Search

Begin New Search Topic Taliban Publication Year within 3 Years

1. Afghan Peace and Reconciliation: Pakistan's Interests and Policy Options 12

Author:
Osama Ahmad, Imran Mukhtar, and Hazrat Bilal
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS)
Abstract:
The Pak Institute for Peace Studies held its 12th quarterly consultation on “Afghan peace and reconciliation: Pakistan’s interests and policy options” in Islamabad on March 15, 2024. The consultation focused on two main themes: “Pakistan’s Afghan policy puzzle: challenges and opportunities for the new government” and “The counterterrorism and counter-extremism challenges for the new federal and provincial governments.” Participants included lawmakers from national and provincial assemblies, diplomats, retired miltary officials, academics, journalists, policy analysts, and experts on Afghan affairs. The distinguished speakers talked about the policy challenges confronting the new government. They were particularly skeptical about the new government’s ability to formulate the country’s Afghan policy, and were worried about surging terrorism in the country, India's increasing influence in Afghanistan, province-center worsening relations, and Pakistan’s deteriorating relations with the neighboring countries. In the first session, the discussion revolved around how the newly formed coalition government will address critical issues such as countering terrorism and improving relations with Afghanistan and other neighboring countries. The need for a solution to Balochistan problem was highlighted. Apart from that, various factors leading to worsening relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan were discussed, for instance the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) factor, deportation of Afghan refugees, border insecurity, and cross-border terrorism from Afghanistan. The participants also linked the success of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to peace in the region. Pakistan's failure to extend goodwill into Afghanistan was termed a significant problem. It was argued that Pakistan's forceful expulsion of Afghan refugees significantly eroded Pakistan's good image in Afghanistan. The participants urged the government to take political ownership of foreign and internal policies and strengthen the role of parliament in order to set things right both at home and abroad. However, they lamented the inability of the political government to assert itself, thereby allowing space to non-democratic forces to decide unilaterally on critical matters. In the second session, the consultation focused on the counterterrorism policies in the center and provinces. The prevailing antagonistic relations between Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf’s (PTI) government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and the coalition government in Islamabad were thought to prevent the formation of an effective counterterrorism policy. Speakers also highlighted how India is exploiting the situation by funneling funds to the TPP through Afghanistan, which has led to a significant surge in the terrorist activities in Pakistan. Improving trade relations with Afghanistan also came under the discussion, and it was advised to reduce hurdles in bilateral trade which will benefit not only Afghanistan but Pakistan as well. It was also highlighted that although there is peace in a political sense in Afghanistan, poverty and economic decay have increased during the Taliban government. In the last minutes of the discussion, it was underscored that the Afghan Taliban deliberately designate Pakistan as their enemy and capitalize on this rhetoric to divert the attention of Afghans away from the system they are implementing, which might lead to further destitution.
Topic:
Terrorism, Bilateral Relations, Taliban, Refugees, Reconciliation, and Peacebuilding
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South Asia

2. What Future Awaits Pakistani-Afghan Relations?

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
The ruling Taliban in Afghanistan rejected, on May 12, 2024, a scheduled visit from a Pakistani military delegation to the Afghan city of Kandahar, the headquarters of Taliban leader Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada. The visit aimed to discuss border management and the Pakistani branch of the Taliban (Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan, TTP). The cancellation of the visit followed Islamabad's drone and missile attacks on Paktika province in southeastern Afghanistan. Earlier, on March 18, 2024, Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes on the Afghan provinces of Khost and Paktika in response to a deadly attack by the Tehreek-e-Taliban's security forces in North Waziristan. This indicates the ongoing tension marring relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan since the Taliban took power in Afghanistan in August 2021.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, Taliban, and Borders
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South Asia

3. Calculable Losses? Arms Transfers to Afghanistan 2002–21

Author:
Matt Schroeder
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Small Arms Survey
Abstract:
Following the Taliban’s assumption of control in Afghanistan in August 2021, uncertainty has persisted about the scale, scope, and specific elements of the arsenal it captured from the previous regime. A new report from the Small Arms Survey, based on hitherto unpublished official data, provides the most refined picture to date of the arsenals captured by the Taliban. Calculable Losses? Arms transfers to Afghanistan 2002–21—a new Briefing Paper from the Small Arms Survey’s Contributing to Preventing Arms Proliferation from, within, and to Afghanistan project—analyses the publicly available data on arms exports to Afghanistan, identifies gaps in this data, and provides previously unreleased data obtained from the US government.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Taliban, and Weapons
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, and United States of America

