Over the course of several decades, Afghans have been suffering from militias who have a wide range of uncontrolled armed forces. These militants include groups that engage tribal leaders, private security companies, groups of gangs, and insurgent groups. The most obvious term for the paramilitary militias in Afghanistan is the word “arbaki”. The term also includes non-responsible armed forces that have been created within the framework of official governmental military programs under Afghan Local Policy (ALP). The militias have been involved with any kind of group that has been involved in deadly tribal repressions, assassinations, smuggling, and extortion. Raping women, boys and girls is a common practice by the militants. Therefore, many of them have been accused of committing human rights violations.
After the US-led military intervention in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Taliban-led rebellion has been intensified in the country. To deal with along with the insurgency, the Afghan government and its international supporters expanded the Afghan National Police by creating paramilitary militias in the form of the Afghan Local Police. This policy led to the reactivation of various armed and non-responsible groups, especially in the north of the country. Moreover, this policy indirectly paved the way for powerful local elders to create their own small militia groups to counteract the deteriorating security situation in their communities.
The Afghan government approved the establishment of ALP in July 2010, and this force was established on August 16, 2010, by presidential decree. According to the US Army and the Afghan Government, the Afghan Local Police were set up throughout Afghanistan to defend those areas in rural communities where the Afghan National Police and the Afghan National Army are inadequate. In other words, paramilitary forces were established for short-term tactical needs, such as working with the counter-terrorism team at border areas. ALP was a major effort to correct strategic problems in the war against the Taliban. It was argued that Afghan security forces are sent to areas whose inhabitants view them as foreign because of their ethnicity and race. Thus, how the Afghan government with the support of the US founded ALP.
Initially, the Afghan government decided to recruit about 10,000 people as ALP, but the US Congress has approved funds for 30,000 ALPs. In August 2011, 7,000 were recruited as local police. They receive almost 60 percent of the National Police salary, which is 165 euros, and dress differently. They serve on the front lines of the violence.
One of the key hypotheses that have laid the foundation of the Afghan Local Police is that, despite the existence of weak command structure hierarchies, the Afghan National Police (ANP) will control ALP. The key point here is that the number of local police in the districts they operate is higher than the official police officer in that district. In addition, the local police are supported by separate and informal networks of powerful government officials and local authorities that do not allow them to be questioned.
Moreover, the instructions given to the local police are not clear on the competencies of ALP. Similarly, it is unclear whether ALP follows the internal regulations of the Afghan National Police framework on interrogations, detention, and the process of handing over detainees to the ANP. On the other hand, ALP units are trained for three weeks, while ANP officers have six weeks of elementary education. Apart from this, after the end of ALP’s mission, there are no clear guidelines on the process of integrating and consolidating the ALP units within the ANP.
A recent report by the International Crisis Group on the controversial issue of mobilizing village people in the form of Afghan Local Police to fight against the Taliban groups and ISIS echoes that in most cases the local police program has led to the empowerment of local militias who are not accountable to the Afghan government. The report says that the local police program did not reduce violence, and instead of improving security in Afghanistan where they operate, the security situation has been worsened.
The International Crisis Group adds that although the local police program was considered as a temporary solution to the recruitment and escape of the Afghan security forces, in 2014, the Afghan government decided to increase the number of ALP from 29,000 to 45,000.The report of the International Crisis Group refers to cases of harassment by local police and illicit tax evasion by them. In the report of the International Crisis Group, allegations of sexual assault, looting, and imprisonment of people in torture chambers in dry wells filled with snakes by non-militias are also mentioned, for instance, in Faryab Province.
Before the US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, Afghan people have experienced the establishment of similar paramilitary militias by the Afghan government, too. The first paramilitary forces refer to the ruling People’s Democratic Party – during the Soviet Union supported governments in Kabul in the late 1980s. The Kabul People’s Democratic Party backed by the Soviet Union founded its own paramilitary militias to fight against the Mujahidin and other rebels. Itwas one of the most terrible experiences that Afghan people tasted during in the late 1980s.
On the other hand, the US government also provided money and weapons to various groups of the Mujahidin to fight against the Soviet Union and its so-called governments. After the withdrawal of Soviet Union forces in 1990, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union took up the bloody Mujahideen wars. And left these militias to fight with each other for gaining the power. The US and Soviet Union backed governmental warlords and strongholds were lawless factions and ready for another armed conflict in Afghanistan.
The current paramilitary militias operating in Afghanistan are controlled by people who are called local power or warlords. These are the major warlords to former Mujahideen commanders who, at the time of the jihad against the Soviet Union, created a power base. And now their sources of power and support have expanded deep into the institutions of governance in the center and in the neighborhoods. Extremely inaccurate behavior of the militias has driven people from the national government and in some cases contributed to the expansion of the rebellion.
From its inception, the plan of arming local people against the Taliban was nothing but strengthening the local warlords on a wider scale. The Afghan government policymakers did not think that one day these warlords become uncontrollable powers that the government should enter into a bloody war to subjugate them later on. The US government is not at all worried about the fact that these ALPs are entering illicit drug trafficking and economic mafia and land usurpation because the US government only thinks about weakening the Taliban groups.
After the formation of the Karzai government in 2002, the Afghan government and its international supporters have pledged to disarm illegal armed groups and return them to civilian life. But such efforts have been largely demonstrative and ineffective. The personal interests of latent and powerful individuals in the Afghan government, as well as the financial, logistical and military support of the United States and other international forces from the militias, have undermined the process of disarmament.
Political experts argue that the Afghan Local Police and pro-government militias are dangerous, and the Kabul government should stop the call for their expansion. Instead, the Afghan government should take steps and measures to improve stewardship and supervision over ALP in areas that they operate. Additionally, the Afghan government should adopt serious measures to integrate ALP forces into Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) so that they can be held accountable to the Afghan government authorized entities. Now that the Trump Administration wants to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, the paramilitary forces can pose more serious threats to the stability of the Afghan central government if they are not disarmed and controlled.
2018 was the deadliest year in the history of Kashmir
Kashmir is natural paradise and gorgeous valley located between Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, China and with a small strip of 27 miles with Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. But it is still a disputed region since partition of United India into India and Pakistan (also Bangladesh in 1971) in 1947.
The history of the freedom of Kashmir dates to 1931 when the people, both Hindus and Muslims, initiated a freedom movement against the then Maharaja (ruler) to have their own indigenous rule. The resentment of the people led to the ‘Quit Kashmir’ campaign against the Maharaja in 1946. Faced with the insurgency of his people, the Maharaja fled the capital, Srinagar, on October 25, 1947 and arranged that India send its army to help him crush the rebellion. India, coveting the territory, set the condition that Maharaja must sign an ‘Instrument of Accession’ to India. At the same time, India had to attach another condition that accession was made subject to ‘reference to the people.’ On India’s showing, therefore, the accession has a provisional character.
Then India brought the dispute to the United Nations where the Security Council discussed the question exhaustively from January to April 1948. Then both India and Pakistan and approved by the international community that the dispute over the status of Jammu and Kashmir can be settled only in accordance with the will of the people which can be ascertained through the democratic method of a free and impartial Kashmiri citizens vote.
The people of Kashmir, despite of being injured since long could not lost their hope. They believe in United Nation(UN), assuming it will advocate choice of freedom for them. During the July-August 2018, people from entire Srinagar and other towns, were protesting government of India’s violation of Article 35-A of Indian’s constitution. 35-A, assure special rights to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Whenever, there is peaceful demonstration from them, then they must suffer basic human rights violation, fear and state of starvation as response of Indian government. In 2018, 111 civilians are killed which is double to the previous year recorded 40 killing by the Indian forces. India has some 500,000 troops deployed in Kashmir. Popular unrest has been rising since 2016 when a charismatic young Kashmiri leader, Burhan Wani, was shot dead by Indian forces.
Pakistan always has been bolstering the way of peaceful talk with India over the issue. Last year, in October, Prime Minister Imran Khan, repeated Pakistan’s stance that the solution to the region’s dispute laid in dialogue. He said,”It is time India realised that it must move to resolve the Kashmir dispute through dialogue in accordance with the UN SC resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people”.
Kashmiri leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, in response to PM Khan said we welcomed “Pakistan’s concern” but called for Pakistan to “do much more” to “put an end to the appalling grind of repression and human rights abuse that Kashmiris are suffering at the hands of Indian state.
Happily, UN has issued human right report on Kashmir in June 2018. The report of 49 pages strongly emphasis on human right violation and abuses and delivering justice for all Kashmiris. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein remarked “The political dimensions of the dispute between India and Pakistan have long been centre-stage, but this is not a conflict frozen in time. It is a conflict that has robbed millions of their basic human rights and continues to this day to inflict untold suffering. Therefore, any resolution of the political situation in Kashmir must entail a commitment to end the cycles of violence and ensure accountability for past and current violations and abuses by all parties and provide redress for victims”.
2018 was the deadliest year in the history of Kashmir. Hope so, Pakistan and India sandwiched by UN would resolve the issue based on Kashmir people’s choice of freedom so that human violation could be ceased.
