Mediaboss Marketing

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Imran Khan Wednesday stressed the need for improving defence relations with Tajikistan after the two countries signed Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) for cooperation in various sectors, including sale of Pakistan-manufactured arms to Tajikistan.

The prime minister was addressing a joint press conference with Tajikistan President Emomali Rahmon who earlier arrived here on a two-day official visit. He was received at the PM House, where he was given a guard of honour. They had a one-on-one meeting and attended a ceremony where various MoUs were signed. Delegation level talks were also held.

The prime minister also reiterated that Pakistan could not normalise relations with India until it revoked its actions, taken on August 05, 2019 in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K) and emphasised that if the relations did not improve, then India, Pakistan and the whole region will continue to suffer.

He continued that the potential, this region offered, could only be harnessed, if there is regional peace. The prime minister said on one side, there was Afghanistan while on the other, unfortunately India had taken unilateral actions on August 5 in disregard to the international laws and the UNSC resolutions and now it was very difficult to have normalised relations with it including trade. It will be tantamount to betraying the sacrifices of Kashmiris. It will be a treachery with them. Unless India reverses its unilateral steps, our relations cant normalise and the region cant be connected. Strategically, the Central Asian Republics can have access through Gwadar, but if relations with India normalise, then Pakistan is at a pivotal place to connect the entire region. But this is dependent on India to reverse its actions of August 05, he argued.

Prime Minister Imran Khan said that in the realm of common challenges faced by Pakistan and Tajikistan, both sides agreed that peace in Afghanistan was a priority. If the US troops withdrawal from Afghanistan is similar to what Russia did in 1989, we both are concerned about the security to our trade and connectivity, he said.

The premier emphasised that trade between Pakistan and Tajikistan was very important and it would tremendously increase through Gwadars connectivity. Speaking on Afghanistan, Imran said that peace in Afghanistan was very important for trade and connectivity with Tajikistan to increase. He added both countries shared concern over Afghanistan sliding back into instability with no political settlement after the withdrawal of the US forces. He emphasised, Our trade will be affected because we fear with the spread of anarchy terrorism will also increase, threatening stability and we both have decided to push for a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. We both share this concern and want that when the US leaves, there is a political settlement and a government of consensus is installed there, which can check anarchy, he noted. Imran said they discussed and agreed on how to take along other countries of the world on the critical issue of political settlement in Afghanistan.

The second major issue, he explained, they had discussed was of climate change and global warming since they posed a common threat to Tajikistan and Pakistan as the two countries depend on glaciers for their water supply. He added if the world doesnt act sooner on global warming then the next generations of both the countries will live under constant threat so we have decided to further play our role on climate change.

The Tajik president also talked about the measures taken by his country to overcome climate change and preserve glaciers such as calling for declaring 2025 as the International Year of Glaciers Preservation to which Prime Minister Imran Khan also affirmed Pakistans support.

The two leaders also discussed issues with reference to Islamophobia and the reasons why it continues to spread. Prime Minister Imran Khan said that blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) and linking Islam with terrorism were the main reasons for its spread.

Imran termed the MOU signed between the NAB and Tajikistans corruption bureaus as very significant because he said there was a need to take action against money laundering and illicit financial flows from countries like Pakistan and Tajikistan.

The Tajik president said that talks were held in a very friendly atmosphere and Tajikistan was satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations. Emomali Rahmon remarked, Tajikistan recognises the friendly country of Pakistan as a reliable and trustworthy partner on the international stage.

He said that the signed MOUs would strengthen the legal framework of bilateral relations between the two countries and they discussed how cooperation could be increased in investment, trade, agriculture, connectivity and healthcare.

While noting satisfaction over the high level exchanges between the two countries, the Tajik president said, We have also highlighted significant role of Joint Inter governmental commission on trade, economic, scientific and technical cooperation. He said the two sides have agreed to resume business council as well as the joint working groups on energy and infrastructure as soon as the situation improves after Covid-19.