4. The US Should Support the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan

Author:
Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
More than three years ago, the Taliban swept back into power in Afghanistan after a two-decade insurgency against the internationally backed Afghan government. Since then, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated considerably. The country faces an acute humanitarian crisis affecting millions and has once again become a haven for transnational terrorism. This tragic outcome was not inevitable, and it is worth reviewing recent history. Starting in 2014, United States troops in Afghanistan were no longer leading daily combat operations but were instead primarily training the Afghan military. When President Donald Trump entered office in January 2017, there were only 11,000 US troops in Afghanistan conducting the counterterrorism and training mission. This was down from a peak of 100,000 troops in 2010–11. In February 2020, Trump agreed to a deal with the Taliban that would have seen the phased withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. This agreement was the starting point of the Afghan government’s collapse and the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. In January 2021, when President Joe Biden entered office, there were only 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan. Crucially, the US still provided close air support for Afghan forces. While this was not enough troops to ensure that the Afghan government could control the whole country, it was enough for the US to meet its counterterrorism objectives and prevent the Taliban from taking power. Instead of canceling the flawed withdrawal agreement with the Taliban—something that was in Biden’s power to do—the president merely delayed the date from May to September. On July 2 the US departed the strategically located and geopolitically important Bagram Airfield in the middle of the night without warning its Afghan partners. Around the same time, the US stopped providing Afghan troops with close air support. By the end of July, almost all US and international forces had left the country. On August 6, 2021, the Taliban captured Zaranj, the capital of Nimroz Province. This was the first time in almost 20 years that the terror group had successfully captured and held one of Afghanistan’s 34 provincial capitals. Soon after, government-controlled capitals started falling like dominos. The Taliban finally captured Kabul on August 15. By September 11—the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—the Taliban controlled more of Afghanistan than it did on that day in 2001. Since the Taliban’s return to power, only one credible and non-extremist group has been willing to take up arms in opposition: the National Resistance Front (NRF) of Afghanistan, led by Ahmad Massoud. Based in the Panjshir Province and operating in more than a dozen other provinces, the NRF has continued to fight against the Taliban against all odds and without any international support. Though there is no longer an American presence in Afghanistan, the country remains geopolitically important. Afghanistan’s location in the heart of the Eurasian landmass has made it strategically significant in great power competition throughout the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. There is no reason to assume this will change anytime soon. The Biden administration’s actions have left the US without many good policy options in Afghanistan. Furthermore, many Afghans remain distrustful of the White House. But a new US administration will have an opportunity to reset American policy toward the country.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Terrorism, Taliban, Democracy, and National Resistance Front
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia

5. Crisis and adaptation of the Islamic State in Khorasan

Author:
Antonio Giustozzi
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
The paper discusses the conditions of the Islamic State in Khorasan and how its strategy and structures evolved after the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan in August 2021. The author also assesses the potential for the Islamic State in Khorasan to recover strength and expand its activities again in the future, in the context of Taliban counter-terrorism.
Topic:
Taliban, Counter-terrorism, Islamic State, and Khorasan Group
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia

6. The Modest Geopolitical Case for Pakistan

Author:
Ted Craig
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Pakistan is no longer an imperative for the United States. With the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and the fall of the Afghan government in August 2021, our critical need for Pakistan as the only reliable land and air route into that landlocked country has all but ended. The US embassy in Islamabad is working admirably with Pakistan authorities to ensure that Pakistan remains a viable exit route for the Afghan allies for whom we seek to provide refuge, but the daily necessity of Pakistan to supply our troops, diplomats, and development officers is over. Conversely, we are no longer compelled to engage Pakistan in the vain hope it will eliminate the sanctuary it long provided the Taliban. It never did, and the Afghan Taliban’s victory owes as much to the safe haven that Pakistan gave it as it does to the corrupted Afghan state that our overabundance of dollars helped create. After the United States’ humiliating exit from Kabul, there is an understandable impulse in Washington to wash our hands of the uncomfortable and often morally compromised relationship with Pakistan. We no longer need much from Islamabad (or Rawalpindi, the Army’s headquarters), and we have a seemingly more important relationship to build with Pakistan’s archrival India. But turning our backs on Pakistan is the wrong play. To date, the Biden administration has authorized some valuable diplomatic reengagement with Pakistan, cleared a sustainment package for previous Pakistan military purchases, and sent generous assistance in response to 2022 flooding. But the White House has not offered high-level engagement. In Washington corridors, there is a clear sense that the White House is Pakistan-skeptical.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Taliban, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Pakistan and South Asia