CPSEC: The Saudi addition to CPEC
CPEC has been a cornerstone of Pakistan’s long-term macroeconomic policy, and no matter who has been in power, the resolve to continue it further has been steadfast. Pakistan has realized its geopolitical advantage and has focused on constructing trade, energy and transportation corridors throughout its length. China and Pakistan in 2015, had agreed on partnering for the development of an economic corridor which would connect China’s western front with that of the Indus Belt and eventually with the Arabian Sea. The plan saw $ 62 Billion being committed to the execution of the project, building roads, rails, and power projects all along the length of Pakistan. Contrary to popular belief, the economic corridor actually benefits both countries. China needs alternate routes for uninterrupted trade and energy supply, while Pakistan direly needed infrastructure and power sector development.
At the recent Investment Conference titled “Davos in the Desert”, Pakistan’s newly elected Prime Minister had pitched the investment opportunities in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia now wants to be a partner in the CPEC project. The investment revolves around the establishment of an “Oil City” in Gawadar. Adviser to the Pakistani Prime Minister had said Saudi that the investment in the huge Oil City project in Gwadar would be $22 billion.
Recently after the twitter spat between the US and Saudi Arabia, the relations have been strained between the two long-term allies. Saudi Arabia, a longstanding US ally in the region is looking to diversify its relations with other nations to reduce its American dependence. This is why Saudi Arabia wants to partner into the CPEC project.
What benefits does Saudi Arabia have with the joining in the project? Saudi Arabia is still the largest supplier of crude oil. It has been looking to secure its oil exports and look for stable markets for its oil export. China is the largest importer of crude oil in the world, accounting for 18.6% of the total global import. The US, on the other hand, is the second largest importer of crude oil, though it also has a huge domestic production which accounts for 40% of its total domestic use. China clearly has the demand and the will to import Saudi oil and for this reason, Saudi Arabia wants to establish refineries, storages, and oil processing units at Gawadar to allow for uninterrupted oil flow into western China. The flow of this oil would be through Pakistan which has longstanding friendly bilateral relations with both Saudi Arabia and China. These relations are also independent of each other, hence the relations would not be affected by overlapping national interests. China also wants to have an uninterrupted energy supply to its mainland via alternate routes, which could not be affected by the geopolitics of the seas.
Saudi Arabia also looks at Pakistan as its long-term partner and a potential market for its exports. Pakistan has a 202 million population, 70% of which is under 35 years of age. In case, peace returns to the region, Pakistan could show exponential growth and bulge of a new vibrant and energy-hungry middle class. In addition to that, Saudi Arabia wants to have stakes in Pakistan’s economy and what better way of doing all this than to invest in an Oil City, which also happens to be geographically nearby Saudi territory. Pakistan has also been very eager for investment diversification in its economy to avoid being labeled a China-only economy. Showing to the world that’s its doors are open for any country willing to invest into Pakistan.
Convergence of interests
This incredible convergence of interests paves the way for the China Pakistan Saudi Economic Corridor to be a very constructive regional partnership. This partnership would see three regional powers engaging in positive regional trade and connectivity projects which would eventually increase trade, trust, and dependence on each other. Pakistan and China, both have repeatedly stated that CPEC is open for all to join in and collectively reap the benefits of trade and regional connectivity.
2018: A good year for China-India relations
Authors: Arun Upadhyaya and Carter Chapwanya*
The year 2018 ended on a high note for China’s peripheral diplomacy as Sino-India relations are in good shape owing to several positive steps taken by the two governments.
Relations between the two countries had turned sour in the fall of 2017 due to border disputes in the South-Western part of mainland China. Several pundits had predicted that the standoff would escalate into a major military confrontation but the events that ensued proved them wrong.
Diplomatic efforts from both sides mitigated the conflict and culminated into an informal summit between President Xi and Prime Minister Modi which was held in Wuhan in April 2018. This summit had serendipitous effects that would reverberate to this day as they have come to be known as the ectoplasm essence of the ‘Wuhan Spirit’.
The two leaders agreed to focus on areas of cooperation and respective national development which would consequently enable them to set aside their differences.
They agreed to consolidate their resources in efforts of hastening regional development. The ‘China-India Plus’ cooperation model for regional development was devised and this would serve as a trust-building mechanism between two great economies that would then work together on several projects in and around the South-Asian region.
By October, the fruits of this arrangement could already be seen as the first phase of the India-China joint training for Afghan diplomats commenced in Delhi from October 15 to 26. The second phase was then held a month later in Beijing from November 18 to December 2.
India’s External affairs minister, Sushma Swaraj remarked that the joint training sessions were building blocks for a long-term trilateral partnership for the befit of Afghanistan. This came as a surprise to many as India had shown great reluctance towards trilateral interactions involving China in Nepal.
