goodwill in its soured relationship with the U.S. by offering to protect Kabul's Hamid Karzai International airport, a crucial link to the world. The move, which came in the lead-up to Erdogan's Monday meeting with Biden in Brussels, also fits into Ankara's playbook of increasing its role on the international stage while positioning itself for a more influential role in Afghanistan.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, meets with U.S. President Joe Biden on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Brussels on June 14. © Reuters

The military presence of Turkey -- NATO's sole majority-Muslim member -- would seem more "benign" and a good fit to "straddle the sensitivities" of locals, according to Galip Dalay, a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Doha Center.

But the Taliban think otherwise.

Shortly after Turkey made its proposal, a Taliban spokesman sent a warning to Ankara, saying though Turkey is a "great Islamic country," it is still part of NATO and therefore obliged to withdraw from Afghanistan under the 2020 peace deal with the U.S.

Turkey is hardly alone in seeing the promise as well as the peril of stepping into the vacuum left by the U.S.

China, which shares a border with Afghanistan, has long had its eye on the country as an economic partner, one that could be a lucrative corridor for its Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative as well as a source of minerals, according to Jason Campbell of Rand Corp. But Afghanistan's lack of security has proved a problem for Chinese investment.

In contrast to America's goals of securing Afghanistan and nation-building there, Beijing sees Afghanistan as an economic opportunity. But the experience of the U.S. and NATO since 2001 will give any country pause before becoming heavily involved, Campbell said.

A Royal Air Force C-130J cargo plane is refueled in Kabul, Afghanistan.
 (Photo courtesy of the U.K. Ministry of Defense)

"There's no other country that's going to want to 'own' Afghanistan to nearly the degree that the U.S. and NATO have over the last 20 years," he said.

So China is treading carefully, teaming up with strategic ally and "iron brother" Pakistan, which exercises considerable influence over the Taliban, and has embarked upon a separate trilateral dialogue with Kabul and Islamabad to secure and develop Afghanistan, vowing to fight terrorist groups that threaten all three countries, while pushing to enter via Belt and Road, also engaging in parallel diplomatic contact with the Taliban.

Toward Afghanistan's north, across the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, where Moscow still wields influence, analysts see Russia as relieved that the U.S. will no longer have a major military presence near its southern flank but also worried that the American failure to secure Afghanistan could lead to further instability, even an Islamist movement that could seep into its own backyard, according to Vinay Kaura, a nonresident scholar of the Middle East Institute.

Much as the Soviet Union trained Afghan security officials in the fight against Afghan mujahedeen in the 1980s, Russia is now training Kabul security force cadets while also considering a more robust defense relationship with the Afghan government, which has requested the purchase of Russian weapons as well as upgrades and maintenance for its military helicopter fleet.

For Shiite-majority Iran, the uneasy relationship with the Sunni Taliban has been mollified by a common adversary in the U.S. With the Americans out of the picture, and the Taliban gaining ground in Afghanistan, Iran has been practical about doing business with the insurgents. Earlier this year, the Taliban were invited to Tehran to meet with Iranian officials and discuss the Afghan peace process.

Toward the east, India, which has long supported the government in Kabul with diplomatic support and investment, has reportedly reversed its long-standing policy of not dealing with the Taliban and is now engaging in direct talks with the insurgent group's leadership.

But Indian involvement in Afghanistan has long been countered by the presence of the one country that will have to pick up most of the pieces America leaves behind, whether it wants to or not: Pakistan.
A U.S. Marine has a close call after Taliban fighters opened fire near Garmsir in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in 2008. Today, most of Helmand is under the control of the Taliban. © Reuters

For decades, the Pakistanis have suffered both the brunt of and the blame for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Islamabad has implemented an open-border policy with its landlocked Western neighbor, allowing an estimated current population of more than 3 million Afghan war refugees and others to flow into mainland Pakistan.

The Pakistani military, initially with and then without American backing, has influenced the conflict in Afghanistan since the 1980s, first training and equipping sections of the Afghan mujahedeen with American support, and eventually backed various Taliban groups, into the 2000s and 2010s.

This involvement in the war has hyphenated Pakistan with the conflict in Afghanistan while alienating it from segments of the Afghan population. But now, as the power vacuum increases next door, Pakistan seems to be reimagining its own role in the region. National security adviser Moeed Yusuf calls Pakistan's new strategic policy "a shift of the imagination, pivoting from the geostrategic use of our vital position in the region, to geoeconomics," which includes a "core of economic security" and a "pillar of regional connectivity."

So the Pakistanis, often blamed for supporting insurgents in Afghanistan, are now asking for regional powers to share the burden of the expected collapse of the Afghan economy and state in the coming months. In the absence of a unified approach from neighbors, Islamabad is also bracing for impact for what is being perceived by its leaders as a turning back of the clock to the days before the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

"There is going to be a vacuum, especially the way the Americans are conducting their pullout," said a senior security official on condition of anonymity.

"We had been warning about this very moment. This is not a responsible withdrawal. Let's not pretend this is not like the mistake made in the '90s," said the official, referring to the period of what many analysts in the region simply refer to as "abandonment" -- the disengagement from Afghanistan by Washington after the Soviet withdrawal.
U.S. Marines fill sandbags around their light-mortar position on the front lines of a Marine Corps base in southern Afghanistan in late 2001 as a cardboard sign warns that Taliban forces could be anywhere. © Reuters

That period led to the evolution of the Taliban, who rose from the ranks of the CIA-backed, anti-Soviet mujahedeen, or holy warriors, and also created a governance vacuum in Afghanistan that allowed for the rise of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups -- a crucial development that led to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The U.S. said, 'Never again,' and yet, they're doing it again," the Pakistani official said of the American pullout.

"We bore the brunt that time. We will be unable to ignore it this time. But let's not look at Pakistan and say, 'You didn't do enough.' It's the Americans who are upping and leaving."

