Connect with us

South Asia

Did India stage the Pathankot attack drama in order to malign Pakistan?

Published

on

It is now plain that India is still eager to be seen as a strategic partner of super power USA by ruthlessly promoting terror operations on Indian soil (not only in Ajmer and Hyderabad Mecca Mosque, but even in Mumbai and Delhi) to continue to claim the dubious status of being a prominent terror victim.

Over years, India has successfully presented itself as a prominent ‘terror victim’ to the world, especially to USA and other big powers. The ‘terror’ strategy worked well for New Delhi in the comity of anti-Islamic nations whether or not that is terrorized.

Apparently terror attacks continue unabated in India because Indian regime deliberately wants them badly for claiming to be a prominent ‘terror victim’. Indian strategists wrongly think such false terror claims would enable India somehow entail a veto on the discredited UNSC.

Repeated terror attacks being perpetrated in India and Pakistan, following the Sept-11 hoax in New York in the most developed nation America with most modern intelligence-surveillance capabilities give the impression that there exists an Indo-Pak official terror link. India as well as Pakistan is eager to retain the nukes in its arms arsenals. It is a fact that the Sept-11 was engineered and executed very systematically by those forces that wanted to malign Islam as a terrorist religion – but the blame was conveniently placed on one Osama and his Al-Qaeda.

On 28 March, a report by Pakistani news channel Dunya News had said that Indian authorities showed “signs of reluctance” when the JIT asked them for information and evidence. “Sketches of the attackers, footage of the closed-circuit television, duty registers of the Border Security Force (BSF), details of the bank accounts, service records, post-mortem report of the driver who died in the car accident at the time of the incident and the FIR of that car’s snatching have not been given to the Pakistani investigation team,” a report in Pakistani newspaper Daily Times had said.

The report had further said that post-mortem and DNA reports of the terrorists involved and phone records and information about the commander of Pathankot airbase had not been given to the JIT. The Dunya News report had further claimed that the stances of the Indian government and BSF regarding the terror attack were contradicting each other.

Moreover, the report had said that while Indian authorities had said that terrorists had entered the Pathankot airbase after climbing ten-foot walls, no ropes were found as evidence. These claims by the Pakistani media had come just a day after it was found that Pakistan’s electronic media regulatory body (PEMRA) on Sunday had released a statement for the Pakistani media, asking them to be “professional” and “responsible” when reporting on the Lahore attacks, unlike the Indian media.

One has no clues as to why Pakistani investigators were allowed to enter the Indian air force base in Pathankot from narrow adjacent routes instead of the main entrance and the duration of the visit was just 55 minutes, enough to take a mere walk through the military facility. India claims that a Pakistani ‘terrorist’ attack took place at the Pathankot Air Force Station in January this year, in which four attackers and two security forces personnel were killed in the initial battle, with an additional security force member dying from injuries hours later.

The fight looks very similar to the fake encounters in the thick forests and reports are supplied to the press by the military establishment. The real happening might be kept in secrecy.

On Friday, the Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team (JIT) returned to Pakistan after their five-day visit to India during which all Indian evidence pertaining to the January 2016 attack was shared with them, including the DNA of four terrorists, their identities as well as call records showing involvement of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). The JIT had examined 13 witnesses, including former Gurdaspur Superintendent of Police Salwinder Singh.

The JIT says the attack was a drama staged to malign Pakistan, according to a report in a Pakistani daily. It further said that the JIT report, which will be submitted to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the next few days, has even concluded that Indian authorities had prior information about the terrorists. The report also quoted a member of the JIT as saying that the NIA officer’s murder in Uttar Pradesh showed that “Indian establishment wants to keep the matter under wraps.”

Though just a few days after the Pakistani Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the Pathankot terror attack India media announced that the four ‘terrorists’ who attacked the Pathankot Indian Air Force base could, according to JIT, be from Pakistan, the JIT has also insisted that the Pathankot attack had been staged by India.

The same source also told media that the JIT concluded that the standoff between the Indian army and “alleged” terrorists ended within hours after the attack, which apparently made it clear that the attack was a drama staged to malign Pakistan. “The Indian authorities made it a three-day drama to get maximum attention from the world community in order to malign Pakistan,” Pakistan Today quoted the JIT report as saying. The source also told Pakistan Today that no “major” damage was done to the base and that the perimeter lights at the airbase were not functional on the day of the attack, which apparently raises questions about whether India had prior information about the terrorists.