7. The Rabble of International Community over Afghanistan and the Recognition of Taliban Government

Author:
Matiullah Safi
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
It is to highlight the responsibility of the international community, and the concerns of the Afghan people under international law in the wake of the Taliban takeover on 15/ August/ 2021. Considering the apprehensions of Afghans under the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the prodigious behavior of global polity, and regional powers to the recognition of the Taliban as a political party and finally the legitimate leadership of Afghanistan has legal domestic, international, and regional implications for Afghan people. The recent engagement of the international community with the Taliban government and the dynamics of political statements of the nations around the world and regional states have created a domino effect for recognition among regional powers over the course of the short history of the Taliban government in Afghanistan including the United Nations' response. A considerable segment of the international community is looking for economic, political, and strategic interests rather than international norms of diplomacy, human rights, and other international considerations for the recognition of the Taliban government. This paper investigates the interdependence between international law, regional politics, and human rights in the wake of the Taliban‟s takeover of Afghanistan. The paper also provides a conceptual framework for international recognition of the Taliban‟s government, it critically analyzes the international community‟s engagement with the Taliban's emergence as the de facto government and the broader implications for both Afghan citizens and global actors.
Topic:
International Law, Taliban, International Community, and Recognition
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia

8. Hierarchies of Power and Prejudice; A Social Dominance Theory Analysis of The Subjugation of Hazara Community by The Taliban

Author:
Hadia Saleem and Haroon Azmat Tarar
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
This research provides an in-depth analysis of the Taliban’s subjugation of the Hazara community in light of the Social Dominance Theory. The literature present on the prosecution is widely divided into binary opposite beliefs. One group claims the reason behind the subjugation to be geo-political factors. In contrast, the other group claims that the intersectionality of the Hazara community is the driving force behind the discrimination against them. This research adopts a unique approach through its claims made in the light of the Social Dominance Theory. This research claims that the subjugation of the Hazara community is the result of Psychological and institutional discrimination, the legitimization of myths, and the use of disproportionate force over many decades that led to the creation of current power dynamics in Afghanistan. The research specifically focuses on the Taliban’s subjugation of the Hazara community while carefully analyzing the factors mentioned above. In conclusion, the study states that the subjugation of the Hazara community is the result of multi-dimensional factors joining hands to result in the contemporary status quo of Afghanistan.
Topic:
Taliban, Discrimination, Hazara People, Power Dynamics, Historical Contextualization, and Social Dominance Theory
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia

9. The Berlin Pulse 2024/2025 (full issue)

Author:
Hanno Pevkur, Stephanie Zonszein, Majed Al-Ansari, Halyna Yanchenko, and Boris Pistorius
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Körber-Stiftung
Abstract:
Welcome to the eight’s edition of The Berlin Pulse! As every year, we compare international expectations of Germany with public opinion in Germany. But this year’s edition is special, as it comes off the press with one part of our representative survey conducted right after the polls have closed in the United States and the German coalition collapsed. Thanks to our editors Julia Ganter and Jonathan Lehrer, this issue underlines that Germany must decide what image it wants to project and what international expectations it wants to meet. Bangladeshi analyst Shafqat Munir and Russian opposition politician Andrei Pivovarov want Germany to live up to its moral aspirations and support the revival of democratic values in their countries. Israeli journalist Mairav Zonszein argues that precisely Germany’s reputation as a defender of democratic norms complicates its arms support to Israel, calling on Berlin to ensure its weapons are not used in human rights violations. Meanwhile, Ukrainian politican Halyna Yanchenko urges Germany to supply more arms to help end Russia’s illegal war of aggression. These expectations illustrate that Germany’s international standing as a partner in upholding international law, human rights and democracy is currently at stake. Berlin faces a complex balancing act, striving to avoid perceptions of selectively applying international law. Estonia’s Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur argues that half-hearted actions will not suffice – or as he puts it, ʻDo we want Ukraine to survive, or do we want it to win?ʼ The German population has a strong opinion on many of these issues. While 57 per cent of German respondents still want Berlin to support Ukraine militarily only 25 per cent want military support for Israel. Despite these dilemmas, it is encouraging that 46 per cent of German respondents want their country to be more engaged on international crises. It is the highest level since we started surveying this in 2017 and it shows that, after three years of war in Ukraine and a year of war in the Middle East, Germans want change and want to see Germany driving change. Thanks to our partner, the Pew Research Center, we know that Germans and Americans have trusted each other to make a change in international politics over the past four years. But our new figures, conducted after the US election, show that this partnership may be threatened: 79 per cent of Germans think President Donald Trump will damage transatlantic relations. But only 35 per cent of Germans think that Germany should step in to lead the West. It is time to decide, Germany. What kind of international player do we want to be, in which areas do we want to go all in? The following pages can help us make difficult decisions in difficult times.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Taliban, Polls, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Russia, Europe, Ukraine, India, Germany, and United States of America

10. Trouble In Afghanistan’s Opium Fields: The Taliban War On Drugs

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
The Taliban have instituted a ban on narcotics in Afghanistan. While that has led to a massive drop in production, it is hitting the rural poor particularly hard. Foreign donors should work with the government to ensure the policy does not further undermine vulnerable populations.
Topic:
Poverty, Narcotics Trafficking, Law Enforcement, Taliban, Rural, and Opium
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia