Mediaboss Marketing

One of the many issues thrown up by the Talibans seizure of power has been the question of providing official recognition to the Taliban-led government or the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Should the Indian government provide diplomatic recognition to the Taliban government? Or should it refuse to recognise the Taliban on grounds of its violent overthrow of the previous Afghan government and the unreserved use of terrorism (both, locally and abroad)? This, of course, is quite different from mere engagement or dialogue with the Taliban. States are frequently compelled to interact and negotiate with a wide variety of non-state actors to serve their interests whilst still denying them legitimacy on the global stage. What should Indias policy be moving forward?

One line of thought would argue that India must accept the ground realities in Kabul. It is an obvious fact that the Taliban is in control and so recognition must logically flow from that. Consideration of values should not cloud New Delhis judgement. After all, there are a whole host of Islamic states that have questionable human rights records that India recognises and fruitfully engages with. There are two other compelling reasons. First, India has significant interests at stake that may be harmed by delayed recognition or non-recognition. Concerns over cross-border terrorism, radicalisation, drug trade, etc. can hardly be addressed in the absence of a sustained dialogue with whoever occupies the seat of power in Kabul. Second, if India refuses to recognise the Taliban, it may strengthen the hand of its regional rivalsPakistan and Chinaleading to a further intensification of national security threats on its northern frontier.

However, such arguments and their underlying assumptions are somewhat flawed. India had adopted precisely this line of reasoning in 1949 with communist China and failed. The Nehru government felt compelled to provide early recognition to the communists despite close ties with the previous Kuomintang government and Chiang Kai-Shek during the interwar period. There were many similar forces in play. Nehru believed communist Chinas goodwill was crucial to ensure a peaceful border settlement and to prevent the rise of communists in India. The reticence to provide similar recognition to the Bolsheviks in 1918 by the West, Nehru argued, was the main reason behind the inability of the Western powers and Russia to forge a common alliance to effectively counter Nazi Germany. So, Nehru proceeded to provide early and unconditional recognition and also chose to maintain Indias diplomatic mission in Beijing. He then successfully persuaded Commonwealth countries to follow suit, despite strong reservations about whether the communists would honour Chinas previous international legal obligations and would refrain from the use of force across the Taiwan straits as well as in Tibet and Hong Kong. Nehru also championed the cause of communist Chinas UN membership.

But did early recognition change anything in communist Chinas policy? No. Communist China continued to be suspicious of Indias intentions in Tibet and the bourgeois nature of its regime and elites. Moreover, it was Indias early recognition that gave Mao Zedong confidence in his plans to annex Tibet through force in 1950. Goodwill proved to be an ineffective tool of deterrence. Mao did not risk such offensives in Hong Kong or Taiwan. A very different trajectory can be seen in Pakistan-China ties. Being overzealous in its pursuit of US military aid, Pakistan ceded closer ties with communist China initially. They made no attempt to build goodwill or provide any reassurances to the latter. Still, when the opportunity for collaboration against India arose after the 1962 War, the two were not bogged down by previous inhibitions.

The lesson here is clear: In the absence of compelling shared interests, building mere goodwill through early recognition provides no returns. Does India have any such compelling shared interests with the Taliban?

All Nehrus early recognition did was to cede Indias only leverage vis--vis communist China. This is one of the key takeaways from Vijay Gokhales new book The Long Game: How the Chinese negotiate with India. Nehru could have used recognition of communist China to draw concessions on the disputed frontier or at the very least to restrain Chinas dealings with Tibet. Similarly, it is far from clear if early and unconditional recognition of the Taliban government will help India achieve any of its regional security objectives. In fact, it may compromise the only leverage the international community and India have. With its rhetorical efforts to appear moderate, the Taliban has not demonstrated sincerity, but rather a reluctant acceptance of the fact that legitimacy on the global stage is a social good that cannot be achieved through force. Surely, New Delhi must engage the Taliban. But in a manner that uses the Talibans need for social recognition to draw concrete concessions on key interest areas.

The writer is reading for a DPhil in Area Studies at the University of Oxford and is the Managing Editor of Statecraft Daily.

Read more here:
In dealing with Taliban, India must remember consequences of rushing to recognise communist China in 1949 - The Indian Express

Afghan government forces are battling the Taliban in three key cities

Ferocious fighting is taking place in a major Afghan city, amid fears it could be the first provincial capital to fall to the Taliban.