Rahmon expressed his countrys special interest in continuing fruitful cooperation of the two countries in implementation of energy related projects including CASA-1000.

The Tajik president also expressed his countrys interest in joining regional transport corridor projects. He said, We have also discussed Tajikistans access to Karachi and Gwadar seaports. He noted the cooperation between the two countries in agriculture and food security will also help supply the region organic agriculture products. He reaffirmed his countrys unwavering support to Pakistans continuous efforts in ensuring peace in the region and countering the international terrorism.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Imran Khan on Wednesday stressed upon proper tapping of immense potential and resources of the ten-member Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) for the collective regional progress and prosperity.

Addressing a concluding ceremony of 2nd conference of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Economic Cooperation Organisation (PAECO) countries, the ECO countries were blessed with diverse resources and potentials and their proper utilisation would be beneficial for all.

The prime minister observed that according to estimates, the combined population of these countries stood around 450 million making this region a powerhouse. He said all the ECO 10 member-countries were blessed with diverse resources and potentials and their proper utilisation would be beneficial for all.

The prime minister observed that it is not the countries but the regions which make progress. After the formation of European Union, the economic and trade activities cooperation was enhanced bringing economic prosperity to the EU countries, he concluded.

See original here:
Regional progress depends on India and Afghanistan - The News International

KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan A gray American transport plane taxied down the runway, carrying munitions, a giant flat screen television from a C.I.A. base, pallets of equipment and departing troops. It was one of several aircraft that night removing what remained of the American war from this sprawling military base in the countrys south.

President Biden has said that the United States will withdraw from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, ending the countrys longest war on foreign soil but the pullout has already begun.

The United States and its NATO allies spent decades building Kandahar Airfield into a wartime city, filled with tents, operations centers, barracks, basketball courts, ammunition storage sites, aircraft hangars and at least one post office.

Once the base is stripped of everything deemed sensitive by its American and NATO landlords, its skeleton will be handed over to the Afghan security forces.

And the message will be clear: They are on their own in the fight against the Taliban.

The scenes over the weekend were almost as if a multitrillion-dollar war machine had morphed into a garage sale. At the airfields peak in 2010 and 2011, its famous and much derided boardwalk housed snack shops, chain restaurants, a hockey rink and trinket stores. Tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO troops were based here, and many more passed through as it became the main installation for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistans south. It stood beside rural villages from which the Taliban emerged; throughout it all, the province has remained an insurgent stronghold.

Now, half-demolished outdoor gyms and empty hangars were filled with nearly 20 years worth of matriel. The passenger terminal, where service members once transited between different parts of the war, was pitch black and filled with empty, dust-covered chairs. A fire alarm detector its batteries weak chirped incessantly. The mess halls were shuttered.

The boardwalk was nothing more than a few remaining boards.

On the other side of the base that morning, an Afghan transport aircraft arrived from Kabul. It was loaded with mortar shells, small-arms cartridges and 250-pound bombs to supply Afghan troops under frequent attack by the Taliban in the countryside.

The American withdrawal, almost quiet, and with a veneer of orderliness, belies the desperate circumstances just beyond the bases wall. On one end of Kandahar Airfield that day, Maj. Mohammed Bashir Zahid, an officer in charge of a small Afghan air command center, sat in his office, a phone to each ear and a third in his hands as he typed messages on WhatsApp, trying to get air support for Afghan security forces on the ground and in nearby outposts threatened by Taliban fighters.

Yesterday, you wouldnt have been able to sit down because things were so chaotic, he said. I fell asleep with my boots on and my gun in my holster.

Sitting in his U.S.-built air-conditioned office, Major Zahid said he expected that one day soon his requests for help from the Americans would be met with silence. On Saturday, he didnt even ask. He concentrated instead on what Afghan helicopters and bombers he could reach.

His anger at the U.S. departure was not about the lack of air support but rather, pointing to pictures on his phone, about the sport utility vehicles that he said the Americans had destroyed at the airfield because they couldnt leave with them.