But Asfandyar Mir, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University, doubts Islamabad's claims.

"Pakistan remain[s] enormously influential, due to its support for the Taliban. It wants to see the Taliban return to power," he said.

"For now, Pakistan is walking the tightrope of retaining influence on the Taliban while avoiding an adverse fallout" with the West, Mir said.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani gestures during Afghan New Year celebrations in Kabul on March 21.

Madiha Afzal, a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, fears that the power vacuum will be widened by a civil-war-style faceoff between the Taliban and the government in Kabul, even as the regional players move in.

"The key dynamic, at least initially, will not be one of the external players jockeying for influence and control -- but the Taliban and Kabul fighting it out," she said.

"Each of these external players [China, Russia, Iran, India and Turkey] has some skin in the game and some moves up its sleeve," Afzal said.

"We've seen Turkey assert its role in recent days, and India change its tack and reportedly initiate discussions with the Taliban," she said. "Pakistan is perhaps in the strongest position, given its location and the history with the Taliban. Yet any role it plays will certainly be contested -- by Kabul, by the Taliban, and by other players."

"Afghanistan is making countries in the region and beyond nervous," Stanford's Mir said. "Yet instead of coming together and offering a coherent international response, they are pursuing independent tracks and further aggravating the crisis," he said.

"China, Russia, Iran, India and Turkey are jostling to become major players in a post-American Afghanistan with a hedging strategy," he said. "They are all engaging with the Taliban under the assumption that a Taliban reemergence is only a matter of time."

"To be sure, their appetite to do business with the Taliban is different -- Russia is much more open to the Taliban than, say, India," Mir said. "But some of these countries are strongly encouraging various Afghan actors to prepare for an anti-Taliban resistance movement -- especially if the Afghan government and security forces start to fold."

But what about Washington? Which country would it prefer to fill the expected vacuum?

"For the U.S., its main concerns will be around Russian and Chinese influence, and that of Iran -- or Pakistani hegemony," Afzal said. "It will accept a degree of Pakistani influence and will prefer that it is contained -- likely by Indian influence and a Turkish role," she said.

Additional reporting by Jack Stone Truitt in New York.


Monday, February 17, 2020

Pakistan no longer a militant safe haven, is behind Afghan peace process: Imran Khan


Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan speaks during an international conference on the future of Afghan refugees living in Pakistan, organized by Pakistan and the U.N. Refugee Agency in Islamabad Monday. | REUTERS

AFP-JIJI
FEB 18, 2020


ISLAMABAD – Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan insisted Monday that his country is no longer a militant safe haven, and said his administration fully supports the Afghan peace process.

Khan’s assertion was, however, challenged hours later, when a suicide bomber targeted a religious rally in the southwestern province of Balochistan.

His comments come as the U.S. and the Taliban appear on the brink of a deal that would see U.S. forces begin to pull out of Afghanistan. In return, the Taliban would enter talks with the Afghan government, stick to various security guarantees and work toward an eventual, comprehensive cease-fire.

Pakistan, which has long been accused of supporting the Taliban and other extremist groups along its border with Afghanistan, is seen as key to helping secure and implement any deal.

“I can tell you that there are no safe havens here,” Khan said at a conference in Islamabad.

“Whatever the situation might have been in the past, right now, I can tell you … there is one thing we want: peace in Afghanistan.”

His comments came after Sarwar Danish, Afghanistan’s second vice president, accused Pakistan of allowing the Taliban to recruit new fighters from Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan.

On Monday evening, police said a suicide bomber had targeted a rally in the southwestern city of Quetta in Balochistan province. At least eight people — including two police officers — were killed.

Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest and poorest province — bordering Afghanistan and Iran — remains home to Islamist, separatist and sectarian insurgents, even as violent incidents have dropped elsewhere in Pakistan.

Khan was addressing a conference marking 40 years of hosting Afghan refugees in his country.

While Pakistan cannot “completely guarantee” that no Taliban are hiding among the estimated 2.7 million Afghans living in the country, Khan said his government had done all it can to prevent attacks in Afghanistan, including by building a border fence.

U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who has for more than a year led talks between the Taliban and Washington, also attended the conference. He said he was “cautiously optimistic” about progress toward an eventual deal.

The U.S. has “commitments from the Talibs on security issues,” he said.

The Taliban, Afghanistan’s security forces and the U.S. are supposed to be launching a seven-day “reduction in violence,” officials announced last week.

The move is part of a confidence-building measure ahead of the announcement of a fuller deal.

But bloodshed continued over the weekend, including a Taliban attack in Kunduz province.

Refugees began flowing into Pakistan after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and continued to come during the Taliban regime.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who is on a three-day visit to Pakistan, credited the nation for supporting Afghan refugees.

He also praised the “remarkable transformation” of Pakistan’s security situation.

Friday, February 04, 2022

Baloch militant merger targets Pakistan and China


Newly formed Baloch Nationalist Army has already launched a deadly urban terror attack and vows to hit China’s interests next
JANUARY 29, 2022

Ethnic Baloch militants in Pakistan in a 2020 file photo. Image: Twitter

In a new phase in the long-running Baloch separatist war in Pakistan, a recent Baloch Nationalist Army (BNA) terror attack in the city of Lahore indicates the insurgency is expanding from Balochistan’s rugged mountains to Punjab urban centers.

On January 20, a bomb blast ripped through a busy Lahore business district, killing three and wounding over 20. The BNA, which was formed less than two weeks before the bombing after the United Baloch Army (UBA) and the Baloch Republic Army (BRA) merged, accepted responsibility for the attack in a social media post carried by media.

The merger is significant not only because it fuses two potent militant groups fighting for the separation of Balochistan from Pakistan but also because the new entity will target China’s interests in the country, including likely Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects.

The newly formed BNA also marks the coming together of the Marris and Bugtis, two of Balochistan’s largest tribes that historically have not always seen eye to eye.

