Responsible Statecraft spoke with Fatemeh Aman in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and its impact on its neighbors.
How can the Taliban’s victory impact Pakistan and China?
The extensive excitement seen in Islamabad over the Taliban seizing power has left Afghans and many in the region suspicious that Pakistan may have been actively involved in the Taliban’s victory. All regional players have been dealing with radical Islamist movements and can be impacted by the Taliban’s takeover of the country. However, the situation is more complicated for Pakistan, which is generally affected negatively by radicalism and yet still supports Haqqani-style groups. China, Islamabad’s closest ally, is another country that can be impacted by the Taliban’ victory.
Now that the U.S. has withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban control virtually all of the country, how will these developments affect Pakistan's regional policy in general?
Pakistan's regional policies are essentially India-centric. Its Afghanistan policy is controlled and directed by the military and has generally been accompanied by both conflict and diplomacy. Pakistan's military has refused to end its support of the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction active in Pakistan’s North Waziristan. Prime Minister Imran Khan recently admitted the existence of links between Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and the Haqqani network but denied that ISI controls it.
On September 4, ISI chief Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed met with the Taliban commander in Afghanistan to discuss “Issues relating to Pak-Afghan security, economy, and other matters.” He expressed confidence that “everything will be okay" in Afghanistan during an interview with Britain’s Channel 4 in Kabul. In response to what he hopes will happen in Afghanistan, the general said: “We are working for peace and stability in Afghanistan.” That was less than reassuring for people who blame Pakistan for the Taliban takeover. The video clip “#EverythingWillBeOkay” quickly trended on Twitter.
Generally, a regime that, in any case, is not pro-India is a good outcome for Pakistan. But it does not mean that Islamabad won’t be concerned about possible links between the Taliban and international terror groups.
How can Pakistan be harmed by the Taliban's grip on power?
The new wave of Afghan refugees to Pakistan is the least damaging impact for Islamabad. Pakistan’s military may see an opportunity in the Taliban’s victory to dampen the resurgence of Pashtun nationalism at home. PM Khan praised the Taliban’s takeover, declaring that Afghans had "broken the shackles of slavery."
However, the harm could be extensive. The Taliban victory can inspire other militant groups and undermine the counter-extremism policies that the government claims to pursue. It can motivate far-right extremist political parties, such as Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, TLP, and other groups that have politicized and polarized Pakistan’s conservative groups.
The Taliban's victory is now likely to boost other militant groups across the region. In Pakistan, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has significant bases in Waziristan and which seeks the overthrow of the central government, is a group that can be embolden ed by the Taliban's grip on Afghanistan. The Taliban's victory could also lead Baloch separatists and other militant groups to conclude that political violence is an effective way to achieve their secessionist goals.
In July, only weeks before the Taliban’s takeover, Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa and ISI chief Hameed warned lawmakers in parliament about the security situation in Pakistan and the region after the withdrawal of U.S.-led international forces from Afghanistan. They said well-trained Afghan Taliban militants are present across Pakistan, adding that, while the army could launch attacks on the militants immediately, such a campaign could also backfire.
On September 8, a day after the new, all-male government was announced in Kabul, Pakistan’s foreign ministers, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, hosted a virtual meeting of his counterparts from China, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The ministers agreed that “terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, ETIM, TTP, BLA, Jondollah and others should not be allowed to maintain a foothold on Afghanistan's territory.”
Pakistan has asked the Taliban to hand over TTP fighters included on a list provided by Islamabad who had escaped to Afghanistan after the Pakistani 2014 military’s offensive against their insurgency and subsequently joined the Taliban in their war against the Afghan military and government. The Taliban apparently rejected the demand out of fear that “If the Afghan Taliban tried to force the TTP [to surrender], then some of its commanders can join [Islamic State-Khorasan],” a former TTP leader was quoted as warning.
How are Pakistan’s relations with a Taliban government likely to evolve, bearing in mind that the border is still the subject of dispute?
Border disputes will not be resolved so easily even though Pakistan has apparently completed 90 percent of the fence along its 1,622-mile-long border with Afghanistan, whose construction began in 2017. The Durand Line, which was drawn by Britain in 1893 to secure control of the strategic Khyber Pass, cuts through Pashtun and Baloch tribal regions. The boundary has since been the biggest cause of resentment by Pashtuns in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Despite the enormous support Pakistan provided to the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s, the Taliban refused to recognize the Line as their common border. It remains to be seen if the new generation of the Taliban will be more flexible on this issue and how much pressure Islamabad will be inclined to exert to gain a favorable resolution.