Now, this is what really upsets me, Major Zahid said, looking exhausted and encapsulating the sense of desperation of most Afghan soldiers. The Americans most likely destroyed the vehicles to prevent them from being sold off, given the rampant corruption in much of the ranks.

Major Zahid thought that the Americans were destroying more of those vehicles when an explosion echoed across the runway at around 2 p.m.

The blast was a rocket, fired from somewhere outside the base and landing somewhere inside, killing no one. The announcement from the base loudspeaker was distant and practically indecipherable in the can-shaped building that housed Major Zahids operations center. Nobody moved, phones rang, work continued.

Even though the rockets landed on the Afghan side, the Americans viewed it as a Taliban attack on them. The Trump administration had agreed to fully withdraw all forces from Afghanistan by May 1 in a deal with the Taliban signed in February 2020. In recent weeks, the Taliban said that any American presence in the country on or beyond that date would be considered a breach of the deal.

The U.S. military had been expecting some kind of assault as it left despite the diplomatic overtures from American negotiators in Doha, Qatar, who had tried to convey to the Taliban that the military was in fact leaving, and that attacking American troops was a fools errand.

The American response was not subtle.

A flight of F/A-18 fighter jets, stationed aboard the U.S.S. Eisenhower, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, were in the air, making their way toward Afghanistan from the Arabian Sea a roughly two-hour flight up what is called the boulevard, a corridor of airspace in western Pakistan that serves as an air transit route.

Having received approval to strike, the jets swooped in, dropping a GPS-guided munition a bomb that costs well over $10,000 on the additional rockets that were somewhere in Kandahar, mounted on rudimentary rails and aimed at the airfield.

Inside the American headquarters building at the airfield, two Green Berets part of the shrinking contingent who work there now pulled up the video of the afternoon airstrike on one of their phones.

Make sure that goes in the nightly brief, one of them said. The Special Forces soldiers, bearded and clad in T-shirts, ball caps and tattoos, looked out of place among what was left of the cubicles and office furniture around them, much of which was being torn apart.

Televisions had been removed from walls, office printers sat on the curb, the insignia once plastered on the stone wall that heralded who was in charge of the headquarters, long gone. Even though there would soon be fewer and fewer service members around each day, one soldier noted that the flow of care packages from random Americans had not slowed down. He now possessed what seemed like an infinite supply of Pop-Tarts.

A group of American soldiers, tasked with loading an incoming cargo flight didnt know when they were going home. Tomorrow? Sept. 11? Their job was to close Kandahar before moving on to the next U.S. base, but there were only so many installations left to dismantle. A trio of them played Nintendo while they waited. One talked about the dirt bike he was going to buy when he got home. Another traded cryptocurrency on his iPhone.

When asked about Maiwand, a district only about 50 miles away where Afghan forces were trying to fend off a Taliban offensive and Major Zahid was desperately trying to send air support, a U.S. soldier responded, Whos Maiwand?

In the evening, the base loudspeaker chimed as one of the transport planes departed. Attention, someone out of view said. There will be outgoing for the next 15 minutes. The dull thud of mortar fire began. At what was unclear.

The end of the war looked nothing like the beginning of it. What started as an operation to topple the Taliban and kill the terrorists responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, had swelled over 20 years into a multitrillion-dollar military-industrial undertaking, infused with so much money that for years it seemed impossible to ever conclude or dismantle.

Until now.

The Talibans often-repeated adage loomed over the day: You have the watches, we have the time.

In one of the many trash bags littering the base, there was a discarded wall clock, its second hand still ticking.

Najim Rahim and Jim Huylebroek contributed reporting.

Read more:
Day 1 of the End of the U.S. War in Afghanistan - The New York Times

Americas withdrawal from Afghanistan should be cause for rejoicing. But conditions in the country today, and the historical record of past U.S. withdrawals from similar conflicts, suggest that it will only create more problems. By leaving, Washington is vindicating an aphorism attributed to a captured Taliban fighter over a decade ago: You have the watches. We have the time.

