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

Friday, May 10, 2024

The Last Regime Change and the Left’s

Lateness in Opposing Biden’s Wars


 
 MAY 9, 2024


FacebookTwitterRedditEmailPhotograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Around the world over the past six months, many ordinary and horrified spectators of the Gaza catastrophe have been left wondering why the US acts as if handicapped in its efforts to rein in its client state Israel, even as North America’s international standing dwindles abroad, while Biden loses popularity at home and elections loom. Onlookers were left stymied and confused by the US president’s dismissal of swing-state Michigan’s “Abandon Biden” movement, as Arab-American voters fiercely hit back against what Dearborn MI mayor Abdullah Hammoud called Biden’s authoritarianism, hemorrhaging the president in his party’s primaries—just as the campaign had vocally promised to do should Biden continue on his path of docility in the face of Netanyahu’s violations of the laws of war while receiving unprecedented American aid. Biden’s displays of weakness before the Israeli leadership’s defiant ingratitude towards its American benefactor has alarmed conspiracy theorists, who point to Biden’s pusillanimity, and to Blinken’s genuflections as proof of the antisemitic belief that Israel, despite being the US’s dependent client-state and privileged subject, actually directs US policy as a whole. It is no surprise that such ideas would at once confirm both the median antisemite’s delirium along with Netanyahu’s, whose megalomania once famously inspired Bill Clinton to muse, “Who the fuck does this guy think he is—who’s the superpower around here?” after the two leaders met in 1996. Megalomania is also a trait that characterized Netanyahu’s role-model Ariel Sharon. Such hubris is what makes many Netanyahu supporters indifferent to a very real danger to Israel and to the diaspora: the American leadership’s feigned impotence whenever the world clamors for Washington to rein in Israel, leaves a misleading impression on vast audiences: an indelible memory that will undoubtedly fuel future antisemitism, by projecting the illusion that Israel rules the US, rather than the other way around.

 The view from inside Israel, even today, is the inverse: center-right newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth featured a cartoon that would have gotten its illustrator fired had it appeared in the Western press, showing a dwarfish Netanyahu arm-wrestle a towering Biden, with the PM’s fist like a baby’s wrapped around the senile giant’s finger. In the same paper, columnist Nahum Barnea wrote “Netanyahu has been dealing with America the way a spoiled teenager deals with his parents: perpetual rebellion, perpetual insults and perpetual scandals.”

 Biden’s flaccid condemnation of Netanyahu is not only “weak”, but also performative: from judging massacres as “over the top” in the comedic language of SNL, to reportedly calling Netanyahu “an asshole” privately, as Blinken came back from self-humiliating junket-visits to the Middle East. American claims of a “rules-based order” are no longer taken seriously even by the usual lapdogs among Europe’s elites like Josep Borrell.

Nobody has thus far pointed out the possibility that the US administration supported the Gaza campaign over the past grueling months because it saw this war as its last chance to doggedly push through at least one successful overseas regime-change, before the end of both Biden’s uninspiring presidential term and the natural termination of the old man’s life cycle, of which he and his staffers increasingly wary.

Biden officials’ callousness toward civilian suffering is nothing new. Consider recent years of thwarted American overseas interventionism. For pundits, the prospects of rallying modern Ukrainian Cossack regiments to topple the Russian juggernaut was, after all, perfectly worth the deaths of more than half a million young Ukrainian men, and many more un-conscripted civilians. The US and EU happily exploited Ukrainian poverty and naiveté—the Ukrainians’ deleterious thirst to belong to an idealized, imaginary “West” was taken advantage of by the real West, along with Ukrainians’ very un-Western and un-contemporary cultural belief in the need to forge national identity in the flames of collective sacrifice and unconventional warfare. The result: 600.000 dead Ukrainians and the unceasing fragmentation of the country.

Famine for Afghanistan presented no dilemmas for Biden, so long as sanctions promised a slap on the bearded faces of the triumphant jihadists after NATO lost that maimed country. The scarcity of medicine in Iran’s previously impressive healthcare system, a result of Biden’s renewal of Trump’s maximum pressure policies, has not stirred consciences in the White House. Whether you call Gaza a massacre, ethnic cleansing, genocide, or hellscape, for Biden the uprooting of an official enemy by way of a proxy client-state is simply an example, a point to be made, an American perception-management op.