How will Taliban rule impact China’s presence in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan occupies a critical area for China as it borders Tajikistan, one of the most important Central Asian countries for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, or BRI. While Beijing had invested significantly in many economic projects in Afghanistan under the ousted government, it also maintained contacts with the Taliban in recent years. If the new regime can achieve a greater degree of stability in Afghanistan, China's investments in mineral mining and construction projects could expand significantly in the coming years. For their part, the Taliban themselves have called China their "most important partner”
That said, Beijing may find it challenging to deepen its engagement in Afghanistan if it retains its harsh policies toward its Muslim population, or if the Taliban provides safe haven for insurgent groups particularly the predominantly Uighur East Turkestan Islamic Movement, from elsewhere in Central Asia. Central Asia is the main land corridor in Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative to link China to the Persian Gulf, Western Asia, Russia, and the European Union.
Among all Central Asian states, Tajikistan, Afghanistan’s immediate northern neighbor, is the most critical to Chinese security given its geographical location as an effective buffer between Afghanistan and China. Reports of Beijing’s repression of the Uighur minority in Xinjiang have contributed to a growing Sinophobia across much of Muslim Central Asia where extremism, fostered in part by greater online connectivity, as well as increased Chinese involvement in training local police and security forces, seems once again on the rise. All Central Asia faces a challenge in that regard, but the threat is particularly alarming in Tajikistan.
Already, Chinese workers have come under frequent attacks in Pakistan, most recently in July, and such attacks could spread to Afghanistan if the Taliban chose to provide a safe haven for anti-Beijing militants.
MUNICH, GERMANY – The Munich Security Conference came to an end today but not before EU leaders warned that international “winds” might be blowing against the West on the issue of Israel’s war in Gaza
While the international meeting this weekend entertained manifold topics — from the role of the Global South to the importance of AI and food security — the Ukraine war dominated the conference, with Gaza coming in second at a considerable distance.
But the focus on Israel’s military operations grew more intense as the confab drew to a close, between yesterday afternoon and Sunday morning. In the press center, for example, the current situation in Gaza vied for attention with the death of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech on Saturday.
Indeed, Rafah was an often-repeated word Sunday in the Bavarian capital. The day before in a televised news conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that “total victory” against Hamas would require an offensive against Rafah once people living there evacuate to safe areas. It is difficult to see how the concept of a “safe area” can apply to any place in the Gaza Strip today. At least 28,985 people have been killed and 68,883 injured (mostly civilians) in the Gaza Strip since October 7, when 1,200 Israelis were killed and over 250 hostages taken during a Hamas attack against Israel. In a side event Sunday organized by the Consulate General of Israel in Munich, the press was shown a video, about 10 minutes long, documenting Hamas atrocities on October 7.
According to the United Nations, over 75% of the Gazan population has been displaced, many multiple times. There is also a severe lack of food, medicine, and other essential items because of Israel’s decision to let only a trickle of the aid trucks into Gaza needed to maintain basic conditions of life.
Addressing the audience in Munich, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that peace in the Middle East requires “a prospect for the Palestinian people” and that “the security of Israel will not be ensured just by military means.”
In a reference to the war in Gaza, he noted that “Russia is taking good advantage of our mistakes. The blame about double standards is something that we need to address and not only with nice words. It is clear that the wind is blowing against the West.”
Borrell appears to share a worry openly expressed by some of the European leaders — such as Spanish president Pedro Sánchez and Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar — who have been even more critical of Israel. The concern is that Europe’s failure to rein in Israel will undermine global support for Ukraine and discredit the European discourse on the importance of international law.
Borrell, in sharp contrast with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, has represented the most vocal position within the EU on the growing death toll and humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza after October 7. Earlier this week, the EU top diplomat replied to Biden’s recent description of Israel’s military conduct in Gaza as being “over the top.” Borrell noted that "if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people being killed."
Borrell has long supported a ceasefire but any EU decision on the matter requires unanimity, and countries like Germany, Austria, and Hungary are not on board.
American ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday that the U.S. will veto an Algerian proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza to be taken up at the UN Security Council on Tuesday. According to Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. is working hard for “a sustainable resolution of the Gaza conflict,” and the Algerian resolution would endanger this.
In an oft-repeated dynamic over the last months, the U.S. is basically asking the international community to trust that Washington’s diplomatic pressure will force Netanyahu to change course. Such an approach has failed once and again, and there is no clear reason to believe this time will be different.