But where the tribes do agree is in their fight against perceived state abuse in Balochistan, perpetuated in many instances through military-protected, China-funded infrastructure projects that they contend do not help or involve local populations.

The UBA is led by Mehran Marri, the son of late Baloch ideologue Khair Bakhsh Marri, who led the Marris for years. The BRA, on the other hand, is led by Brahumdagh Bugti, the son of Akbar Bugti, the Baloch sardar and leader of the Bugti tribe who was killed in 2006 in a military operation.

Although both Marri and Bugti tribes populate other militant groups, including the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) now led by Khair Bakhsh’s other son, Hyrbyair Marri, the UBA-BRA merger underlines how Baloch militant groups are increasingly converging across tribal lines to form a united front against the Pakistan state.

In 2018, the BLA merged with the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) and BRA to form Baluch Raji Ajohi Sangar (BRSA), or Baloch Nationalist Freedom Movement.
Balochistan Liberation Army fighters at an undisclosed location in a file photo.
 Photo: AFP

This cross-tribal convergence is apart from the Baloch militant groups’ active attempts at cultivating support from non-Baloch disaffected ethnic militant outfits, particularly from Sindh province, which shares a border with Balochistan.

In June 2020, the BRSA formed an alliance with a Sindhi militant group known as the Sindudesh Revolutionary Army (SRA). The alliance was formally announced in July 2020 to “liberate” both Sindh and Balochistan and target the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a US$60 billion spoke on Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The newly formed BNA shares the same insurgent objectives. In a BNA statement shared with Balochistan-based media, the group said it was formed to “expand Baloch national resistance movement against the Pakistani military’s fascism.”

The statement also confirmed that the BNA would continue to be a part of the BRSA, and, like the BRSA, would intensify attacks against both “Pakistan state and its partners (e.g. China).”

This expansion appears to have two tactical facets. Whereas the BRSA has been keen to choose hard targets – Pakistan security forces or Chinese personnel and projects – the BNA’s first attack in Lahore, which apparently was originally going to target a bank, shows it will focus at least partly on soft targets in urban areas both inside and outside of Balochistan.

The two-pronged strategy is a major cause of concern for Pakistan, especially at a time when it is already facing a resurgent Islamist challenge from the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistan Taliban. TTP has recently ramped up its cross-border attacks from Afghanistan targeting security forces.

The big unanswered question, however, concerns why is the Baloch insurgency intensifying now? The mergers and promise of intensified attacks are directly tied to the situation in Afghanistan for two reasons.

First, although the Afghan Taliban is not itself allied with any Baloch insurgents, its victory last year against a superpower has “inspired Baloch insurgent groups into forming a united front to achieve a similar victory, engage the Pakistan army in a serious war to give the Pakistan state a formidable challenge,” said a Baloch nationalist who requested anonymity.

Second, because Pakistan’s relations with the Afghan Taliban have deteriorated since the latter’s seizure of power in Kabul, reportedly with help and guidance from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Islamabad now lacks the influence to pressure the Taliban to eliminate Baloch separatists based in Afghanistan.

A Tehreek-e-Taliban fighter in a file photo. The terror group is ramping up its attacks in Pakistan. Photo: Facebook

The BNA’s hope for a strong, popularly backed war will most likely aim to leverage recent popular protests in Balochistan’s Gwadar against local people’s exclusion from fishing grounds and businesses in favor of privileged Chinese trawlers.


That comes on top of local exclusion from the China-financed port at Gwadar, which the Pakistan military has sealed off from locals for security reasons. Under terms of the port’s construction, China will receive 90% of revenues generated there for 40 years.

According to a veteran Baloch insurgent who requested anonymity, “with the crown jewel of CPEC in Pakistan now completely disillusioned with the promise of development, an opportunity for Baloch insurgent groups to win back popular support for their war does exist.”

He said the recent success of the Gwadar protests in forcing Pakistan authorities to meet at least their minimum demands, including protecting their businesses from perceived as illegal Chinese fishing boats, shows that the Pakistan state can be forced to yield to Baloch resistance.

A deep-seated sense of exclusion has driven Baloch nationalism and militant insurgency since the 1948 forced accession of Balochistan to Pakistan, according to Mir Muhammad Ali, a veteran Baloch nationalist who fought the Pakistan Army in the 1970s.

This, he says, continued during both military dictatorships as well as under the so-called democratic eras, with the present hybrid regime controlling Balochistan even more directly since 2018 than was the case during the previous government of Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N).

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s military-aligned administration clearly senses the rising risk

.
Pakistani naval personnel stand guard near a ship carrying containers at the Gwadar port. Photo: AFP / Aamir Quereshi

His appointment last year of Jamhoori Watan Party chief Shahzain Bugti to hold talks with Baloch militant groups has failed to make any meaningful progress on underlying issues, not least the fact that their province remains under the military’s political, economic and administrative control.

The Pakistan Army, rather than rolling back its presence to facilitate dialogue, is now expanding its security and economic footprint, seen in its fortified presence at Gwadar and involvement in the development of one of the world’s biggest untapped copper and gold deposits at the province’s Reko Diq.

Both, analysts and observers say, could provide potent targets for the newly merged BNA.


SEE





 




























Sunday, February 26, 2023

She put Taliban members behind bars for their crimes. Now she’s in fear for her life – and the UK won’t help

Exclusive: Afghan judge, Yousa, has had death threats, been shot at and is a Taliban target after putting many behind bars. She is now ‘stateless’ in Pakistan and the UK government won’t help, as Maya Oppenheim reports

Yosra estimates while working in the Criminal Court, she was forced to relocate, alongside her son, for short periods around twice a year due to threats against her

Yousa’s night terrors keep her son awake as the horrors of fleeing the Taliban plague her sleep. Stuck in Pakistan after escaping Afghanistan, she is gripped by anxiety over when they will finally feel safe.