Past US presidents resorted to more artful and elegant theatrics. JFK earned jealous admiration through Marilyn Monroe. Reagan even stood accused of having impersonated senility to get through the hearings over Iran-Contra. Let’s not forget George W. Bush’s performances of imbecile generative grammar. “They misunderestimated me” indeed: the circus of “Bushism” was what made a Trump presidency possible.

Biden drags farce to new lows, in terms of the quality of his acting-skills, transparently dishonest when bleating about a “ceasefire by Monday!” over ice-cream to throw off Michigan’s “uncommitted” activists during primaries. Ben Shreckinger’s biography “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty Year Rise to Power” chronicles a Biden who acts as sociopathic and opportunistically as Netanyahu or Trump. There is no reason doubt that, until it became a pre-election optics-crisis, Biden had adamantly signed onto Netanyahu’s, Gallant’s and Smotrich’s plans to level the Gaza Strip. The only major international ideal Biden has shown dedication to is regime-change by any available means. Yet it remains a goal that has continuously eluded him, because of the problematic factor of populations standing in the way. Thus far, Western coup attempts backfire by strengthening the stranglehold that autocratic governments under siege have over their civilian populace. This boomerang effect was proven in Syria and in Venezuela, where ruling bodies and their popular support bases grew in tenacity, despite or because of “maximum pressure”. Obama, under whom Biden was VP, attempted to rehabilitate the art of overthrow-by-bombardment as a progressive (rather than Bushite) cri de guerre. Yet the only coup-d’état technique that thus far seems to work, is the sort that was discredited by global moral outrage towards Plan Condor in 1970s Latin America. More recently, that playbook was implemented by Pakistan’s military against deposed Imran Khan, in a country that nobody from the West cares about or pays attention to.

US officials have learned by now that when dictators in the Muslim world are executed, this opens up a vacuum that is quickly filled by radicalized jihadi elements in populations, as happened after the Biden-approved Iraq invasion. Biden could not fend off the Taliban and was instead reminded of lessons forgotten by the West during the Cold War: lessons about the resilience of native guerrilla insurgent units. The wrong lessons: MSNBC Democrats hoped for a “new Afghanistan” that would entrap Russia in Ukraine. Now that the Ukraine war also seems unwinnable, Biden wants to leave office having at least uprooted wretched little Hamas, even if that means uprooting all Gaza Palestinians along with their governing entity. Civilian death rarely factors as relevant in Biden’s foreign policy calculations and is offset by the need to show that the empire’s not dead yet and that America can still pull off one impressive coup or “humanitarian intervention”. But these efforts, too, have failed: the world was not dazzled or awestruck for a moment by the American-Israeli response to October 7th as it was by the charismatic Zelensky’s fight against Russia. Both the Ukraine crusade and American endowment of Israel have failed at their intended mythmaking objective of rejuvenating America’s global image: the US seems weaker, more irrational, unfree and outdated, rather than potent, despite or because of its fanatical support for Kiev and West-Jerusalem. One would be tempted to joke that this is Biden’s “Homer Simpson moment” for exclaiming “Doh”, were the consequences not so bloody.

Much of the world rejoiced at seeing America struggle with the Houthis’ idealistic pirate-state. This series of frustrated regime-change attempts culminates in the inability to uproot Hamas’ pauperized government from tiny Gaza, even after Israel displaced Gaza’s entire civilian population, unable to find the antlion lair of the Hamas commanders, after purporting these to be located beneath Al-Shifa hospital.

The violence, because of scale, is seldom recognized from afar as yet another proxy-war and regime-change-op. Of course, that’s not what Netanyahu would like it to be—the Likud leader, ever since the death of Sharon has sought to fill the shoes of father-figure to the settler-movement, promising to avenge fundamentalists evacuated from Gush Katif in 2005 by emptying Gaza of all Palestinians in 2024 while the anemic US president still sleepwalks.

But for the Biden White House, all the Israeli invasion amounted to, before it came to embarrass Western elites, was a last chance to celebrate one successful and memorable deposition of an official enemy government, (Hamas, to be replaced with Abbas’ Palestinian Authority) civilian lives be damned as they were in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine.

By now, not even Linda Thomas-Greenfield could seriously argue that things are looking good for American exceptionalism. The hero-cult surrounding khaki-clad warrior-fundraiser Zelensky—an aura of heroism which is also rapidly fading from our fragile, TikTok-fraught memory—helped us quickly forget the disgraceful images of Western fugue from Afghanistan. But with the current war, disgrace is back full-circle, the heroism passé. The endeavor at “shock and awe” to win hearts and minds abroad, has ultimately given way to a morbid burlesque of self-emasculation of US foreign policy in the 21st century: a defeat which may inspire the West’s enemies for decades. There is also the clear danger that all the speculations and misunderstandings about Biden’s true intentions behind overindulging Zelensky and Netanyahu will fuel antisemitic conspiracy theorists long after Biden shuffles off this mortal coil.

But political instinct is also lacking among imperialism’s critics. In response to the “mystery” of Biden’s capitulations to Netanyahu’s tantrums, an array of commentators associated with the left, from the New Left Review’s Wolfgang Streeck to fellow traveler Geoffrey Sachs to pro-Palestinian online commentators all struggle to explain Biden’s willingness to take a nose-dive in domestic polls and risk electoral defeat for the sake of pleasuring Netanyahu.

Streeck, Mearsheimer and Sachs are only the most sincere and eloquent among these critics, who treat a vulgar and relatively obvious situation as if it were rife with opacity and sinister riddles.

The thesis that Israel controls US-Middle East foreign policy, advanced by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their 2007 book “The Israel Lobby” was discredited by none other than Norman Finkelstein, who insisted that while Israeli advocacy groups do impact Washington’s foreign policy towards Israel, they are not what determines American military operations throughout the wider Middle East or in Iraq. Finkelstein ridiculed Walt-Mearsheimer’s suggestion that Cheney would be submissive or at the mercy of an ideological commitment to Zionism, or, for that matter, to anything other than Cheney and a 500% boom in Haliburton stock. But because the enemies of both Mearsheimer and Finkelstein tend to be the same people, Finkelstein’s critique was neglected by untrusting liberals who lump him and Mearsheimer together.

Enter Wolfgang Streeck. In his column “Master and Servant” for the New Left Review’s blog Sidecar, the German political scientist proclaims that the US has become the unwitting, pathetic hostage of the Israeli nuclear behemoth it fed: “Has the US lost control over its protégé, servant turned into master, master into servant? (…) Is the US, blackmailed by the threat of a Middle Eastern Armageddon, now forced to allow Israel to pursue ‘victory’ at any price? Does Israel’s capacity for nuclear war bestow on the Israeli radical right a sense of invincibility, as well as a confidence that they can dictate the terms of peace with or without the Americans, and certainly without the Palestinians? The political costs incurred by the US for not ending the killing – either not wanting or not being able to do so – are likely to be gigantic, both morally, although there may not be much to lose in that regard, and strategically: the ‘indispensable nation’ paraded before the world, helpless in the face of brazen disobedience on the part of its closest international ally.”

Streeck identifies the Israeli mentality as the “Samson doctrine”: “In fact, there is an even more ancient model of Israeli heroism, the myth of Samson, which seems to be no less popular among at least some of the nuclear strategists in and around the IDF command. Samson was a ruler of Israel – a ‘judge’ – in biblical times, during the war between the Israelites and the Philistines in the 13th or 12th century BCE. Like Heracles, Samson was endowed with superhuman physical strength, enabling him to kill an entire army of Philistines, reportedly one thousand strong, by striking them dead with the jawbone of a donkey. After being betrayed and falling into the hands of the enemy, he was kept prisoner in the main temple of the Philistines. When he could no longer hope to escape, he used his remaining strength to pull down the two mighty columns that supported the roof of the building. All the Philistines died, together with him. (…) Nuclear weapons are sometimes claimed by radical pro-Israeli commentators to have given the country a ‘Samson option’ – to ensure that if Israel has to go down, its enemies will go down with it. (…)Myths can be a source of power; a credible threat of extended suicide can open a lot of strategic space –“

It is an interesting juxtaposition: Samson, the Jewish Hercules, has cowed Biden, the whimpering opportunist, into submission, the mewling old emperor taken hostage.

Instead of reaching for the Torah’s powerful myths of ancient guerrilla resistance, or for TikTok for that matter, why not apply scientific method, and seek the simplest explanation?