Lashkar Gah in southern Helmand province is under heavy assault from the militants, despite persistent US and Afghan air strikes.

The Taliban are said to have seized a TV station. Thousands of people fleeing rural areas took shelter in buildings.

"There is fighting all around," a doctor told the BBC from his hospital.

Hundreds of Afghan reinforcements have been deployed to battle the militants. The Taliban have made rapid advances in recent months as US forces have withdrawn after 20 years of military operations in the country.

Helmand was the centrepiece of the US and British military campaign, and Taliban gains there would be a blow for the Afghan government.

If Lashkar Gah fell, it would be the first provincial capital won by the Taliban since 2016. It is one of three provincial capitals under attack.

An Afghan military commander in the city warned that a Taliban victory would have a "devastating effect on global security".

"This is not a war of Afghanistan, this is a war between liberty and totalitarianism," Maj Gen Sami Sadaat told the BBC.

On Monday, the Afghan information ministry announced that 11 radio and four television networks in Helmand province had stopped broadcasting due to what it described as Taliban "attacks and threats".

Attempts by the militants to capture Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city, have continued after rocket strikes hit its airport on Sunday.

Seizing control of Kandahar would be a hugely symbolic victory for the Taliban, giving them a grip on the south of the country.

In a third besieged city, Herat, in the west, government commandos are battling the insurgents after days of fierce fighting. Government forces have taken back some areas after a UN compound was attacked on Friday.

Videos shared on social media appeared to show residents on the streets and rooftops of Herat shouting "Allahu akbar" ("God is greatest") in support of the government's gains.

Story continues

Map showing areas of full Taliban or government control, updated 29 July 2021

As government forces struggled to contain Taliban advances, President Ashraf Ghani blamed the sudden withdrawal of US troops for the increase in fighting.

"The reason for our current situation is that the decision was taken abruptly," he told parliament.

Mr Ghani said he had warned Washington that the withdrawal would have "consequences".

Although nearly all its military forces have left, the US has continued its air offensive in support of government troops. Strikes targeting Lashkar Gah continued late on Monday.

President Biden's administration announced on Monday that because of the increase in violence, it would take in thousands more Afghan refugees who worked with US forces.

The US and UK have accused the Taliban of committing possible war crimes by "massacring civilians" in a town captured near the Pakistan border.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he had seen reports of "deeply disturbing and totally unacceptable" Taliban atrocities.

Gruesome videos that emerged from Spin Boldak apparently showed revenge killings. The Taliban have rejected the accusations.

Read the original here:
Afghanistan: Street fighting rages as Taliban attack key city

Taliban fighters continue to seize territory in Afghanistan as the militant group mounts new offensives in the northern part of the war-torn country victories that have come as the US prepares to withdraw its troops by Sept. 11.

There have been reports of intense fighting between Taliban and Afghan government forces surrounding the northern provincial capitals of Kunduz, Faryab and Balkh in recent days.

Militant forces were closing in on Kunduz on Monday and had overrun the district headquarters in Imam Sahib and taken control of the police headquarters, Inamuddin Rahmani, the provincial police spokesman, told the Associated Press.

Since the Biden administration announced in April that it would pull the remainder of US troops from Afghanistan, ending Americas longest war, the Taliban have moved beyond their southern strongholds in Helmand and Kandahar and begun taking control of areas like Imam Sahib, which islocated near the border with Tajikistan and on a key supply route from Central Asia.

The latest offensive comes as peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan officials in Qatar have stalled and just days before Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and the chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation, Abdullah Abdullah, will visit President Biden at the White House.

The talks on Friday will focus on how the US will continue to provide support for the Afghan people following the withdrawal, including offering diplomatic, humanitarian and economic assistance, the White House said.

The United Nation Secretary-Generals Special Representative for Afghanistan said she pressed the Security Council to urge both sides to begin negotiations again.

Increased conflict in Afghanistan means increased insecurity for many other countries, near and far,Deborah Lyons said.

But while the talks are halted, the Taliban continue to advance their military presence in the north.

The Talibans strategy is to make inroads and have a strong presence in the northern region of the country that long resisted the insurgent group, a senior Afghan security official told Reuters.They would face less resistance in other parts of the country where they have more influence and presence.

And while the fighting has been fierce in places, the Taliban have also begun paying Afghan government forces to return home.

A senior police official told the AP that many of the police in his district come from poor families and havent seen their financial conditions rise despite the trillions of dollars the US spent during the 20-year war.