A similar sentiment had just two days earlier been expressed on the official account of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan, which also described the training as ‘Trilateral Cooperation between India China and Afghanistan’. This was a major indication of the shift in India’s traditional position and created optimism for greater cooperation between the two countries.
The Doklam military standoff, in the border dispute, may just have laid the seeds for greater friendship between China and India as the efforts to resolve it resulted in many positive outcomes for the future of Sino-Indian bilateral ties.
In the meetings in Wuhan, Xi and Modi also saw the need to pursue more people-to-people mechanisms of high-level cooperation. At the end of December 2018, Chinese foreign minister; Wang Yi visited India to attend the first meeting of the China-India high-level people-to-people and cultural exchanges mechanism building on the agreement reached by the two countries in Wuhan.
At the meetings in Delhi, delegates from both countries reviewed the progress of the people-to-people initiative and agreed that the cultural exchange has been conducive for consolidating the social base of China-India friendships. They identified areas for further cooperation while strengthening existing programs such as the China India think tanks; youth exchange programs, education cooperation among others.
On the regional and the multilateral level, a consensus was reached to use organisations like East Asia Cooperation, BRICS, Ancient Civilisations forum and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in consolidated efforts of peace-building and development.
In addition, Sino-India economic ties improved significantly in 2018. China has now begun importing Agricultural and Pharmaceutical products from India and this has been quite a welcome development for India.
Another milestone achieved in 2018 as the two countries deepened their defence and security cooperation. Beijing and Delhi held the first high-level meeting on bilateral security cooperation with an objective of strengthening cooperation on counter-terrorism, drug control among others. Their two militaries also resumed military drills that had stalled in the aftermath of Doklam standoff. India also agreed to the renaming of Taipei and this was a very significant step in strengthening the bilateral relations.
Increased cooperation between China and India could be instrumental in fostering sustainable peace, stability and development in the region. Pundits now believe, increased strategic cooperation between the two Asian giants could also have interesting implications to the global balance of power.
The future looks bright for Sino-India relations as just in 2018; the two sides maintained strategic communication. The two leaders met several times for high-level meetings in an effort to build bridges on areas of dispute as well as to strengthen the mutual desire for commensurate growth and development. 2019 may even bring greater areas of convergence for Sino-India relations especially if the US protectionist agenda persists, and with the ‘spirit of Wuhan’ working well for the two countries it is doubtful whether there would be any major trepidation.
*Carter Chapwanya is a published author and currently a Political Science PhD candidate at Shandong University
Making Globalization Work: Climate, Inclusiveness and International Governance Top Agenda of the WEF 2019
The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2019 will take place on 22-25 January in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. The meeting brings together...
How Has the Purpose(s) of American Higher Education Changed Over Time, and Why?
Initially, universities and colleges have been founded on three central promises such as (a) teaching, (b) public services, and (c)...
Corporate tax remains a key revenue source, despite falling rates worldwide
Taxes paid by companies remain a key source of government revenues, especially in developing countries, despite the worldwide trend of...
The Endless Debate about Russia’s Policy in Africa
Early March 2018, Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Hommes d’Afrique magazine that “our African friends...
Science and society: Mind the gap
International regulations are failing to keep up with the mind-boggling pace of new scientific discoveries and potential “cowboy” applications. As...
Is Haiti better prepared for disasters, nine years on from the 2010 earthquake?
Half a capital city destroyed, 220,000 reported dead and 1 million residents displaced. This was the toll of the 2010...
The Rise of Far Right Populism in Europe Ahead of EU Elections
Authors: Punsara Amarasinghe and Eshan Jayawardane* Populism in Europe as a civilizational legacy has a deeply rooted history which dates...
- Centre and Calm Yourself and Spirit on Restorative Yoga Energy Trail
- Queen Rania of Jordan Wears Ralph & Russo Ready-To-Wear
- OMEGA watches land on-screen in Universal Pictures’ new film First Man
- Experience the Prada Parfum’s Way of Travelling at Qatar Duty Free
- ‘Get Carried Away’ With Luxurious Villa Stays and Complimentary Private Jet Flights
Tech News2 days ago
Report: Deloitte named a global leader in Internet of Things
Middle East3 days ago
Managing minefields: Saudi/UAE aid puts Pakistan-Iran relations on the spot
Americas3 days ago
The Secret Logistics of America’s Global Deep State
Southeast Asia2 days ago
France returns to Laos
South Asia2 days ago
CPSEC: The Saudi addition to CPEC
Reports3 days ago
Global Economic Prospects: Middle East and North Africa
Energy2 days ago
Gender equality for an inclusive energy transition
Reports2 days ago
Global Commission Describes New Geopolitical Power Dynamics Created by Renewables