Biden’s sluggishness in responding to pressure is not mere senility. Nor can it be entirely chalked up to former US diplomat Chas Freeman’s explanation, which is that Biden’s generation of politicians still embrace Leon Uris’ “Exodus” epic account of Israel (an aesthetic Democrats also clearly borrowed for the propaganda promoting the Ukraine war, which cast Zelensky as a 21st century Moshe Dayan.) The simplest explanation is two-fold. Biden’s White House, firstly, grew accustomed to harmonious compliance and sycophantic consensus within his party throughout the wars waged during the years preceding October 2023. Second: more than any other Democrat alive, Biden boasts a stronger record of unabashedly declaring himself for sale to all pressure groups who milk politicians, ever since his youthful sleazy entry into Delaware politics. Data from the NGO Open Secrets highlights Biden’s having received more than double the donations from AIPAC and similar Israel-linked groups than the next tier of top recipients on that committee’s list. Compare Biden’s $5,736,701 in donations from pro-Israeli pressure groups to New Jersey’s Michael Menendez ($2,500,005) or Hillary Clinton ($2,361,812) Such lobbyists are of course doing nothing foreign to the auction-house logic of Washington, and Biden has from the start of his presidency upheld the priorities of militarist neoconservative donors.

Much like the farcical “aid” to Gaza, Biden’s foreign policy has sought to reverse damage he himself inflicts upon American “Exceptionalism’s” image abroad. These ill-conceived efforts mounted ever since his now-forgotten inaugural scandal—the shambolic US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, which disheartened Western elites, but was glorified by sectors of the left as a milestone defeat of imperialism even as Biden seized that famished country’s assets. A genuine defeat of imperial arrogance in Afghanistan would have been a democratic plebiscite in which the Afghans were, for once, consulted on what Afghans actually want—Western protection from the Taliban, or immediate withdrawal and compensation for all the years of ruination? What about Western prosthetic medical technology to aid the maimed country’s abnormally high percentage of amputees? Afghanistan had no winners except for defense contractors, regardless their race or religion.

Trillions of dollars and four years later, Biden finds himself exactly where he started: omening the decadence for the Western foreign policy establishment, without a single coup that stuck. Just many experiments, all very expensive fuckups, though more affordable than the traditional military onslaught that didn’t “outsource” to foreign legionnaires. American and European progressives who waited three years before criticizing Biden’s wars and his crackdowns on anti-war voices, are all to blame for the boneyards in Gaza and the Donbass today. We must not forgive ourselves or anyone else. Where were we all this time?

Arturo Desimone (Aruba, 1984) is an Aruban-Argentine writer, poet and visual artist. His articles on politics previously appeared in  CounterPunch, DemocraciaAbiertaBerfrois UKDiem25news and elsewhere. Author of the poetry collection Mare Nostrum/Costa Nostra (Hesterglock 2019) and the bilingual book “La Amada de Túnez” which  appeared in Argentina during the pandemic, he has performed at international poetry festivals in Granada, Nicaragua, Buenos Aires and Havana.

Wednesday, May 08, 2024

Pakistan is turning to cannabis for an economic high

Pakistan has set up a regulatory authority to manage and control the cultivation and trade of cannabis. Facing its worst economic crisis since the formation of the country, cannabis and its derivatives could give its economy a much-needed high.



Cannabis use is being legalised for medicinal purposes in Pakistan.
 (Representational Image: AFP/Getty)


India Today 
New Delhi,UPDATED: May 8, 2024 
Written By: Priyanjali Narayan

In Short

Pakistan is legalising cannabis use for medical purposes and has created a regulatory body

This regulatory authority will fine people growing cannabis without a government licence

Pakistan might now be able to to tap the global cannabis market


Pakistan's government has taken the high road. Not in the way one would expect. It is legalising cannabis use for medicinal purposes, which will open the path for it to export hemp and its products amid economic distress.

In February, the Pakistan government passed an ordinance which led to the creation of the Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority (CCRA). The CCRA is responsible for “regulating the cultivation, extraction, refining, manufacturing, and sale of cannabis derivatives for medical and industrial purposes”.

Nikkei Asia reports that Pakistan hopes to take advantage of its conducive growing conditions to enter the global cannabis market. The Islamic Republic could use cannabis to generate revenue through export, foreign investment and domestic sales to shore up its foreign reserves, Syed Hussain Abidi, chairman of the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (PCSIR), told Al Jazeera.

The Pakistani economy might actually get a much-needed high from cannabis.

The inflation rate in Pakistan has gone up to 25% and the economic growth is at the fourth-lowest pace at 1.9%, according to the Asian Development Bank.

The economic crisis since May 2022 is Pakistan's worst since the formation of the country.