They have not seen changes in their lives and are indifferent so they see no difference. They want to save their lives just for today, the official said.

Many observers fear that the Taliban will overrun the country once US and NATO troops leave Afghanistan a predicament that could lead to the rise of al Qaeda in the country again.

The US overthrew the Taliban in 2001 for allowing the terror groups leader Osama bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations as they planned the Sept. 11 attacks.

At a Senate hearing last week, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were questioned about the possibility that al Qaeda could regenerate and once again become a threat to the US.

I would assess it as medium, Austin said. I would also say, Senator, that it would take possibly two years for them to develop that capability.

Milley said he agreed.

I think that if certain other things happen if there was a collapse of the government or the dissolution of the Afghan security forces that risk would obviously increase, but right now I would say medium and about two years or so, hesaid.

With Post wires

See the original post here:
Taliban fighters continue to grab territory in Afghanistan

Is Afghanistan destined to return to barbarism? Some hope that the hasty and haphazard U.S. withdrawal wont lead to Taliban rule or that the jihadist group will govern more gently than before. That optimism is misplaced, and the disaster likely to come will have global consequences.

Many observers fear that the Taliban will soon re-establish an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan. Scarcely a day passes without news of their advances. They now control about half of Afghanistans roughly 400 districts. Taliban fighters are at the gates of or inside at least three important provincial capitalsHerat, Kandahar and Lashkar Gah. They have captured border crossings with Iran, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan and the strategic town of Spin Boldak on the Pakistan border. At times, Afghan government troops have fled in disarray or surrendered U.S.-provided equipment.

Atrocities have accompanied the Talibans battlefield gains. A video last month purportedly showed the Taliban executing 22 Afghan government special forces after they surrendered. On Monday the U.S. and the U.K. accused the Taliban of murdering civilians in Spin Boldak.

Last month the Taliban brutalized and murdered Danish Siddiqui, an Indian Pulitzer-prize winning photojournalist with Reuters. They also murdered a folksy Afghan comedian known for poking fun at them. In some places, Taliban commanders have reportedly demanded lists of widows and unmarried women between 15 and 45 to be married off to their fighters. They have murdered civil society leaders, closed girls schools, and forced women out of public roles.

They havent yet reinstated the classical Islamic punishment of amputating limbs for theft, but a Taliban spokesman told this newspaper that this was only because they first need to establish the appropriate healthcare apparatus.

The rest is here:
Have No Illusions About the U.S. Withdrawal From Afghanistan - The Wall Street Journal

Afghan Taliban fighters and villagers attend a gathering in Laghman province, Alingar district, in March 2020 as they celebrate the peace deal signed between the U.S. and the Taliban. Wali Sabawoon/NurPhoto via Getty Images hide caption

Afghan Taliban fighters and villagers attend a gathering in Laghman province, Alingar district, in March 2020 as they celebrate the peace deal signed between the U.S. and the Taliban.

Nearly two decades after U.S. forces toppled a repressive Taliban regime, the militant religious movement is again winning territory on battlefields across Afghanistan, vying to fill a power vacuum left as America prepares to exit its longest war.

The prospect of a Taliban takeover reminiscent of the movement's 1996 blitz on the capital, Kabul, has people both inside and outside Afghanistan worried about the future.

While the Taliban have been making rapid gains particularly since U.S.-led forces began a withdrawal in May few experts see a complete takeover of the capital as imminent.

However, the question remains: After 20 years in the political wilderness, how would the Taliban govern if they regained power? The short answer might be, not much differently from the last time.

"I think everyone is trying to read some pretty sparse tea leaves here," says Laurel Miller, the Asia program director for the International Crisis Group.

When the Taliban last held power, in 2001, their treatment of women who were denied education and employment and forced to wear the all-encompassing burqa as well as minorities, such as Afghanistan's mostly Shiite Hazaras, earned the country pariah status in the international community. Only Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would even recognize the Taliban government.

The Taliban are keen not to repeat the mistakes of the past. In recent weeks, they have reached out for allies and to reassure past adversaries, dispatching high-level delegations to Russia, China and Iran in hopes of gaining legitimacy, if not outright support, from powerful regional players, Miller says.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, political chief of Afghanistan's Taliban, in Tianjin, China, on July 28. Li Ran/Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images hide caption

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, political chief of Afghanistan's Taliban, in Tianjin, China, on July 28.

"They are currently pursuing a fairly savvy foreign policy," she says, pointing to last week's visit to Beijing by a delegation of Taliban led by the movement's second in command, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, to meet Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

The Taliban "have been very eager for public displays of their acceptance by governments around the world," Miller says.

Baradar also sat across the table from then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last year to discuss a peace deal between the Taliban and the Afghan government. Despite viewing Washington as the enemy, Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban, got a world stage to bolster the movement's standing, she says.

For the Taliban, these high-profile photo ops give them the legitimacy they crave but it goes further than that. Beijing has reportedly promised big investments in energy and infrastructure projects, including the building of a road network in Afghanistan.

Earlier, a Taliban delegation visited Russia, which invaded Afghanistan in 1979, setting in motion events that have led to 40 years of conflict there. The Kremlin's concern is security for the Central Asian states along its southern border, says Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. from 2008 to 2011.

Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (center) arrives with other members of the Taliban delegation for an international peace conference in Moscow in March. A delegation of the Taliban visited Moscow in July to offer assurances that their quick gains in Afghanistan don't threaten Russia or its allies in Central Asia. Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP hide caption

Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (center) arrives with other members of the Taliban delegation for an international peace conference in Moscow in March. A delegation of the Taliban visited Moscow in July to offer assurances that their quick gains in Afghanistan don't threaten Russia or its allies in Central Asia.

"Russia, China and Iran have for the last several years taken an interest in Afghanistan only to ensure that the Americans leave and leave in an embarrassment," says Haqqani, who is director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute.

Both Russia and China are concerned about "spillover," he says Russia doesn't want the Taliban to embolden unrest in Central Asia, and Beijing wants to make sure Afghanistan doesn't become a base for Uyghur separatists from China's Xinjiang region.

By casting their net wide in an effort to gain international recognition, the Taliban would not necessarily be as reliant on Pakistan, with which it has had relatively close, but nonetheless frequently strained, relations.

Having Pakistan as an ally "is less important to the Taliban now than it was in the 1990s, when it had very few governments recognizing it," says Madiha Afzal, the David M. Rubenstein fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.

Pakistan is keen to avoid a civil war in Afghanistan that could trigger the type of outflow of refugees that has destabilized its western border region in the past, Afzal says. It also wants to keep the deadly Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, commonly known as the Pakistani Taliban, in check. Although the group's deadly attacks have waned in recent years, the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban could reinvigorate it.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged concerns over the rapid progress of Taliban fighters as the U.S. approaches an Aug. 31 deadline for withdrawal of its forces. "We've also seen these reports of atrocities committed by the Taliban in areas that it's taken over that are deeply, deeply troubling and certainly do not speak well to the Taliban's intentions for the country as a whole," he said during a news conference in India.

Little has changed from the time the Taliban methodically fought off or bought off warlords in the countryside in the lead-up to their 1996 victory over the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani, Haqqani says. Today, in areas where the Taliban have seized power, mainly in the country's more religiously conservative countryside, their conduct "is exactly what it was before."

"They have not changed at all ideologically," he says.

Much like they did in the runup to their 1996 takeover, the Taliban have implemented their own style of local government based on their interpretation of Islamic Sharia law wherever they have grabbed territory.

"They have conducted summary executions. They are beating up women. They are shutting down schools. They are blowing up clinics, and they are blowing up infrastructure," Haqqani says.

Women in regions controlled by the Taliban cannot study or even step out of the house unless they are wearing a burqa and are accompanied by a male relative. Voice of America reports that the Taliban have handed out leaflets in some areas they control ordering locals to follow many of the strict rules imposed under the previous Taliban regime.

Despite this, the Taliban leadership has made vague promises to the contrary, the Crisis Group's Miller says.

"They say women can have jobs and education, that it's consistent with Islamic principles and Afghan traditions," she says. "Well, who's going to be the judge of what Islamic principles and Afghan traditions mean and what kind of limitations that would impose?"

The extrajudicial killing of Afghan comedian Nazar Mohammad Khasha in July sparked widespread anger. "Taliban forces apparently executed [Khasha] ... because he poked fun at Taliban leaders," Patricia Gossman, associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. "His murder and other recent abuses demonstrate the willingness of Taliban commanders to violently crush even the tamest criticism or objection."

It's also not certain how much control the senior leadership has over rank-and-file militia members, Brookings' Afzal says.

"The political leadership presents one face," she says. "The soldiers on the ground look different."

Read the original:
The Taliban Say They've Changed. Experts Aren't Buying It And Fear For Afghanistan - NPR