Yesterday afternoon, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani noted that the efforts to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas have been dominated by a pattern that “is not really very promising.”
Part of the U.S. approach to the current conflict has also been to demand that the Palestinian Authority (PA) reforms itself. Washington hopes the PA can govern the Gaza Strip after the war ends, but Netanyahu has been adamant it does not envisage any role for the PA in the Gaza Strip in the future.
The Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh was in Munich on Sunday, remarking in an interview that the PA — which has grown even more unpopular in the West Bank after October 7 — is already working on introducing reforms. Shtayyeh said that the recent insistence on the topic only seeks to divert attention from the Israeli military operation in Gaza, however.
In his view, Netanyahu’s interest today is “to keep the war going” and argued that “Netanyahu’s war is going to continue until the end of the year.” The Palestinian leader was supposed to be present at a press briefing around midday, but the event was canceled on short notice due to “scheduling reasons.”
In a panel with his Spanish and Canadian counterparts, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi was one of the last Arab leaders to speak in Munich. He used the opportunity to note that “Israel cannot have security unless Palestinians have security.”
This afternoon, the Munich city center was returning to its normal state after an intense weekend of both open and closed-door meetings featuring top leaders from Europe and beyond. As security barriers were being removed and the 5,000 police officers deployed for the event, many of them from other parts of Germany, returned home, it wasn’t hard to note that beyond all the talk, the world’s thorniest problems, including two major conflicts, are left unresolved.
keep readingShow less
Volodymyr Zelensky speaks at the Munich Security Conference, Feb. 17, 2024. (David Hecker/MSC)
MUNICH, GERMANY — If U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris dominated the first day of the Munich Security Conference with her remarks, today it was German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s turn.
It was not only Zelensky who understandably devoted his whole speech to the Ukraine War but also Scholz, too. The German Chancellor, while boasting that his country will devote 2% of its GDP to defense expenditures this year, remarked that “we Europeans need to do much more for our security now and in the future.”
In a brief but clear reference to Trump’s recent statements on NATO, Scholz said, "any relativization of NATO’s mutual defense guarantee will only benefit those who, just like Putin, want to weaken us.” On the guns and butter debate, which is particularly relevant in Germany due to negligible economic growth, Scholz acknowledged that critical voices are saying, “should not we be using the money for other things?” But he chose not to engage in this debate, noting instead that “Moscow is fanning the flames of such doubts with targeted disinformation campaigns and with propaganda on social media.”
The Russian capture of the city represents the most significant defeat for Ukraine since the failure of its counter-offensive last year. On the loss of Avdiivka, Zelensky said that Ukraine had lost one soldier for every seven soldiers who have died on the Russian side. This, however, is difficult to reconcile with the reports about the rushed Ukrainian retreat, with a Ukrainian soldier explaining that “the road to Avdiivka is littered with our corpses.”
Throughout his speech, Zelensky repeatedly referred to the importance of defending what he called the “rules-based world order” by defeating Russia. If there was one take-away that Zelensky wanted impressed on this audience: “Please do not ask Ukraine when the war will end. Ask yourself why is Putin still able to continue it.”
He also seemed to suggest that it was not a lack of available weapons and artillery but a willingness to give them over to Ukraine. “Dear friends, unfortunately keeping Ukraine in the artificial deficit of weapons, particularly in deficit of artillery and long-range capabilities, allows Putin to adapt to the current intensity of the war,” Zelenskyy said. “The self-weakening of democracy over time undermines our joint results.”
The future of NATO was one of the main topics of the day. European leaders were in agreement that Europe needs to spend more on defense, and occasionally appeared to compete with each other on who has spent the most on weapons delivered to Ukraine or in their national defense budgets.
With NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in attendance, one of the panels featured two of the most talked-about names to replace the Norwegian politician in the 75th-anniversary summit in Washington in July: EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and caretaker Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. According to a report by the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, President Joseph Biden and his Secretary of State Anthony Blinken favor the German leader, but in Paris, London, and Berlin, the Dutch politician is preferred.
The participation of the Netherlands in the initial U.S.-UK joint strikes against Houthi positions in Yemen on Jan. 11 was read in some quarters as a sign of Rutte’s ambitions. The Netherlands was the only EU country to join these initial attacks.