The cannabis regulatory authority will consist of 13 members, including people from several government departments, intelligence agencies and the private sector. Forming such a body was first suggested in 2020, when Imran Khan was the Prime Minister. This shows the nation's attempt to become a part of the global cannabis and cannabis-derivatives business.

"We are very serious about this initiative, and things are moving at a very fast pace," a senior at the Special Investment Facilitation Council told Nikkei Asia.

The global cannabis market will reach $64.73bn this year, as per Statista.

Cannabis or hemp is not just a psychoactive substance and is used for medicinal purposes as well. Cannabis is also prescribed for anxiety, depression and chronic pain.

"Misuse of cannabis is possible, but then ephedrine (used to treat low blood pressure) is a lifesaving drug and is misused, too," Pakistani healthcare professional Adnan Amin told Nikkei Asia.

"My daughter's seizures were reduced from 100 fits a day to some days going without fits with his THC oil," Amin said. "I was unable to procure the prescribed rare drugs from American hospitals due to stringent US regulations."

Syed Hussain Abidi of PCSIR discussed with Al Jazeera how a regulator has been deemed necessary by the UN laws. It also puts a limit on how much tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can be used, which is 0.3%.

“The UN laws say that if a country wants to produce, process and conduct sales of cannabis-related products, it must have a federal entity that will deal with the supply chain and ensure international compliance,” he added.

There are strict fines for people misusing the regulations and buying cannabis for recreational purposes: a fine of Pakistani Rs 1 million to Pakistani Rs10 million for one person and Pakistani Rs 10,000,000 to Pakistani Rs 200,000,000 for companies, according to The Express Tribune.

This regulation is a welcome intervention as it would stop the illegal cultivation in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa area. Now, the government can get revenue from medicinal cannabis and some more from penalties from people still using it for over-the-counter usage.

Licence will also be given for a five-year period. Only the government will have the final word on where cannabis can be grown legally.

“When there used to be cannabis cultivation in Afghanistan, we would often be a loss, unable to recoup our investment in growing the plant. But since [the] Taliban have placed a ban, our business is doing considerably better," a farmer told Al Jazeera.

Such a regulation helps the farmers and the government and, therefore, it will be a welcome step. But we still have to see if Pakistan is able to produce excellent quality cannabis derivatives or whether the international market will retain its edge and the regulation will be of little help.

Monday, May 06, 2024

 Locations of Kazakhstan's Tengiz, Karachaganak, And Kashagan. Credit: EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. State Department, IHS EDIN, KazMunaiGas, Transneft, CPC, BP, OGJ 

Russian Media: Russia And China In Run-Up To Battle For Kazakhstan – OpEd


By 

Kamran Bokhari, senior director of Eurasian Security and Prosperity at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, in his recent piece entitled “Kazakhstan and U.S. Strategy” and published by The National Interest, said: “Central Asia, a vast land-locked area between Russia and China, deserves far more U.S. attention than it currently gets. Greater U.S. engagement with the region can help counter Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Similarly, U.S. efforts to compete with China can get a boost given that this region is critical for Chinese geo-economic prowess. At the same time, having a robust relationship with the heart of Eurasia will allow America to create a pressure point for Iran, which is aggressively trying to alter the security architecture of the Middle East. Furthermore, it will enable the United States to ensure that Taliban-run Afghanistan does not become a haven for transnational jihadist agendas at a time when the Islamic State is on the rise again”.

The author’s estimation of an American would-be strategy for the Central Asian region appears quite realistic. The only question that appears to remain unanswered in his piece is the following: what would be the concrete path of moving forward to accomplish the noted objectives? This is just where a hitch is when it is a question of really challenging Russia’s traditional clout and China’s rapidly growing influence in Central Asia. After all, if one power intends to create a pressure point in a region or a country, located in the rear of its two most significant power rivals, it has to have reliable access to them. That is the very thing it should get first to ensure the delivery of what that region or country seeks from it and what it can offer them. But there is a problem with that in the present case.

Central Asia including Kazakhstan is inaccessible to the West, except through Azerbaijan and the Caspian Sea. Its other surrounding countries – Russia, China, Afghanistan, and Iran – can hardly be called Western-friendly. The situation gets worsened by the fact that the waterway through the Caspian from Central Asia to the South Caucasus and vice-versa may also be seen as being controlled by Russia, as the Russian Caspian Flotilla is the largest and most powerful naval group in the Caspian Sea basin. That is hampering or even blocking Central Asia’s accessibility for the USA and its allies through Azerbaijan and the Caspian Sea is quite within Russia’s power in the worst scenarios.