Proving the Taliban wrong is not a politically unaffordable extravagance. It merely requires retaining a couple of thousand elite special operations, intelligence, and support personnel in Afghanistan. Otherwise, the risk is that this will be the fourth time in as many decades that a U.S. military withdrawal encourages terrorists by showing the weakness of U.S. resolve. When America left Beirut in 1983, Mogadishu a decade later, and Iraq in 2011, the result was more terrorism, not less.

Indeed, no one understood the significance of Americas past retreats better than Osama bin Laden. In a 1997 interview, he recalled how the deaths of 241 U.S. marines in the Beirut barracks bombing had compelled President Ronald Reagan to order a withdrawal from Lebanon within five months. This led to the collapse of the multinational force in Lebanon of which the Marines were the lynchpin and plunged Lebanon into further chaos. The main beneficiary was Hizballah, the shadowy terrorist group responsible for the attack. In the decades since, Hizballahs success influenced other terrorist leaders and groups, including bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

By 1993, the U.S. military was deeply involved in a United Nations mission to restore stability in Somalia and feed starving citizens enmeshed in civil war. But that October, a plan to arrest a local warlords paymaster and chief lieutenant went disastrously awry. Fifteen U.S. Army Rangers and three Delta Force commandos were killed in an uncontrolled spiral of urban combat depicted in the book and film Black Hawk Down. In some of the most gripping footage ever broadcast live on television, an injured U.S. Army helicopter pilot was seen being paraded through the streets of Mogadishu by a chanting, gun-wielding mob. President Bill Clinton reacted quickly to the incident. Scrambling to preempt criticism from Congress, the media, and the American public, he set March 31, 1994, as the firm date for the withdrawal of all American forces there regardless of whether the multinational, U.N.-led humanitarian aid mission had been successfully completed or not.

Members of the al-Qaeda movement had both trained and fought alongside the Somali militiamen that fateful day in Mogadishu. To bin Ladens thinking, it had taken the deaths of 241 U.S. marines to get the U.S. out of Lebanon in 1983. A decade later, the loss of less than a tenth of that number had prompted an identical reaction. As bin Laden explained in his 1996 declaration of war on the United States:

[W]hen dozens of your troops were killed in minor battles, and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area defeated, carrying your dead in disappointment and humiliation. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge. But these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. God has dishonored you when you withdrew, and it clearly showed your weaknesses and powerlessness.

Bin Laden was emboldened to believe that if U.S. foreign policy could be influenced by a score of military deaths in an East African backwater, it could be changed fundamentally by thousands of civilian deaths in the United States itself. Thus, the road to 9/11 started in Beirut, led a decade later to Mogadishu, then wound its way through Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, and Aden before arriving in New York City, Washington, D.C., and a field outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. No one could have anticipated the exact chain of events. But the retreats from both Beirut and Mogadishu nonetheless set those events in motion by feeding a dangerous perception of American weakness.

Some analysts have argued that the situation is different now precisely because of the 9/11 attacks. Washington did not take terrorism sufficiently seriously in the 1990s, but since then, the country has built up a huge counter-terrorism bureaucracy that makes staying in Afghanistan unnecessary. Now Washington can protect the homeland by using enhanced intelligence, special operations forces, and precision-guided, stand-off munitions. With these resources, over-the-horizon military and intelligence assets will be able to quickly identify and address any new threats.

This also was the logic behind the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011. But the disastrous consequences were soon felt with the rise of the Islamic State. Washington was overconfident in its counter-terrorism capabilities and underestimated the new terrorist variant it faced. As with Hizballah in the 1980s and al-Qaeda in the 1990s, the results proved tragic. Once again the desire to disengage when confronted by stubborn, resilient non-state adversaries created conditions ripe for terrorist exploitation. The vacuum in Iraq was rapidly filled by new extremist groups. President Barack Obamas curt dismissal of the embryonic Islamic State as a jayvee team would come to haunt him less than six months later, after the terrorist blitzkrieg that conquered western Iraq and stormed across the border into Syria. The Islamic State soon inspired a series of domestic attacks in multiple Western countries. Within months, it had dragged an international coalition that would eventually involve 83 countries back into maw of Middle Eastern conflict.