This is not the first time, though, that the Pakistani media and the JIT have made allegations of hiding evidence against India.

What is truly surprising about the Pakistani JIT report’s claim is that it comes just days after the same JIT admitted that the terrorists were from Pakistan. Reports had, in fact, also suggested that Pakistan had enough evidence to link them to extremist group Jaish-e-Mohammad. Moreover, during the beginning of the investigation, Indian investigators had said that the visiting officials did not “contradict” any of the evidence submitted by the NIA. “The fact that they did not contradict or made any adverse comment or observation is a positive sign,” sources had told IANS.

The fact that the JIT is now saying that Indian authorities did not provide evidence and is claiming something as absurd as India staging the Pathankot attack shows exactly how dark relations between India and Pakistan truly are. As this report in The Tribune had said, “Cricketers believe that if India and Pakistan were to play more games, it would help both countries to live in peace. They do not realize that at political and diplomatic levels too, both nations play games. This game is called one-upmanship, with surprise as an important element.”

Pakistan media reports that the Pathankot terror attack was “stage-managed” by India are seen here as “double-speak” by Pakistan’s security establishment. “The report in a Pakistan pro-government daily only shows that ISI and Pakistan Army were doing double-speak. India has provided irrefutable evidence to Pakistan Joint Investigation Team (JIT) during their visit here regarding the involvement of Pak-based terrorists,” a government source said.

The news report in a daily quoted an unnamed JIT member as saying that the attack was nothing but “vicious propaganda” against Pakistan as Indian authorities did not have any evidence to back their claims. “Within hours of the assault, all the attackers were shot dead by the Indian security forces. However, the Indian authorities made it a three-day drama to get maximum attention from the world community in order to malign Pakistan,” the report added. Rebutting the report, another government source said the evidence provided to JIT can stand international scrutiny and expressed surprise over media reports emerging that the NIA had not provided enough evidence to the visiting team. “The JIT was handed over whatever they asked for which included certified copies of statements of witnesses, DNA reports of four terrorists, memos of articles seized from them,” the source said.

Pakistan had made a request under section 188 of Criminal procedure Code of Pakistan for collecting the evidence from the NIA. The call data records of the two phones snatched from Superintendent of Police Salwinder Singh and his jeweller friend Rajesh Verma which were used by the terrorists to call a number in Pakistan were also shared with the JIT, the source said.

India also shared the conversation recorded between Nasir Hussain, one of the four terrorists who carried out the attack on IAF base during the intervening night of January 1 and 2, with his mother Khayyam Babber. The NIA has asked for a DNA sample from Nasir’s family. The agency has also handed over call recordings of terrorists holed up inside the IAF base with their handlers including Kashif Jaan, who has since been missing.

The Pakistani JIT had asked NIA to hand over swabs of four terrorists identified as Nasir Hussain (Punjab province), Abu Bakar, (Gujranwala), Umar Farooq and Abdul Qayum (both from Sindh). However, the NIA handed over to the visitors the DNA report of the terrorists and asked them to match those with their family members, the sources said.

The Pakistani JIT headed by Additional Inspector General of Police, Counter Terrorism Department, Muhammad Tahir Rai and also including ISI’s Lt Col Tanvir Ahmed, had recorded statements of 16 people. The list for recording the witnesses was submitted to the NIA by Pakistani team only.

The 16 witnesses questioned in all included Singh, Verma and cook Madan Gopal. The three were kidnapped by the Pathankot attack perpetrators belonging to the banned Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed on the intervening night of 31 December, 2015 and 1 January, 2016. The ‘terrorists’ had allegedly dumped Verma after slitting his throat and continued their journey with Singh and Gopal before jettisoning them a few kilometres away from the strategic air base at Pathankot.

The ‘terrorists’ entered the air base and mounted the brazen assault on the intervening night of 1 and 2 January. In the fierce encounter that ensued, seven security personnel besides four terrorists were killed.

Meanwhile, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on April 05 accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Government of indulging in dual standards by allowing Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to probe the Pathankot terror attack, saying that on one hand the Centre preaches ‘Bharat mata ki jai’ and on the other they allow ISI on Indian soil to verify facts and conduct investigation. BJP leaders say those who refuse to say ‘Bharat mata ki jai’ have no right to live in India but they are unable to control the ‘terror operators’. Kejriwal also trained guns at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and asked as to what was the deal between the latter and his Pakistan counterpart Nawaz Sharif. The Delhi Chief Minister tweeted: “On one hand they say ‘Bharat mata ki jai’ and on the other they call ISI to visit India and back-stab ‘Bharat Mata’.” Modiji has betrayed the nation by inviting ISI. Don’t know what the deal between Modi ji and Nawaz is),” he said in another tweet.

Kejriwal ridiculed the double mindset of Modi, BJP and BJP government and they seem to hide the truth about the secret deals with Pakistan.

Indian objective in terror experiments has been multi-pronged: to maintain the claim of being a terror victim at par with USA and Russia, keep Pakistan permanently accused of ‘exporting terror’; force Kashmiris not to press for freedom or sovereignty form India; come closer to USA and Europe on the issue of ‘jointly fighting terror’,

The way Indian forces prolonged the ‘war’ for days in order to generate New York fire scenario at Mumbai Taj hotel fighting ‘terror ‘ makes the point pretty clear about Indian mindset to quickly blame Pakistan.

However, scorning all such fake Indian claims, USA has decided to sell all latest terror equipment to Pakistan ignoring India’s loudest protest against the sale. India would now buy even those latest military goods equipment from USA sooner than later, but that is a different story altogether.

It is high time India considered the limits of nukes as war equipment to be employed in order to retain Kashmir , now essentially under military control as Indian government gifted extra military draconian laws to the military command in Kashmir to deal ’freely’ with Kashmiris Muslims.

India needs to evolve and incorporate humane laws and generous mindset to free the Kashmiris from the military yoke.

Kashmiris need to get back their sovereignty lost to New Delhi soon after, ironically, India gained independence from Great Britain in 1947. India managed to get nuke technology from Russia to be to manufacture nukes and added them to its missile arms arsenals, targeting Pakistan and China, among other ‘enemy’ nations. But the reason for its nuclear ambition is Kashmir that now remains the flashpoint, terrorizing South Asia region. However, Pakistani counter nukes have not made tension in the region less intense.      

Once New Delhi allows sovereignty back to Kashmiris, world would respect India as a serious nation. India then won’t have to resort to terror techniques to be in the news.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Behind Indo-Pacific Vision

Published

on

Mike Pompeo’s recent speech titled, ‘America’s Indo-Pacific Economic Vision – at the Indo-Pacific Business Forum’ at the US Chamber of Commerce, Washington DC has been carefully observed across Asia.  Beijing has understandably, paid close special attention to it. Pompeo emphasized on the need for greater connectivity within the Indo-Pacific, while also highlighting the role which the US was likely to play (including financial investments to the tune of 113 Million USD in areas like infrastructure, energy and digital economy). The US Secretary of State while stating that this vision was not targeted at anyone, he did make references to China’s hegemonic tendencies, as well as the lacunae of Chinese connectivity projects (especially the economic dimension).

The Chinese reaction to Pompeo’s speech was interesting. Senior Chinese government officials were initially dismissive of the speech, saying that such ideas have been spoken in the past, but produced no tangible results.

An article in the Global Times ‘Indo-Pacific strategy more a geo-political military alliance’ response is significant. What emerges clearly from this article is that Beijing is not taking the ‘Indo-Pacific vision’ lightly, and neither does it rule out the possibility of collaboration. The article is unequivocal, in expressing its skepticism, with regard to the geo-political vision of the Indo-Pacific vision. Argues the article:

While the geopolitical connotation of the strategy may lead to regional tensions and conflicts and thus put countries in the region on alert

It is optimistic with regard to the geo-economic dimension, saying that this would be beneficial, and would promote economic growth and prosperity. What must be noted is that, while the US vision for ‘Indo-Pacific’ has been put forward as a counter to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the article also spoke about the possible complementarities between the US vision for ‘Indo-Pacific’ and China’s version of BRI. While Mike Pompeo had spoken about a crucial role for US private companies in his speech, the article clearly bats in favor of not just between Indian, Japanese, Chinese, US governments as well as companies. This is interesting, given the fact that China had gone to the extent of dubbing the Indo-Pacific vision as the foam on the sea” “that gets attention but will soon dissipate”