It cannot be said that the West did not try to lead Central Asia out of control of Russia in terms of logistics. In the later stages of the Western coalition’s stay in Afghanistan, there were efforts made by Washington to create conditions for establishing economic and trade ties bypassing Russia, China, and Iran that would connect the post-Soviet Central Asian region to the markets in South Asia and beyond. Before the summer of 2021, such plans were repeatedly discussed during the meetings within the framework of the C5+1 format. The New Delhi Times, in an article by Himanshu Sharma entitled “US to link South & Central Asia” (July 20, 2020), said: “The United States and five Central Asian countries pledged to “build economic and trade ties that would connect Central Asia to markets in South Asia and Europe”. Their joint statement in Washington in mid-July called for a peaceful resolution of the Afghan situation for greater economic integration of the South and Central Asian regions”. Among other things, they included a project for building railway links between [post-Soviet] Central Asia and Pakistan.

Now, the latter seems to be getting more concrete. Kazakh Deputy Prime Minister Serik Zhumangarin, while having a meeting with Taliban officials in Afghanistan on April 24,   stated that Kazakhstan was interested in participating in the construction of the Trans-Afghan Railway project. The interesting point here is that Russia expressed interest in the same thing even earlier. The Russian Federation is ready to take on part of the financing of the work and the preparation of a feasibility study of the project. It is claimed that Russia, which is now under sanctions restrictions, is interested in developing a new transport corridor since it gives it additional access to the world’s oceans. The above reports would seem to indicate that the eastern route of the North-South Corridor, a planned railway route that is meant to connect Russia to the Indian Ocean via Central Asia and Afghanistan, is gaining relevance in Moscow’s international agenda. That is, it can be assumed that the Russian side plans to control that route in one way or another, once it becomes operational. This seems to be, by no means, what Washington and its allies wanted for Central Asia to be done.

It means that in terms of independent access to Central Asia, the US and its allies still have no choice but to continue to count on the trans-Caspian direction. In that context, all further plans for the development of transport and logistics between the West and Central Asia without involving Russia and, to a lesser extent, Iran, find themselves linked to the Caspian Sea ports of Aktau and Kuryk in the Mangystau province, located in the south of Western Kazakhstan. Of all the countries in the region, only Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have access to the Caspian Sea. The port of Turkmenbashi in Turkmenistan is much closer to the port of Baku in Azerbaijan and much farther away from Russian territorial waters, than Aktau and Kuryk. Yet it seems doubtful that Turkmenistan which pursues a policy of neutrality, can be involved in the actions related to the great powers rivalry in the Central Asian region. As regards the formal position, the Turkmen officials have never expressed positions regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But informally, they have been and are being seen as more inclined towards supporting Russia over the West. According to Azattyq, in Turkmenistan, “officials have carried out pro-Kremlin propaganda efforts, blaming the West for provoking the war in Ukraine and warning against foreign ‘agents’ who are allegedly trying to destabilize the country”. Turkmenistan’s representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Khemra Amannazarov, left the conference room during the speech of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba at a meeting of the OSCE Council of Ministers on December 1, 2022. He returned after the latter had finished his speech. 

No Kazakh official would afford things like that. Astana’s representatives try to behave utterly correctly towards both the West and Russia. The result is that both in Russia and the West, there are often those who suspect Kazakhstan of playing a double game. Kazakhstan has faced repeated accusations by opponents of Putin of helping Russia obtain sanctioned goods that can be used to aid Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine despite Astana’s vows to avoid helping Moscow circumvent Western economic penalties.  Symmetrically, there have been accusations by supporters of Putin toward the Central Asian nation of assisting activities of the West against Russia. There is no point in giving examples – there are a lot of them. To tell the truth, the current system of relations within the triangle of Russia – Kazakhstan – the USA, and its allies seems to suit the Russian leadership just fine. The Kremlin’s propagandists continue – largely because of inertia – to blame the Kazakh ruling regime for many alleged sins against Russia. 

But at times some of them start revealing things. Thus, just recently, one of the mouthpieces of Russian state propaganda has publicly claimed that “Tokayev is a product of Moscow” and “the fact that Kazakhstan, at the very least, helps Russia bypass sanctions is, I repeat, not the country’s State policy, but Tokayev’s personal merit. If he leaves, all this will be over”.

Hence the conclusion suggests that the Kremlin is not too worried about the Kazakh regime’s alleged flirting with the West. There does not yet appear to be a substantial change in relations within the triangle of Russia – Kazakhstan – the USA, and its allies. Even if there is any, it is most likely not in favor of the West. The Kremlin seems to be aware that it still takes the upper hand in relations within that triangle. The only thing that can worry it in this regard is any possible attempts by the West to gain a foothold on the Kazakhstani coast of the Caspian Sea – in the ports of Aktau and Kuryk. It can be assumed that in the event of the slightest suspicion on this account, the Russian Federation, as the former head of the National Security Committee of Kazakhstan, Alnur Musayev noted, may “attack Kazakhstan to cut off the Central Asian nation from the Caspian Sea – from Astrakhan [a city in the Russian Federation] to Aktau [a city in Kazakhstan] and to the border with Turkmenistan”

It’s an entirely different story when it comes to relations within the triangle of Russia – Kazakhstan – China. In there, that is Beijing which is taking the upper hand, and Russia is losing its position. In this context, one news report appears to be worthy of special attention. This is the statement by the Kazakh Minister of Trade and Integration, Arman Shakkaliev, about China having come out on top among Kazakhstan’s trading partners, surpassing Russia.

In terms of trade with Kazakhstan, China, according to Chinese figures, for the first time bypassed Russia a decade and a half ago. According to the Kazakh statistical data, this first happened only in 2023. The discrepancies in Kazakhstan-China trade turnover value can perhaps be attributed to differences between the methods of keeping statistics. But, in truth, such an explanation sounds quite unconvincing, as the data of the parties varied and is still varying widely. For instance, China was Kazakhstan’s largest trade partner in 2023, with bilateral trade turnover reaching $41 billion, a 32% increase over the previous year’s total, according to Chinese figures. The Kazakhstan side, meanwhile, reported total bilateral trade in 2023 as totaling $31.5 billion, while the volume of trade between Kazakhstan and Russia amounted to $26  billion.

But anyway, one can talk about China starting to economically squeeze Russia out of Kazakhstan. Moscow can’t stop this, without being dragged into a direct conflict, as China shares a 1,783-kilometer border with Kazakhstan and does not need to turn to Russia’s logistical mediation. Central Asia remains the only region in the post-Soviet space where Russia still maintains a major influence. And if the Kremlin loses its significant clout over what happens in Kazakhstan, the rest of Central Asia will be mostly cut off from Russia, and Moscow will become dependent on Astana in developing its relationship with the other Central Asian countries.  This seems to have to look like an even more alarming prospect.

Therefore, it is not surprising that some Russian military and political experts (topwar.ru) are beginning to say that “Russia and China now are in the run-up to the battle for Kazakhstan”.

Locations of Kazakhstan's Tengiz, Karachaganak, and Kashagan. Credit: EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. State Department, IHS EDIN, KazMunaiGas, Transneft, CPC, BP, OGJ

Akhas Tazhutov is a political analyst from Kazakhstan.

Friday, May 03, 2024

Attacks Target Afghanistan’s Hazaras

Inadequate Protection Provided for Community Long at Risk


THEY ARE MINORITY IN PAKISTAN AS WELL


Fereshta Abbasi
Researcher, Asia Division
HRW

Click to expand Image
Afghans mourn at a burial ceremony for Shia Muslims killed by gunmen who attacked a mosque in Guzara district of Herat province, April 30, 2024. © 2024 MOHSEN KARIMI/AFP via Getty Images

For many Afghans, the country’s armed conflict has never ended.

The armed group Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP) attracted worldwide attention in March when it attacked the Crocus City Hall in Moscow, killing at least 143 people and injuring many others. Since emerging in Afghanistan in 2015, the group has carried out a bloody campaign mostly targeting Shia-Hazara mosques and schools and other facilities in predominantly Hazara neighborhoods.

In the most recent attack, on April 29, an armed member of the group opened fire on worshippers at a Shia-Hazara mosque in western Herat province, killing six, including a child. On April 20, a magnetic bomb attached to a bus whose passengers were primarily Hazara exploded, killing one and injuring 10. On January 6, a similar attack on a bus in Dasht-e Barchi, a predominantly Hazara neighborhood of Kabul, killed five people, including at least one child, and injured 14. Dasht-e Barchi has been the site of numerous ISKP attacks. When ISKP claimed responsibility for the January 6 attack, they said it was part of their “kill them wherever you find them” campaign against “infidels.”

Between 2015 and mid-2021, ISKP attacks killed and injured more than 2,000 civilians primarily in Kabul, Jalalabad, and Kandahar. Since the Taliban took over Afghanistan in August 2021, these attacks have continued – killing and injuring over 700.

The Taliban have long battled the ISKP, which have also targeted Taliban personnel. A suicide bombing outside a Kandahar bank on March 21 killed at least 21 people and injured 50, many of them Taliban ministry employees who had lined up to collect their salaries.

Attacks on Hazara and other religious minorities and targeted attacks on civilians violate international humanitarian law, which still applies in Afghanistan. Deliberate attacks on civilians are war crimes. Beyond the immediate loss of life, such attacks incur lasting damage to physical and mental health, cause long-term economic hardship, and result in new barriers to education and public life.

Like the previous Afghan government, Taliban authorities have not taken adequate measures to protect Hazaras and other communities at risk or provide assistance to survivors of attacks, though they are responsible for ensuring the safety of all Afghan citizens.

Monday, April 29, 2024

RSF mobilises support for more than 170 Afghan journalists who fled to Pakistan

Together with its local partner, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has been helping more than 170 Afghan journalists who fled to Pakistan.
Image: RSF

Together with its local partner, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has been helping more than 170 Afghan journalists who fled to Pakistan, providing financial and administrative assistance and organising networking workshops. While a conference is being held in Islamabad on 29 April, RSF urges the Pakistani authorities and international community to help protect Afghan journalists in Pakistan.

The “Advocacy platform for Afghan journalists” project launched in December 2023 by RSF and its local partner, the Islamabad-based Freedom Network, has so far helped 173 Afghan journalists who fled persecution in their own country only to encounter many administrative, financial and professional difficulties in the country where they sought refuge.

To help address these problems, RSF has supported Freedom Network in providing administrative, financial and advocacy assistance. As part of the project, Freedom Network is organising a conference in Islamabad on 29 April to draw the attention of political decision-makers and the international community to the plight of these journalists, with a view to finding short and long-term political solutions to the challenges they face.

This initiative is supported by RSF and is funded by the European Union’s ProtectDefenders programme.

"When the RSF project was launched in November 2023, I saw the despair on the faces of many Afghan journalists. For me, it was important to get them out of that situation and give them a new perspective. Today, I see hope in them as the project draws to a close. A solid foundation has been laid to support them, especially the women, and this would not have been possible without the RSF project. Freedom Network, RSF's partner in Pakistan, will continue to support these refugee journalists from Afghanistan.
Iqbal Khattak
Freedom Network executive director and RSF representative in Pakistan

Humanitarian assistance was also provided to 59 Afghan journalists under the project, including women journalists who were particularly affected in exile. Four orientation workshops were organised to help the journalists familiarise themselves with local conditions. Pakistani journalists' unions and press clubs were also mobilised to support their colleagues in exile.

Participants in the RSF/Freedom Network project, which is due end at the end of April, have also pleaded the cause of the exile journalists with local and international bodies. A solidarity network called the “Pak-Afghan Journalists Solidarity Network (PAJSN)” was set up at the beginning of 2024 to involve the Pakistani government, diplomatic missions in Islamabad and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Representatives of the Afghan journalists were able to meet UNHCR officials, diplomats from EU member countries and the National Human Rights Commission (NCHR).


“It is necessary and urgent for stakeholders to join forces to address the many problems that Afghan journalists face in Pakistan. We urge them to hear our call and to respond. Afghan journalists who have fled to Pakistan deserve to live in decent conditions and should have the possibility to become residents and to use their professional journalistic skills, or to be allowed and supported in their departure to a host country.

Antoine Bernard
RSF director of advocacy and assistance


More than 170 Afghan journalists are still refugees in Pakistan after fleeing their country, which has been under Taliban control since August 2021. Most of them hope to obtain a visa for a third country but are not sure whether they will ever succeed.

They are having great difficulty renewing their Pakistani visas, and some have been the victims of police harassment. Often deprived of a legal status enabling them to lead a normal life, they live in a state of permanent anxiety. They also have no access to healthcare at public hospitals or to public schools for their children. Their careers have been cut short and their financial resources are running out.