“My son tells me that I sometimes scream in my sleep. I often wake up and I have been biting my lips and tongue. I feel constantly overwhelmed by everything that has happened to us. I am constantly worried about our situation,” she says.

The 52-year-old judge and women’s rights defender escaped Afghanistan in September 2021 after being forced into hiding when the Taliban seized power in August 2021.

Speaking to The Independent in her first media interview, Yosra warns of the dangerous situation she is trapped in after the Home Office refused to reassess its decision to block her from coming to the UK in January.

Despite the fact her lawyers say she is in hiding in perpetual fear she will be deported to Afghanistan, the Home Office said there was a dearth of “sufficient compelling and compassionate circumstances”, her lawyers say.

“After the Taliban took over Kabul on the evening of 15 August 2021, complete fear and darkness took over the city,” Yosra, whose name has been changed to protect her safety, recounts. “As a judge who had been previously under threat from the Taliban, I was devastated and extremely scared for my and my son’s lives.”

Yosra was inside the Supreme Court for a meeting when the Taliban surrounded Kabul and the capital city descended into chaos as its “fall” became “imminent”.

She went to stay with a family member in old Kabul city for a week with her son before having to relocate “discreetly” to live with different relatives, always wearing burqa to hide her identity. Her anxiety was heightened by the fact the Taliban were questioning local leaders and security guards about whether judges and other high-ranking officials were living in her area.

The Independent revealed back in September 2021 that more than 200 women judges were in hiding in Afghanistan, fearing they would be killed by the Taliban because of their work.

The Taliban has freed thousands of prisoners, including terrorists and senior al Qaeda operatives, and experts have warned that the judges responsible for sending many of them to jail were left terrified for their safety now they are free.

The hardline Islamist group, which previously ruled the country, has blocked women from the workplace, education and public spaces, as well as barring them from taking part in all sports since seizing power in Kabul after US and British forces withdrew.

Commenting on the current situation, Marzia Babakarkhail, who used to work as a family court judge in Afghanistan, tells The Independent: “There are 19 female Afghan judges with their families in Pakistan. Even though they have left Afghanistan, they don’t feel safe in Pakistan. There are 49 female Afghan judges trapped in Afghanistan.”

The campaigner, who now lives in the UK, warns that recently freed Taliban members have gone to judges’ houses to track them down and says many are “fearing for their lives” and struggling to access food, money or healthcare.

Yosra explains that she is at particular risk due to her work overseeing the trials of Taliban members who plotted terrorist attacks against the government and international forces.

“These individuals were sentenced to between seven and 20 years in prison,” Yosra adds. “All have now been freed by the Taliban and are part of the Taliban government in junior to mid-level positions.”

During her time as a judge in the criminal court, she also presided over cases involving murder, kidnapping, violence against women, and rape.

“The 18 years I have spent as a judge have not been easy,” Yosra says. “Throughout my work in the criminal court, I was subjected to threats from criminals, including the Taliban.”

During that time, she and her son were forced to relocate for short periods of time around twice a year due to threats made against her. In recent years, she was monitored by the National Department for Security, as well as being transported to and from work in a government vehicle alongside two armed security guards.

“In 2020, the Taliban hand-delivered a threatening letter, addressed to me at my parents’ house in Kabul, by dropping it over the wall perimeter,” Yosra adds. “A few days later, my parents’ home, where me and my son were living, was shot at. My room was the only one facing the street, so was the target of the shots.”

A male judge colleague was killed at the end of 2020, she says, while two senior female judges she knew were assassinated on their way to work in January 2021. Her son is also at risk of being targeted as he worked with the Attorney General’s office, which looked into harassment against women in public and private institutions.

Discussing her escape into Pakistan, she explains she and her son wore traditional Afghan clothes to appear as though they lived in a rural part of the country. Despite passing through between 10 and 15 Taliban checkpoints, they successfully managed to flee Afghanistan, hiding their passports each time, Yosra recalls.

Instead they said they needed to pass the checkpoints for healthcare, showing their prescriptions which included handwritten notes from her doctor, she notes.

The pair now live in “constant fear” about their future in Pakistan. She explains she is very “scared” they will be discovered and arrested – adding that they “live in limbo” unable to build a proper life there.

“I don’t understand how the Home Office decided that we could remain in Pakistan with no status, no opportunity to regularise our status and under the constant risk of removal to Afghanistan,” Yosra says.

Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, warns the Home Office’s decision to block Yosra from coming to the UK is a “profound disappointment”.

She argues that the decision is “wholly inconsistent with the UK government’s repeated pledges” to help “at-risk” Afghan human rights champions. Yosra and her son’s case to enter the UK is scheduled to be heard at an immigration tribunal in March. The pair applied for resettlement in the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) but were refused.

To date, more than 12,000 Afghans who worked for the UK government have been welcomed into the UK via ARAP, the Home Office said, adding that the scheme is “uncapped” and remains open.

It comes after lawyers from Kingsley Napley, Jenner & Block London, and counsel Helen Foot of Garden Court Chambers lodged an appeal on behalf of Yosra and her son back in November, after they were denied leave to enter the UK last August.

“We have spent more than a year in extreme anxiety, isolation and uncertainty about our futures,” Yosra, who has relatives living in the UK, says. “We have spent every day in a small, dark apartment without any plan for the future.”

The Independent has contacted the Home Office for comment.

Thursday, February 01, 2024

PAKISTAN
TTP backed by Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban: UN

 February 1, 2024 

ISLAMABAD: The banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has been receiving “significant backing” from Al Qaeda and other militant factions for executing attacks in Pakistan in addition to support from the Afghan Taliban.

This was disclosed in the 33rd report submitted to the United Nations Security Council Commi­ttee by ISIL (aka Daesh) and Al Qaeda/Taliban Monitoring Team. The collaboration includes not just the provision of arms and equipment but also active on-ground support for the banned TTP’s operations against Pakistan.

Islamabad has repeatedly expressed its frustration over the Afghan Taliban’s inaction against the outlawed TTP, which has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks within Pakistan.