While there is absolutely no doubt, that there is immense scope for synergies between the Indo-Pacific vision, and BRI especially in the economic sphere. China’s recent openness towards the Indo-Pacific vision is welcome, but one of the propelling factors is the growing resentment against the economic implications of some BRI projects. While in South Asia, Sri Lanka is a classical example of China’s debt trap diplomacy, where Beijing provides loans at high interest rates (China has taken over the strategic Hambantota Project, since Sri Lanka has been unable to pay Beijing the whopping 13 Billion USD). Even in ASEAN grouping, countries are beginning to question the feasibility of BRI projects, Malaysia which shares close economic ties with Beijing is reviewing certain Chinese projects (this was one of the first steps undertaken by  Mahathir Mohammad after taking over the reigns as Prime Minister of Malaysia).

Second, that while for long the Indo-Pacific Vision has been dubbed as a mere ‘expression’ and one of the criticisms has been a lack of gravitas in the economic context (and even now 113 Million USD is not sufficient). Developments over recent months, including the recent speech, indicate that The Department of State seems to be keen to dispel this notion that the Indo-Pacific narrative is bereft of substance. Here it would be pertinent to point out, that Pompeo’s speech was followed by an Asia visit (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore).

Countries which are key stakeholders in the Indo-Pacific narrative need to keep in mind the following:

US needs to walk the course and apart from investing, more it needs to think of involving more countries, including Taiwan and more South Asian countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in the Indo-Pacific partnership.

Second, the Indo-Pacific speaks in favor of democracy as well as greater integration, but not only are countries becoming more inward looking, even their stand on democracy, and Human Rights is ambiguous.  Japan is trying to change its attitude towards immigration, and is at the forefront of promoting integration and connectivity within the Indo-Pacific. Neither US, nor India, Japan or Australia have criticized China for its excesses against the Uighur minority in Xinjiang province.

Finally, there is scope for China to be part of the Indo-Pacific, but it needs to look at certain projects beyond the rubric of the BRI. A perfect instance is the Bangladesh China, India Myanmar BCIM Corridor which India was willing to join, but China now considers this project as a part of BRI.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Beijing can not be excluded from the ‘Indo-Pacific’ narrative, but it can not expect to be part of the same, on its own terms. It is also important, for countries like US and India to speak up more forcefully on issues (within their domestic contexts, as well as external) pertaining to Freedom of Speech, Human Rights and  immigration issues, given that all these are essential for a ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’

Continue Reading

South Asia

Chimeras and Realities of the Indo-Pacific Partnership

Published

on

The new American initiative for the creation of the Indo-Pacific Partnership (IPP) has grabbed the spotlight in many political discussions of late. Although the idea to set up such a forum was proposed at the end of 2017 and to this day has been no more than a general slogan, now the Trump administration seems set to stake on it. Why?

As a reminder I would like to point out that on May 30 the US Secretary of Defense announced the renaming of the Pacific Command into the Indo-Pacific Command (although the Command’s responsibility zone a priori included the Indian Ocean waters).

A few days later, at the Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) conference in Singapore, the idea of IPP was spelled out by the American side, with an emphasis on the aspects of regional security. When commenting on the change of the name of the American command, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi remarked that for India the unification of the Indian and Pacific oceans into a single geographic array looked “natural”.

The practical implementation of the IPP strategy will most likely be carried out both through the strengthening of US bilateral relations with countries of the region and through the creation of multilateral cooperation formats. The most important of these cooperation initiatives is the so-called. “Quadro”, which is designed to bring together the four “democracies” of the Indo-Pacific region – the United States, Japan, Australia and India.

It is believed that the United States, Australia, Japan and India, united in the Quadro, will consider the two oceans a single strategic space. Since 2016, the United States, India and Japan have been conducting joint naval exercises “Malabar”. Washington is clearly giving New Delhi ever more attention, counting on India as one of the future regional security poles, along with Japan, Australia and its other allies.

The feasibility evaluation of IPP was proposed in the concept of “free and open Indo-Pacific strategy”, FOIP). And the recent report of the US National Security Strategy states that “in the Indo-Pacific region, there is a geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of the world order.”

Apparently, this is about China. Therefore, the idea of IPP, which is motivated by the value and geostrategic approach, did not cause immediate enthusiasm from the American allies in the region.

Assessing the US initiative to establish IPP, Japanese experts, for example, say that Japan has no objections in principle to such an initiative as long as it is “transparent and inclusive”. To this, they add that this initiative can play a role in the development of interregional relations involving East Asia, South Asia, Africa and Eurasia; the main thing is that it should not be directed against China, since Japan is interested in China’s sustained development and Japan-China relations.

In response, South Korea argues that it is too early to suggest a full approval for the IPP as this initiative has been put forward in the form of a general slogan. Seoul has yet to understand what it is and needs more time to examine it in more detail. If it turns out that the initiative aims to deter China, participation in it of the Republic of Korea will be a “difficult choice” to make.

According to experts of the US Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Indo-Pacific region may account for half of the global economy within decades, but this requires investments of almost $ 26 trillion. Now it is obvious that from the point of view of trade and economic cooperation, the IPP is set to replace the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP), which Donald Trump chose to reject, and offer an alternative. US Secretary of Commerce William Ross explains in this respect that TPP agreements require too much effort to conclude and too complicated: “With such major geopolitical phenomena as the TPP, it is impossible to carry out a controlled experiment.”

Verbally, Washington welcomes China’s contribution to regional development, emphasizing that IPP will not be aimed at containing China or opposing China’s Belt and Road Initiative. At the same time, the emphasis is put on the need to adhere to “international standards of transparency, the rule of law and sustainable financing”.

However, in practice, the main reason underlying IPP is the attempt to conduct a “controlled” geostrategic and geoeconomic experiment, by constructing a partnership framework artificially, in the American interests, without taking into account the interests of potential partners who are not interested in political or economic deterrence of China

Supporters of conventional geopolitical approaches say that the creation of IPP means the advance of the US into Eurasia still further from the east to the west by strengthening ties with predominantly “naval” powers in the eastern and southern peripheries of the Eurasian continent (from South Korea to countries of the Arabian Peninsula) and with island states of the Pacific (from Japan to New Zealand). The main purpose of the IPP is the political and military-strategic deterrence of China, the creation of a rigid “framework” that would prevent Beijing from assuming a dominant position in the region.

Whatever the case, American attempts to artificially “patch together” the IPP “from the material at hand” indicate the need for the Russian diplomacy to boost efforts to cement the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership by developing security mechanisms and fostering cooperation in the land areas of the Eurasian “heartland”.

In the first place, such mechanisms involve the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), measures towards linking the Eurasian integration and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and the consistent implementation of the Russian initiative to establish the Greater Eurasian Partnership (GEP).

India’s participation in these organizations and initiatives is a matter of special concern, while the three-party consultative arrangement Russia-India-China needs further strengthening as well.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

South Asia

Afghanistan and the issue of Transnational Conspiracy

Ajmal Sohail

Published

on

Author: Ajmal Sohail, Contributor: Nicolas Böhmer*

The deplorable statistics of drug addicted people in Afghanistan exceeded one million and the poppy growth almost doubled, since the international community call for counter-narcotics. The most outrageous in this context is, that one third of the Afghan GDP looms from drug trafficking. The large portion of profit comes from drug trafficking flowing into the pockets of Governmental circles. This lethal-killing machine takes its toll on the vulnerable and defenseless population of the country. And the new reports of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) illustrate Afghans have become a much relevant consumers of their own opium causing hundreds deaths a year – also because they can afford the lowest quality heroin only.

Afghanistan opium, at the international level, has created a drug market worth $65 billion, catering to 15 million addicts causing thousands deaths every year. Consequently, drug trade has becoming a most welcomed business for the Afghan Government, members of the parliament, local power brokers and the insurgents (Taliban and ISIS). That is why the Government time and time turns blind eyes to the appeal of the international community to chunk all land and air portals towards the passage of drug luggage and containers. Sources close to CIA say that transnational anti-crime and counter drug activities of South/West Asia depict the enormous drug cartels with tons of drugs making their way to Central Asia, South Asia, South West Asia,South East Asia, Middle East and Europe and America unimpeded. It also serves to resupply the organized crime groups with weapons of war coming into Afghan territories. Furthermore, the required chemicals for the heroin production – such as acetic anhydride – is entering the country without control e.g. from Germany down the Balkan Route.