Today in Afghanistan, the United States is similarly understating and underestimating the threat posed by the Taliban. If anything, the situation in Afghanistan is more dangerous. When America withdrew from Iraq, there was no single terrorist adversary capable of toppling democratically elected Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in Baghdad. The Taliban, however, has that potential and makes no secret of its intention to re-impose theocratic rule over Afghanistan. It therefore poses an existential threat to the democratically elected government of President Ashraf Ghani in a way that no contender had in Iraq a decade ago. Moreover, the Talibans longstanding, close alliances with al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and Pakistans Tehrik-i-Taliban endow it with additional attack capabilities that did not exist in Iraq at the time of 2011 U.S. withdrawal.

Against this backdrop, there are two specific risks associated with Americas withdrawal from Afghanistan. First, the international terrorist threat that necessitated invading that country following the 9/11 attacks remains. Al-Qaeda is undefeated. Its intimate, longstanding relationship with the Taliban suggests that al-Qaeda will be the beneficiary of the territorial and political gains its Afghan partners are poised to achieve in a post-U.S. Afghanistan. In 2019, in fact, as negotiations with the United States were underway, Taliban leaders reportedly sought to personally reassure Hamza bin Laden, Osama bin Ladens son and the al-Qaeda heir apparent, that the Islamic Emirate would not break its historical ties with al-Qaeda for any price. Indeed, two al-Qaeda operatives recently praised the Taliban for its support. Thanks to Afghans for the protection of comrades-in-arms, a spokesman for the group gushed. Even if the Taliban makes good on its promise to restrain al-Qaeda from attacking the United States and the West from an Afghan base, this does not preclude al-Qaeda from using Afghanistan to destabilize this already highly volatile region. In 2008, a series of coordinated suicide attacks in Mumbai by Lashkar-e-Taiba another close al-Qaeda ally brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. It is worth recalling, too, that both of al-Qaedas most recent new franchises are focused on South Asia generally and on Kashmir specifically.

Americas counter-terror resources are also likely to be stretched particularly thin going forward, making managing the threat from afar even less plausible. Afghanistan is now only one of many terrorist hotspots around the globe, which seem to be multiplying. Security conditions are deteriorating in Mozambique and the Sahel, for instance, while sectarian clashes in Northern Ireland raise fears of The Troubles returning. At home, far-right terrorism runs rampant. Even if U.S. intelligence agencies find ways to effectively manage terrorist safe havens without soldiers on the ground, their attention and vigilance will necessarily be spread thin.

The second risk is that withdrawal from Afghanistan will weaken, rather than strengthen, Washington against peer competitors. The United States, rightly or wrongly, is shifting from prioritizing counter-terrorism toward a great-power competition posture. But thinking of the two as zero sum is a mistake. China has prioritized embedding itself in local contexts for years; Russia and Iran have been practicing their irregular warfare strategies in Ukraine, in Yemen, and, most aggressively, in Syria. Indeed, at least one Iran-backed Shiite militia in Iraq has already drawn inspiration from the Talibans success. Qais al Khazali, leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq (League of the Righteous), observed just the other day that the Afghan way is the only way to make [the United States] leave [Iraq]. Every military setback whether in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan illuminates a path by which great-power adversaries see they can defeat the United States. It is no coincidence that Russia has provided support to the Taliban, likely aiming to help sap Americas energy and spirit and encourage Americas withdrawal from the region.

Yet rather than heed present risks or past warnings, President Joe Biden, like President Trump before him, seems more concerned with the political capital to be milked from ending Americas longest war. As in Beirut and Mogadishu, Washington appears largely satisfied that our military personnel will no longer be in harms way. But a responsible strategy need not involve gratuitously exposing troops to harm. In fact, the last American combat fatality in Afghanistan was more than a year ago. The current troop level there, approximately 3,500 personnel, accounts for 0.27 percent of Americas active duty forces hardly a drain on the resources of even a declining superpower. Maintaining this small contingent would have a significant force-multiplying effect. It would provide an immediate trip wire to deal with any serious terrorist threat while also bolstering the Afghan government and improving its security forces. Moreover, maintaining a limited, elite presence in a country sharing a border with China might well be in Americas strategic interests as the new cold war heats up. Simply abandoning Afghanistan will not help the counter-terrorism fight and it is unlikely to help with great-power competition either.

There are no perfect options. But instead of turning its back on Afghanistan, the United States should shift its rhetoric in the Global War on Terror away from winning and losing and toward managing and accepting. This would facilitate an ongoing but limited troop presence with a clear homeland security, not nation-building, brief. Keeping a small number of elite troops in Afghanistan, while unlikely to elicit roars of approval at campaign rallies in the 2024 presidential race, would likely keep both the Taliban and al-Qaeda at bay in the country while protecting a forward operating base on Chinas and Russias doorstep. Withdrawal, by contrast, will be universally seen as defeat. As with bin Laden 25 years ago, it will give a rhetorical victory to terrorists the world over. And it will boost the morale of state adversaries that benefit from the perception of U.S. weakness.

Bruce Hoffman is the senior fellow for counterterrorism & homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at Georgetown University. Jacob Ware is a research associate for counterterrorism at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Image: U.S. Air Force (Photo by Staff Sgt. Kylee Gardner)

Continue reading here:
Leaving Afghanistan Will Make America Less Safe - War on the Rocks

Like the U.S. Army today, the British found themselves geographically marooned, and secured favorable terms for withdrawal from their adversaries, but when their column around 16,500 soldiers and camp followers left the gates of Kabul on their way to Jalalabad, the Afghans descended, slaughtering all except one: an army surgeon, William Brydon. When Dr. Brydon the original Lone Survivor arrived on horseback at the gates of Jalalabad, near death himself, with part of his skull sheared off, a sentry asked him where the army was, to which he responded, I am the army.

Although the Soviet army avoided this fate a century later, the regime it left behind fared little better. Mohammad Najibullah, an infamous torturer and former head of Afghanistans intelligence service, the KHAD, as well as a K.G.B. agent, had been installed by the Soviets as president and was able to hold onto power for more than two years after they left. As the Soviet Union collapsed, its financial support of his regime evaporated. Mr. Najibullah was soon deposed and eventually found himself at the end of a Taliban executioners rope when they took control of Kabul. Which raises the question of how long the United States will continue to support the government of President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan after our withdrawal. One year? Two? Three? What is the decent interval, to borrow Nixons phrase from our calamitous withdrawal from Vietnam?

As Jack and I ran, we discussed this history and other complex aspects of Americas withdrawal: how many senior members of the Afghan government possessed dual citizenship and would likely depart the country, leaving behind less capable subordinates to fill critical positions; the challenges of collapsing more remote outposts; and whether the State Department would grant visas to those Afghans whod thrown their lot in with their government and us.

Jack concluded, America might be done with Afghanistan, but Afghanistan isnt done with America. In his view, my lunch at the ambassadors residence wouldnt mark the end of the war at all. Not for me. Not for anyone.

After finishing her call, the ambassador apologized for being so inattentive. She confessed that she had an agenda item we hadnt gotten to discuss. She wanted some advice as she was considering writing a book. Like those of the millions of Afghan girls we are now in the process of abandoning, her story is marked by war and overcoming an oppressive version of Islam championed by the Taliban, a personal journey that leads to a final chapter in which she is appointed as the first female Afghan ambassador to the United States. My advice to her was to keep notes, and I told her that she might not be ready to write that final chapter yet. Because she may not be remembered most for having been her governments first female ambassador, but rather for having been, as it related to America, its last.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See more here:
Opinion | The Afghanistan War Will End as It Began: In Blood - The New York Times

The Afghan government said it plans to begin talks with 14 countries to discuss what to do with hundreds of their citizens who have been captured while fighting alongside the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP).

Ahmad Zia Seraj, the head of Afghanistan's intelligence agency, National Directorate of Security (NDS), said last week that his government wanted to "find an acceptable solution to the problem."

The foreign nationals in Afghan custody are 408 ISKP members, including 173 women and children. According to the Afghan government, 299 of them are from Pakistan, 37 from Uzbekistan, 16 from China, 13 from Tajikistan, 12 from Kyrgyzstan, five from Russia, five from Jordan, five from Indonesia, four from India, four from Iran, three from Turkey, two from Bangladesh and two from Maldives.

Abdul Wahid Taqat, a former senior intelligence official in the Afghan government, predicted a difficult legal and political process for the repatriation of the ISKP prisoners, saying Kabul will likely need to use international bodies to convince those countries take back their citizens.

Returning these fighters would not be easy because Afghanistan has no treaties to extradite or exchange terrorists with most of these countries, Taqat told VOA, adding that a reasonable option for Afghanistan is to involve the United Nations Human Commission on Human Rights to find a solution.

Most of the countries are hesitant to take back their citizens who have joined terror groups because of legal and security risks these dangerous individuals pose, said Colin Clarke, a senior fellow at the Soufan Center.

Clarke, however, said that some countries will likely be more responsive to the Afghan government request.

More authoritarian countries do not need the proof; countries that are more transparent will need it to prosecute [these individuals], he said. He added that China has interest in taking back its citizens back because it has inflated the threat of terrorism to justify their treatment of Uyghurs.

Reuters reported in 2015 that the Afghan government arrested and handed over a number of Uyghur militants to China as a way to persuade China to help with convincing Pakistan to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Formidable threat

Taqat said the Afghan governments announcement shows that foreign fighters still have bases in the country and that their presence would remain a "formidable threat"after foreign troops leave.

The fighters will pose a greater threat to the security and stability of Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal, said Taqat.

The U.S. and its NATO allies have announced that they will pull out all their forces from Afghanistan by September 11.

The Islamic State branch, ISKP, was formed in January 2015 in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan and in northern Pakistan. The group has suffered major setbacks in recent years, including the loss of its key pockets of territory and the removal of its top leadership.

Despite the losses, a U.N. report in May 2020 said that ISKP still has about 2,200 armed fighters in the South Asian country and remains capable of launching different attacks.

Pakistani citizens

During the announcement Tuesday, NDSs chief Saraj said that 299 out of 208 ISKP prisoners were Pakistani citizens because 60%of Daesh fighters are Pakistanis.

Daesh is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State.

Saraj said Aslam Farooqi, an ISKP leader and Pakistani citizen, will be turned over to Pakistani authorities only in exchange for Taliban leadership.

We would only hand him over to Pakistan if we agree on a mutual exchange. When Pakistan hands over some Taliban leaders to us, we will think about it.

Farooqi was arrested with a dozen other ISKP fighters in April 2020 in the southern Kandahar province.

Earlier this month, Pakistan demanded that Afghanistan hand over Farooqi to Pakistan.

Aslam Farooqi was involved in anti-Pakistan activities in Afghanistan, he should be handed over to Pakistan for further investigation, Pakistans foreign office said in a statement.

Regional observers say that most of ISKP fighters were the alienated members of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) who joined the terror group after it was formed in 2015.

The Afghan government said that in addition to the ISKP fighters, it is holding an additional 309 foreign fighters who are affiliated with al-Qaeda and other militant groups.

More:
Afghanistan to Discuss Fate of Foreign IS Prisoners with Their Countries - Voice of America