Afghan Taliban’s failure to curb TTP’s activities has led to strained relations between the two countries. Pakistan views Kabul’s reluctance to tackle the TTP as a direct threat to its national security.

The report noted that despite the Afghan Taliban’s official stance discouraging TTP’s activities outside Afghanistan, many TTP fighters have engaged in cross-border attacks in Pakistan without facing any substantial repercussions. Citing reports, it said that some Taliban members, driven by a perceived religious duty, have joined TTP’s ranks, bolstering their operations.

Moreover, TTP members and their families are said to receive regular aid packages from the Afghan Taliban, signifying a deeper level of support.

The Afghan Taliban’s temporary imprisonment of between 70 and 200 TTP members and their strategy of moving personnel northward, away from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions, is perceived as an effort to alleviate Pakistani pressure to tackle the banned TTP activities.

In mid-2023, it recalled that the banned TTP established a new base in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where a large number of individuals were trained as suicide bombers. Additionally, Al Qaeda core and Al Qaeda in the subcontinent have been instrumental in providing training, ideological guidance, and support to the outlawed TTP, illustrating the intertwined nature of these militant networks.

Reported orders from Al Qaeda to allocate resources to the banned TTP indicated a deep-rooted collaboration aimed at destabilising the region.

Furthermore, the formation of TJP (Tehreek-i-Jihad Pakistan) as a front to provide the outlawed TTP with plausible deniability, and the involvement of other groups like ETIM/TIP (East Turkestan Islamic Movement/Turkestan Islamic Party) and Majeed Brigade in joint operations with TTP, underscore the multifaceted and transnational threat posed by these militant alliances.

The report pointed out that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement/Turkestan Islamic Party (ETIM/TIP) has shifted its base from Badakhshan Province to Baghlan Province, expanding its operational reach across various regions.

The group, it said, is intensively engaged in training the youth for its reserve forces and is notably enhancing the recruitment and training of women.

Concerns, it said, were mounting among regional countries due to ETIM/TIP’s active collaboration in recruitment, training, and strategic planning with other extremist groups, particularly the banned TTP, posing a significant security threat to the area.

Reports from an unnamed member state highlighted that Al Qaida’s core faction was significantly contributing to ETIM/TIP by offering both training and ideological mentorship.

Meanwhile, the Majeed Brigade, engaged in insurgency in Balochistan, is reported to have a strength of around 60 to 80 combatants, with a strategic focus on “recruiting female suicide bombers”.

It’s known for its collaboration with the outlawed TTP and ISIL-K in various domains, including training, arms procurement, intelligence exchange, and coordinated operations, although more details are being sought by some member states.

The Brigade has claimed responsibility for multiple attacks targeting law enforcement and Chinese personnel in Pakistan.

Published in Dawn, February 1st, 2024

Sunday, April 10, 2022

Sharif, frontrunner as next Pakistani PM, seen as 'can-do' administrator


Leader of the opposition Shehbaz Sharif speaks to the media at the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Islamabad

Syed Raza Hassan and Gibran Naiyyar Peshimam
Fri, April 8, 2022

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Shehbaz Sharif, the person most likely to be Pakistan's next prime minister, is little known outside his home country but has a reputation domestically as an effective administrator more than as a politician.

The younger brother of three-time prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Shehbaz, 70, is leading a bid by the opposition in parliament to topple Imran Khan, and if a vote of no-confidence goes ahead on Saturday he is widely expected to replace Khan.

Analysts say Shehbaz, unlike Nawaz, enjoys amicable relations with Pakistan's military, which traditionally controls foreign and defence policy in the nuclear-armed nation of 220 million people.

Pakistan's generals have directly intervened to topple civilian governments three times, and no prime minister has finished a full five-year term since the South Asian state's independence from Britain in 1947.

Shehbaz Sharif, part of the wealthy Sharif dynasty, is best known for his direct, "can-do" administrative style, which was on display when, as chief minister of Punjab province, he worked closely with China on Beijing-funded projects.

He also said in an interview last week that good relations with the United States were critical for Pakistan for better or for worse, in stark contrast to Khan's recently antagonistic relationship with Washington.

There are still several procedural steps before Sharif can become Pakistan's 23rd prime minister, not including caretaker administrations, although the opposition has consistently identified him as its sole candidate.

If he does take on the role, he faces immediate challenges, not least Pakistan's crumbling economy, which has been hit by high inflation, a tumbling local currency and rapidly declining foreign exchange reserves.

Analysts also say Sharif will not act with complete independence as he will have to work on a collective agenda with the others opposition parties and his brother.

Nawaz has lived for the last two years in London since being let out of jail, where he was serving a sentence for corruption, for medical treatment.

'PUNJAB SPEED'

As chief minister of Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province, Shehbaz Sharif planned and executed a number of ambitious infrastructure mega-projects, including Pakistan's first modern mass transport system in his hometown, the eastern city of Lahore.

According to local media, the outgoing Chinese consul general wrote to Sharif last year praising his "Punjab Speed" execution of projects under the huge China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) initiative.

The diplomat also said Sharif and his party would be friends of China in government or in opposition.

On Afghanistan, Islamabad is under international pressure to prod the Taliban to meet its human rights commitments while trying to limit instability there.

Unlike Khan, who has regularly denounced India's Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Sharif political dynasty has been more dovish towards the fellow nuclear-armed neighbour, with which Pakistan has fought three wars.

In terms of his relationship with the powerful military, Sharif has long played the public "good cop" to Nawaz's "bad cop" - the latter has had several public spats with the army.

Shehbaz was born in Lahore into a wealthy industrial family and was educated locally. After that he entered the family business and jointly owns a Pakistani steel company.

He entered politics in Punjab, becoming its chief minister for the first time in 1997 before he was caught up in national political upheaval and imprisoned following a military coup. He was then sent into exile in Saudi Arabia in 2000.

Shehbaz returned from exile in 2007 to resume his political career, again in Punjab.

He entered the national political scene when he became the chief of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party after Nawaz was found guilty in 2017 on charges of concealing assets related to the Panama Papers revelations.

The Sharif family and supporters say the cases were politically motivated.

Both brothers have faced numerous corruption cases in the National Accountability Bureau, including under Khan's premiership, but Shehbaz has not been found guilty on any charges.

(Reporting by Syed Raza Hassan and Gibran Peshimam; Editing by William Mallard and Mike Collett-White)


Explainer-What political upheaval in Pakistan means for rest of the world


 PTI chairman Imran Khan gestures while addressing his supporters during a campaign meeting ahead of general elections in Karachi

Fri, April 8, 2022
By Jonathan Landay and Gibran Naiyyar Peshimam

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan faces a no-confidence vote in parliament on Saturday which he is widely expected to lose.

If that happens, or he resigns before then, a new government would be formed most likely under opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif, but it was unclear how long it could last or whether elections expected to take place later this year would bring greater clarity.

The nation of more than 220 million people lies between Afghanistan to the west, China to the northeast and India to the east, making it of vital strategic importance.

Since coming to power in 2018, Khan's rhetoric has become more anti-American and he expressed a desire to move closer to China and, recently, Russia - including talks with President Vladimir Putin on the day the invasion of Ukraine began.

At the same time, U.S. and Asian foreign policy experts said that Pakistan's powerful military has traditionally controlled foreign and defence policy, thereby limiting the impact of political instability.

Here is what the upheaval, which comes as the economy is in deep trouble, means for countries closely involved in Pakistan:

AFGHANISTAN


Ties between Pakistan's military intelligence agency and the Islamist militant Taliban have loosened in recent years.

Now the Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan, and facing an economic and humanitarian crisis due to a lack of money and international isolation, Qatar is arguably their most important foreign partner.

"We (the United States) don't need Pakistan as a conduit to the Taliban. Qatar is definitely playing that role now," said Lisa Curtis, director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security think-tank.

Tensions have risen between the Taliban and Pakistan's military, which has lost several soldiers in attacks close to their mutual border. Pakistan wants the Taliban to do more to crack down on extremist groups and worries they will spread violence into Pakistan. That has begun to happen already.

Khan has been less critical of the Taliban over human rights than most foreign leaders.

CHINA

Khan consistently emphasised China's positive role in Pakistan and in the world at large.

At the same time, the $60-billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which binds the neighbours together was actually conceptualised and launched under Pakistan's two established political parties, both of which are set to share power once he is gone.

Potential successor Sharif, the younger brother of three-time former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, struck deals with China directly as leader of the eastern province of Punjab, and his reputation for getting major infrastructure projects off the ground while avoiding political grandstanding could in fact be music to Beijing's ears.

INDIA

The nuclear-armed neighbours have fought three wars since independence in 1947, two of them over the disputed Muslim-majority territory of Kashmir.

As with Afghanistan, it is Pakistan's military that controls policy in the sensitive area, and tensions along the de facto border there are at their lowest level since 2021, thanks to a ceasefire.

But there have been no formal diplomatic talks between the rivals for years because of deep distrust over a range of issues including Khan's extreme criticism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his handling of attacks on minority Muslims in India.

Karan Thapar, an Indian political commentator who has closely followed India-Pakistan ties, said the Pakistani military could put pressure on the new government in Islamabad to build on the successful ceasefire in Kashmir.

Pakistan's powerful army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa said recently that his country was ready to move forward on Kashmir if India agrees.

The Sharif dynasty has been at the forefront of several dovish overtures towards India over the years.

UNITED STATES

U.S.-based South Asia experts said that Pakistan's political crisis is unlikely to be a priority for President Joe Biden, who is grappling with the war in Ukraine, unless it led to mass unrest or rising tensions with India.

"We have so many other fish to fry," said Robin Raphel, a former assistant secretary of state for South Asia who is a senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank.

With the Pakistani military maintaining its behind-the-scenes control of foreign and security policies, Khan's political fate was not a major concern, according to some analysts.

"Since it's the military that calls the shots on the policies that the U.S. really cares about, i.e. Afghanistan, India and nuclear weapons, internal Pakistani political developments are largely irrelevant for the U.S.," said Curtis, who served as former U.S. President Donald Trump's National Security Council senior director for South Asia.

She added that Khan's visit to Moscow had been a "disaster" in terms of U.S. relations, and that a new government in Islamabad could at least help mend ties "to some degree".

Khan has blamed the United States for the current political crisis, saying that Washington wanted him removed because of the recent Moscow trip. Washington denies any role.

(Additional reporting and writing by Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Mike Collett-White and Nick Macfie)

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

ORDER FROM CHAOS
The agonizing problem of Pakistan’s nukes

Tuesday, September 28, 2021
BROOKINGS


“This is a new world,” President Joe Biden declared, when justifying his pullout from Afghanistan and explaining his administration’s war on global terrorism in an August 31 speech. It will go “well beyond Afghanistan,” he alerted the world, focusing on “the threats of 2021 and tomorrow.”


Marvin Kalb
Nonresident Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy

The president will not have to look too far. Bordering Afghanistan, now again under Taliban rule, is Pakistan, one of America’s oddest “allies.” Governed by a shaky coalition of ineffective politicians and trained military leaders trying desperately to contain the challenge of domestic terrorism, Pakistan may be the best definition yet of a highly combustible threat that, if left unchecked, might lead to the nightmare of nightmares: jihadis taking control of a nuclear weapons arsenal of something in the neighborhood of 200 warheads.

Ever since May 1998, when Pakistan first began testing nuclear weapons, claiming its national security demanded it, American presidents have been haunted by the fear that Pakistan’s stockpile of nukes would fall into the wrong hands. That fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home.

Trying, of course, is not the same as succeeding. If history is a reliable guide, Pakistan’s professional military would almost certainly respond, and in time probably succeed; but only after the floodgates of a new round of domestic warfare between the government and extremist gangs has been opened, leaving Pakistan again shaken by political and economic uncertainty. And when Pakistan is shaken, so too is India, its less than neighborly rival and nuclear competitor.

Pakistani jihadis come in many different shapes and sizes, but no matter: The possibility of a nuclear-armed terrorist regime in Pakistan has now grown from a fear into a strategic challenge that no American president can afford to ignore.

Former President Barack Obama translated this challenge into carefully chosen words: “The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term,” he asserted, “would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.” (Author’s italics).

The nation that has both nuclear weapons and a dangerous mix of terrorists was — and remains — Pakistan.

No problem, really, Pakistan’s political and military leaders have quickly assured a succession of anxious presidents. Whether it be Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehreek-e-Labaik, al-Qaida, or the Afghan Taliban’s Quetta Shura — these terrorist organizations have always been under our constant surveillance, checked and rechecked. We keep a close eye on everything, even the Islamic madrassas, where more than 2 million students are more likely studying sharia law than economics or history. We know who these terrorists are and what they’re doing, and we’re ready to take immediate action.

These official assurances have fallen largely on deaf ears at the White House, principally because one president after another has learned from American intelligence that these same Pakistani leaders have often been working surreptitiously with the terrorists to achieve common goals. One such goal was the recent defeat of the Kabul regime, which had been supported by the U.S. for 20 years. During this time, the victorious Taliban secretly received political and military support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. Shortly after 9/11, for example, the terrorist mastermind, Osama bin Laden, escaped U.S. capture, in part because sympathetic of ISI colleagues. Bin Laden fled to the one place where his security could be assured — Pakistan. In 2011, when the U.S. finally caught up with bin Laden and killed him, Obama chose not to inform Pakistani leaders of the super-secret operation, even though the target was down the street from a Pakistani military academy, fearful that once again bin Laden would be tipped off and escape.

Related Books



Deadly Embrace
By Bruce Riedel 2012



Pakistan Under Siege
By Madiha Afzal 2018

The U.S. has learned over the years not to trust Pakistan, realizing that a lie here and there might be part of the diplomatic game but that this level of continuing deception was beyond acceptable bounds. That Pakistan was also known to have helped North Korea and Iran develop their nuclear programs has only deepened the distrust.

Indeed, since the shock of 9/11, Pakistan has come to represent such an exasperating problem that the U.S. has reportedly developed a secret plan to arbitrarily seize control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if a terrorist group in Pakistan seemed on the edge of capturing some or all of its nuclear warheads. When repeatedly questioned about the plan, U.S. officials have strung together an artful, if unpersuasive, collection of “no comments.”

Even though U.S. economic and military aid has continued to flow into Pakistan — reaching $4.5 billion in fiscal 2010, though on other occasions capriciously cut — America’s concerns about Pakistan’s stability and reliability have only worsened. Since the debacle in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s barely disguised role in it, serious questions have been raised about America’s embarrassing predisposition to look the other way whenever Pakistan has been caught with its hand in a terrorist’s cookie jar. How long can America look the other way?

The anguishing problem for the Biden administration is now coming into sharper focus: Even if the president decided to challenge Pakistan’s dangerous flirtation with domestic and regional terrorism, what specific policies could he adopt that would satisfy America’s obvious desire to disengage from Afghan-like civil wars without at the same time getting itself involved in another nation’s domestic struggles with terrorists? Disengagement has become the name of the game in Washington.

One approach, already widely discussed, is that the U.S. can contain the spread of terrorism in South Asia by relying on its “over-the-horizon” capabilities. Though almost every senior official, including Biden, has embraced this approach, it’s doubtful they really believe it’s a viable substitute for “boots on the ground.”

Another possibility would be the Central Intelligence Agency striking a new under-the-table deal with the ISI that would set new goals and guidelines for both services to cooperate more aggressively in the war against domestic and regional terrorism. Unfortunately, prospects for such expanded cooperation, though rhetorically appealing, are actually quite slim. Veterans of both services shake their heads, reluctantly admitting it is unrealistic, given the degree of distrust on both sides.

But even if Biden, despite knowing better, decided to continue to look the other way, hoping against hope that Pakistan would be able to contain the terrorists and keep them from acquiring nuclear warheads, he will find that Prime Minister Imran Khan is not a ready and eager ally, if he ever was one. Lately he’s been painting the Biden administration as damaged goods after its hurried exit from Afghanistan. And he has been rearranging Pakistan’s regional relationships by strengthening his ties with China and extending a welcoming hand to Russia. Also Khan may soon discover that his pro-Taliban policy runs the risk of backfiring and inspiring Pakistani terrorists to turn against him. To whom would he then turn for help?

Khan, who won his mandate in 2018, surely knows by now that he runs a decidedly unhappy country, beset by major economic and political problems, waves of societal corruption and the no-nonsense challenge coming from domestic terrorists eager to impose a severe Islamic code of conduct on the Pakistani people. Sixty-four percent of the population are under the age of 30 and more desirous of iPhones and apps than of religious zealotry.

Pakistan is a looming problem with no satisfactory solutions. For Biden, no matter what policies he pursues, it remains a recurring nightmare, the stuff of a paperback thriller: a scary mix of terrorists who may one day be able to seize power and, with it, control over the nation’s stockpile of nuclear warheads — all of this happening in a shaky, strategically-located country that was once an ally.

Since the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, geostrategic relationships on the Asian subcontinent have been undergoing important changes. Pakistan has tilted its future towards a closer relationship with China, while its principal adversary, India, has tightened its ties to the United States, both of them sharing an already deep distrust of China. In this increasingly uneasy atmosphere, the U.S. remains concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile falling into terrorist hands. If this seemed to be happening, the U.S. would feel the need to intervene militarily to stop it. Pakistan would likely turn to China for help, setting the stage for the U.S. and China, because of Pakistan’s nukes, to head towards a direct and possibly deadly confrontation which neither superpower wants or needs.

Friday, February 04, 2022

Khan’s Afghan relief fund faces fire on all fronts

Pakistan leader’s plan to funnel funds to the Taliban to avert an Afghan humanitarian disaster clashes with a newly assertive central bank

By FM SHAKIL
JANUARY 25, 2022

Afghan refugees are arriving in droves in neighboring Pakistan. Photo: AFP

PESHAWAR – The Pakistan government’s bid to raise funds for Afghanistan’s cash-strapped government has been shot down by the suddenly autonomous State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), due to concerns that financing the Taliban regime could trigger international sanctions.

The SBP has advised against domestic and foreign donations to the government’s Afghanistan Relief Fund, telling the finance ministry that funneling funds to the Afghan government without involving “international organizations of repute” could result in sanctions from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international anti-money laundering and terror finance watchdog.

Pakistan has been on the FATF’s “grey list” since June 2018; the Paris-based watchdog is set to review Pakistan’s performance on various metrics next month. Pakistan has not yet met two key FATF action items, including the prosecution and confiscation of assets of UN-designated terrorists, to be removed from the grey list.


The SBP’s stand against the government’s relief fund plan marks perhaps the first time the central bank has flexed its autonomy since legislation was tabled towards making it more independent. The SBP is undergoing some autonomy-enhancing reforms under a deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a US$6 billion extended fund facility.

The government’s cabinet has already approved the SBP Amendment Bill 2021, but the parliament has yet to pass the legislation. The SBP autonomy bill legislation has drawn mixed reactions from politicians and specialists, with opposition parties reportedly opposing the bill on concerns the amendment would make the bank more powerful than the parliament.

Economists and experts, on the other hand, say that greater SBP autonomy is in line with international banking practices and would serve as a bulwark against fiscal irresponsibility and politically motivated financial decisions. That’s already starting to happen in the eyes of certain local observers.

Dr Kaiser Bengali, a leading local economist, tweeted on January 23, “Three cheers for “autonomous” SBP. First, it rejects the Government plan for Afghanistan {relief} Fund. Now, it has warned private banks of the risk of the Federal Government defaulting on its loans. Remarkable! SBP is treating Federal Government like a juvenile delinquent.”

A money changer counts Pakistani Rupee notes in Karachi in a file photo.
 Photo: Agencies

“In the past whenever they [the government] overdrew the budgetary ceiling and expended excessively without having fiscal space, they needed to go to the central bank for borrowings,” said Farrukh Saleem, an Islamabad-based Pakistani political scientist, economist and financial analyst. “Now the government cannot do this and would need to be fiscally disciplined or take loans from the private banks on market rates,” he said.


The government’s desire to funnel relief funds to Afghanistan to mitigate a humanitarian catastrophe that could quickly and massively redound on Pakistan through new waves of refugees, economic migrants and Islamic militants has put it on a collision course with the SBP.

An International Labor Organization (ILO) report released on January 19 said that a downward economic spiral has thrown more than half a million people out of work in Afghanistan, with women chiefly hit by the rise in unemployment. (Afghanistan’s population is recently estimated at 39 million.)

The ILO report said that Afghan companies were struggling to stay afloat and that thousands of Afghans were fleeing the country each day. It predicted more dire prospects in 2022.

With many of those fleeing headed for Pakistan, in late December the government approached the SBP through its finance division to open a collection account for its Afghanistan Relief Fund. It proposed that disbursements from the new fund to the Taliban could be made through banking channels.

The SBP countered that the transfer of funds directly to Afghanistan “through banking channels could be challenging.” It proposed instead that disbursements from the fund could be made through international relief organizations or extended by the government as “in-kind” support to help Afghans who now face acute food shortages.


The central bank asserted that opening fund accounts at overseas bank branches would require the authorization of foreign regulatory bodies, a time-consuming and cumbersome process – particularly in light of Pakistan’s FATF “grey list” designation.

Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government has tried to soften the world’s stance on the Taliban, which most countries have declined to give formal recognition as the country’s government, and restore badly needed foreign assistance that contributed the lion’s share of the previous, US-backed Ashraf Ghani government.

A handout picture made available by the Iranian Red Crescent on August 19, 2021, shows Afghan refugees gathered at a border region. 
Photo: Mohammad Javadzadeh / Iranian Red Crescent / AFP

The international community, including the US, has responded to the Taliban’s takeover and Ghani’s ouster by force by freezing its overseas assets, cutting aid and offering only limited relief for humanitarian purposes.

In early December, Pakistan engaged various Muslim countries by hosting the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Islamabad, but the summit did not generate meaningful humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia pledged US$365 million to establish by March a Humanitarian Trust Fund and Food Security Program managed by the Islamic Development Bank (IDB). This was in addition to the $30 million Pakistan had already committed for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan.

Pakistani pundits believe that the Taliban’s revenue from various sources will exceed $3 billion per year but the insurgents-cum-rulers seem reluctant to expend their resources to minimize the sufferings of the Afghan population.

The United Nations also estimates that the Taliban has increased their revenues in the five months of their rule. Deborah Lyons, head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, said that the Taliban collected a surprising $1 billion in exports in the last five months.

The Khan government’s relief fund plan, already stymied by the SBP on regulatory grounds, is also under political fire for raising donations that the Taliban would likely pocket rather than distribute to suffering Afghans.

“[The Taliban] are neither a state nor a government but are a mob who occupied Afghanistan by force,” Mohsin Dawar, chairman of the National Democratic Movement (NDM), a Pakistan National Assembly member and a Pashtun Tahafuz Movement activist, told Asia Times.

“You cannot expect from such a crowd that they would perform as a government and make budgeting for the uplift of the population.”

Follow FM Shakil on Twitter at @faq1955