A G7 meeting of foreign ministers also took place Saturday on the sidelines of the conference. In a press briefing that followed, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani — who currently presides the G7 — reiterated the group’s support for Ukraine. The current situation in the Red Sea, as is often the case in the West, was presented by Tajani as a topic divorced from the Gaza Strip. The Houthis started their campaign against ships in the Red Sea after the beginning of the war in Gaza, claiming they want to force an end to the conflict.
There is no certainty that the end of the war in Gaza would put an end to Houthi attacks, but presenting the situation in the Red Sea as being nothing but a threat to freedom of trade is considered by experts to be a a myopic approach.
Nevertheless, Italy will be in command of the new EU naval mission ASPIDES, to be deployed soon in the Red Sea. The mission is expected to be approved by the next meeting of EU foreign affairs ministers on Monday. When asked whether he could ensure that ASPIDES would remain a defensive mission, the Italian Foreign Minister said ASPIDES aims at defending merchant ships and that if drones or missiles are launched, they will be shot down, but no attacks will be conducted.
Marc Martorell Junyent is in Munich, covering the conference for Responsible Statecraft this weekend. This story is developing and is being updated.
keep readingShow less
Vice President Kamala Harris at the Munich Security Conference, Feb. 16, 2024. (Lukas Barth-Tuttas/MSC)
MUNICH, GERMANY – The 60th year of the Munich Security Conference opened today with much of the early energy surrounding remarks by Vice President Kamala Harris.
The vice president noted that it was nearly two years since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. She said that when Putin unleashed his troops along different fronts in February 2022, “many thought Kyiv would fall within a day.” It is also true, as she pointed out, that “Ukraine has regained more than half the territory Russia occupied at the start of the conflict.” (Russia held about 7% before the invasion, 27% right after, and about 18% today.)
However, by choosing the first months of the war as the starting point of her speech, Harris sought to avoid the obvious. Namely, that in the year that has gone by since her last visit to Munich, the Ukrainian army has been losing ground. Yet, her remarks regarding Ukraine today did not differ much from her speech in 2023.
Harris seemed dedicated to keeping to the administration’s recent script, which is warning against heralding in a new era of “isolationism,” referring to President Biden's likely presidential election opponent, Donald Trump.
As president Biden and I have made clear over the past three years, we are committed to pursue global engagement, to uphold international rules and norms, to defend democratic values at home and abroad, and to work with our allies and partners in pursuit of shared goals.
As I travel throughout my country and the world, it is clear to me: this approach makes America strong. And it keeps Americans safe.
Interestingly, the U.S. has been accused of thwarting "international rules and norms" in its unconditional support of Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed upwards of 29,000 Palestinians, mostly of them civilians, since Hamas’s Oct. 7 invasion of Israel and hostage-taking. Christoph Heusgen, the chairman of the Munich Security Conference, asked Harris whether a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine was achievable. Harris answered that “the short answer is yes… but we must then put the discussion in context, starting with October 7.” Not 1948, not 1967, but October 7, 2023.
Her prepared remarks on the situation were very brief, overall, saying:
In the Middle East, we are working to end the conflict that Hamas triggered on October 7th as soon as possible and ensure it ends in a way where Israel is secure, hostages are released, the humanitarian crisis is resolved, Hamas does not control Gaza, and Palestinians can enjoy their right to security, dignity, freedom, and self-determination.
This work — while we also work to counter aggression from Iran and its proxies, prevent regional escalation, and promote regional integration.
October 7 was the topic of a conference side event hosted by Brigadier-General Gal Hirsch, Israel’s Coordinator for Hostages and Missing. In his opening speech, he called for a Global War on Kidnapping inspired by George Bush’s War on Terror. Hirsch was short on the specifics, and Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz did not develop the concept further when he followed Hirsch at the podium. During the event, several hostages released during the short ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in November 2023 described their harrowing experiences in captivity. Relatives of the remaining hostages accompanied them.
Meanwhile, in a morning event, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis discussed how to increase defense spending in a time of economic stagnation. Mitsotakis, whose country has always spent significantly more than the expected 2% of the GDP required by NATO, stated that defense policy cannot be done on a budget. Lindner, meanwhile, remarked that Germany is on the way to spending 2% of its GDP on defense. Economic prosperity, the German Liberal minister noted, should avoid tradeoffs between social and defense policies. This is certainly a difficult equation to square since the German government just announced it was reviewing its forecast for GDP growth in 2024 from 1.3% down to 0.2%.
Marc Martorell Junyent is in Munich, covering the conference for Responsible Statecraft this weekend. This story is developing.