It gives the impression, that either there is a meaningless inspection or it is not existing at all. Score of sources have proven and there is no doubt that several ministries,e.g. responsible for the borders and tribal affairs, MOI, MOD, custom security,  police, etc. are engrossed in bribery, intimidation, murder, kidnapping and ransom in conjunction with some part of the organized crime and illegal narcotics industry.

To be candid, the entire illegal drugs and narcotics manufacturing goes through the hands of Afghan government officials. Covert operations against organized crime rarely happen or happen with alerts to the organisations in focus, thus allowing narcotics industry to flourish. There are avers, since NATO forces are full of zip in Afghanistan, mutually drug cultivation and trafficking have two-folded. Conversely around 15’000 foreign troops help manage security in the country.Moreover, 4’000 regular soldier from NATO forces and 11’000 US and other special operations forces make up the balance. However, there is significant resistance from so-called Taliban, ISIS, independent local warlords, drug lords particularly in the areas where poppy are cultivated, drugs and narcotics are processed and trafficked.

There is no rule of law at the bordering areas, connecting Afghanistan and Pakistan. Amid Afghanistan and Iran and the central Asian countries, there is barely bullet rule, which in turn disrupts counter-narcotics efforts of the US Coalition. Furthermore, most senior leaders [presidents], secret services and law enforcement agencies of all countries surrounding Afghanistan, through Russia on the northern distribution route, are complicit in allowing the Afghan Government and its cronies to carry on narcotics allotment.

To be frank, there are little or no genuine inspections on the borders of Afghanistan, inside the country and in adjoining countries, allowing 90% of all global heroin being commonly free distributed from Afghanistan. It is safe to say that presidents and political pundits of all surrounding countries in the entire region are engaged to consent to this conspiracy to be persisted. All leaders of all countries know where the problem comes, but refuse to act. All of these leaders are complicit with the drug mafia in propagating this portion of major transnational criminality. They are complicit in creating massive addictions and in killing children and adults around the world.

Drug trafficking has become a pleasurable industry to the presidents and political authorities of the intact region. Very unfortunately, when they address the innocent citizen of the countries, they dub for counter-narcotics efforts but behind sagacity they co-operate with such a plot to keep on. When they are brazen out with the public, they spin and articulate that it is impossible to protect all Afghan borders. Yet most of all narcotics and other black market materials out of Afghanistan, along with war formulating stuff into Afghanistan, comes through, bought and paid for, by organized crime established borders and airports.

To be blunt, this is one of the prevalent shocking international transnational conspiracies, in all history of Afghanistan and the entire globe. This in turn dents democracy, interrupts free markets, depletes national assets and skills to be connected to criminality and kills or addicts innocent Afghans. As it is said, that transnational crime networks often pick on failed states, states like Afghanistan. In order to tackle down such conspiracy proper inspections need to be placed on all portals of Afghanistan – knowing this being difficult to be implemented and causing interferences on many levels.

According to Louise I. Shelley, Director of the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Centre at George Mason University:“Transnational crime is a defining issue of the 21st century for policymakers – as defining as the Cold War for the 20th century and colonialism was for the 19th.”

In accordance with Yuri A. Voronin,professor of Criminal Law, Ural State Law Academy Ekaterinburg Russia:“Transnational criminal rings are becoming more and more powerful and universal and their mobility is growing. The means and resources of any state are not enough to seriously harm them”.

Therefore, participation of the US Coalition for further investigation at airports and borders of Afghanistan is indispensable. Otherwise, transnational organized crime results in disrupting peace and stability of nations worldwide and a huge part of it originating from Afghanistan. And to solve their drug problem at home, the heroin consuming countries certainly should be interested in law and order in Afghanistan.

*Nicolas Frank Böhmer

Co-Founder and Co-President of the Counter Narco-Terrorism Alliance Germany; consulting, research, communications specialist and entrepreneur; develops strategies and subsequent concepts for economy, communications and politics; information gathering; analyst, translator, writer and content developer, industry4.0/IoT/digitalisation / innovation strategist; international experience in industry, technology, media tech, research and education institutes, governmental entities, politics, the UN and more

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy