First of all, it is necessary to be aware that the Afghan Taliban should not be confused with the Tehrik-Taliban in Pakistan. Literally speaking, the term of the Taliban refers to students or seekers of Sharia law. As one of the prominent factions emerged during the Afghan civil war after the Soviet withdrawal from the country, the Taliban took power in 1996 and then founded the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in Kandahar which was its capital until 2001.
In foreign affairs where sovereign states react with each other in a diplomatic system, the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was essentially isolated from international system except only three countries recognizing it. China did suspend its diplomatic presence in Afghanistan since the Taliban regime was condemned internationally for the harsh-enforcement of their interpretation of Islamic law which resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans including women and children.
In November 2001, after the “9.11 terror attack” upon the United States, the U.S.-led allies decisively toppled the Taliban and forced them to retreat to the border areas but continued fighting against them as the insurgents. When the provisional government was created in 2002, Beijing first restored normal contacts with Kabul, and the bilateral relations between the two sides moved forward steadily with China’s support to Afghanistan financially and politically. Yet during the years of 2002-14, China politically maintained a low profile in Afghanistan even though it had unofficial ties with the Taliban reportedly from the Foreign Ministry of Afghanistan.
By 2014, as the U.S.-led forces began to withdraw from the country, China became “an active and enthusiastic supporter of reconciliation between the Taliban and the Afghan government through working with Pakistan. At first, China’s mediation efforts in Afghanistan began as the Istanbul Process (also known as the Heart of Asia) in Beijing, to reconcile the Afghan government and the Taliban. Since then, China continued its mediations between the warring parties through bilateral and multilateral channels. Some scholars argued that direct mediation between the warring parties in Afghanistan “marks a departure for China since it had previously preferred to exert influence on Afghanistan indirectly through Pakistan.” Now China held talks on peace processes with Afghanistan bilaterally and multilaterally like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
The Taliban’s official visit to Beijing began in late 2014 to explore mutual understandings with each other on the world issues. Later China made a series of efforts to meet with Afghan government officials and the Taliban regularly. In addition, Chinese FM Wang Yi made his debut visit to Kabul in 2015 which was followed by the second visit to Beijing by the Taliban delegates in the same year and the next. As a senior official of the Taliban said “they like to keep China informed of the occupation by invading forces and their atrocities on Afghan people […] expecting the Chinese leadership to help us raise these issues on world forums and assist us to get freedom from occupying forces.”
Meanwhile, China used multilateral institutions to mediate between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The Istanbul Process is not the only one case because it followed the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) of which China became a member in 2016 along with Afghanistan, Pakistan and the U.S.; Russia–China–Pakistan Trilateral Dialogue and the SCO particularly. All shared the vision that the Afghan peace and reconciliation process must be an “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” solution which was initially proposed by China. More changes can be seen later in China’s acting as “the honest broker” between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the first trilateral foreign minister dialogues for Pakistan is the key to address counter-terrorism in the Pakistan–Afghan border regions.
China’s approach to the Afghanistan issue aims to claim four objectives: to advance an “Afghan-led” and “Afghan-owned” reconciliation process; to set up inclusive political reconciliation agenda; to insure counter-terrorism capability and combating extreme terrorist forces; and to maintain communication and coordination with the other major players involving the Afghanistan issue. The Taliban has been regarded by China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran, not mention of some states in the Middle East, as a political and military force in Afghan politics. This is a positive step forward not only in bringing peace and security to Afghanistan, but also securing the stability of the region which is pivotal to CPEC’s success and the entire BRI as well.
On July 28, China offered the Taliban a high-profile public forum in Tianjin, a city close to Beijing, declaring that the group that swiftly took back large parts of Afghanistan would play an “important role in the process of peaceful reconciliation and reconstruction” of the country. During the meeting, Chinese FM Wang Yi met with the visiting delegation led by head of the Afghan Taliban Political Commission Mullah Ghani Baradar in China. There are three key points worth noting.
First, China reiterates that Afghanistan belongs to the Afghan people, and its future should be decided by its own people. Due to this, China holds that the Taliban is an important military and political force in Afghanistan which is expected to play a key role in rebuilding peace, reconciliation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Second, the Taliban agrees to observe the “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” principle in the peace and reconciliation process, and establish a broad and inclusive political structure that suits Afghanistan’s realities. Third, China warns that in light of the UN Security Council resolutions, the Taliban must make a clean break with all terrorist organizations including the ETIM and play a positive role in advancing common security, stability and development in the region.
Echoing his host’s concerns, Baradar assured China as a reliable friend of the Afghan people and commended China’s positive role in Afghan peaceful reconciliation process. He added that the Taliban have been ready to work with other parties to establish a political framework in Afghanistan, and vowed never to allow any force to use the Afghan territory to engage in acts detrimental to China which has been regarded as a key player in future nation-reconstruction and economic development. It concludes that China and the Taliban shared a consensus on a wide range of issues.
Since taking Kabul on August 15, the Taliban have become the most possible master in the post-U.S. Afghanistan. Now people have talked about that “The Taliban is back in power, as it was 20 years ago, but what has changed since then?” For the world generally and its neighbors particularly, a key question remains whether Islamist terrorists will again use Afghanistan as a base in the way al-Qaeda did in preparation for the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. two decades ago?
On August 16, the top diplomats of China and the United States held phone talks on the Afghanistan issues and China-U.S. relations. Both sides agreed that the Taliban must announce a clean break with extremism, opt for an orderly transfer of power and establish an inclusive government. They also admitted that the future of Afghanistan should be decided by its own people, calling on the Taliban to ensure the safety of all those who wish to leave the country. China vowed that it stands ready to have communication and dialogue with the United States along the international society to push for a soft landing of the Afghan issue, indicating a readiness to play a constructive role in securing Afghanistan stability and nation-rebuild peacefully.
China has paid close attention to a new Afghan government to be announced soon since its embassy in Kabul is a key channel for the contacts between China and the Taliban. Along with Russia, Pakistan, Iran and some other members of the SCO, China urges that Afghanistan will form an open and inclusive government framework, adopt moderate and prudent domestic and foreign policies, and severe ties with all terrorist organizations. Yet some western states are being delusional that it is they who will determine Taliban’s “legitimacy”. Recently, the Western countries have reiterated that the international community must see whether the Taliban’s statements about providing peace and security are backed up by action. Or the engagement with the Taliban will depend on the fulfillment of the conditions presented to them. Yet China has worked with Russia to demonstrate common opposition to any external pressures on the Taliban, as President Putin said that the western way of so-called “civilization” of other nations is wrong and its purpose is to control these countries under the pretext of promoting democracy.
In sum, the Taliban has welcomed bilateral friendly relations with China with a view to joining the Belt and Road Initiative. As a Czech scholar Josef Kraus said, it all really depends on the pragmatism within the movement of the Taliban, because they have declare to keep away the world’s jihadists from the Afghani territory. Yet, the issues could potentially rise if the extremists within the Taliban exercise pressure on the leadership for more radical actions. Strategically, China wants good relations with the new government and ensures the Taliban does not offer support to terrorists targeting its Xinjiang Uygur Region. As usual, China may handle the situation in a more diplomatic way than other nations potentially threatened by the rise of the Taliban in the region. Accordingly, China has called on an urgent economic and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, so as to make up for the huge damage done to the country’s social-economic development and people’s well-being for more than five decades.
This is the rationale that since the early 2000s, China has become increasingly active in conflict management and post-conflict reconstruction in several countries.
India’s Unclear Neighbourhood Policy: How to Overcome ?
India has witnessed multiple trends with regards to its relations with its neighbours at a time vaccine diplomacy is gaining prominence and Beijing increasing the pace towards becoming an Asian superpower, whereby making these reasons valid for New Delhi to have a clear foreign policy with respect to its neighbourhood.
The Covid Pandemic has led to increased uncertainty in the global order where it comes to power dynamics, role of international organisations. New Delhi has tried to leave no stone unturned when it comes to dealing with its immediate neighbours. It has distributed medical aid and vaccines to smaller countries to enhance its image abroad at a time it has witnessed conflicts with China and a change in government in Myanmar. These developments make it imperative for New Delhi to increase its focus on regionalism and further international engagement where this opportunity could be used tactically amidst a pandemic by using economic and healthcare aid.
According to Dr. Arvind Gupta, New Delhi has to deal with threats coming from multiple fronts and different tactics where it is essential for New Delhi to save energy using soft means rather than coercive measures.. India under Vaccine Maitri has supplied many of COVAXIN doses to Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka where many have appreciated this move. The urgency of ensuring humanitarian aid during these periods of unprecedented uncertainty are essential in PM Modi’s Security and Growth For All ( SAGAR) initiative, which focusses on initiating inclusive growth as well as cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region.
This pandemic witnessed various threats coming in India’s neighbourhood through multiple dimensions which include maritime, land, cyber as well as air threats where adversaries are using these to put pressure on New Delhi to settle land as well as marine disputes as per their terms. These encirclement strategies have made it necessary for India to open up various options such as holding maritime joint exercises with like-minded countries, developing partnerships, providing economic as well as healthcare support to weaker countries plus having a clear insight about changing global dynamics and acting as per them.
This piece will discuss about various changing tactics, pros and cons which India has with respect to developing its national security vis-à-vis its neighbourhood, why should it prioritise its neighbourhood at the first place?
India’s Neighbourhood is filled with many complexities and a lot of suspicion amongst countries, some viewing India because of its size and geography plus economic clout as a bully where it is wanting to dominate in the region putting others aside. This led to New Delhi play an increased role in nudging ties first with its neighbours with whom it had multiple conflicts as well as misunderstandings leading to the latter viewing Beijing as a good alternative in order to keep India under check.
Ever since PM Modi has taken charge at 7 RCR, India’s Neighbourhood First Policy has been followed increasingly to develop relations, to enhance understandings and ensure mutual cooperation as well as benefit with its neighbours. The relations with Islamabad have not seen so much improvement as compared to other leaders in the past. Even though former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was invited for PM Modi’s 1st Swearing In ceremony in 2014, terrorist activities have never stopped which could be seen through Pathankot, Uri and Pulwama terror attacks which killed many of the Indian soldiers. Even though surgical strikes were conducted on terror camps in retaliation to these bombardments, Islamabad has not changed its heart at all about its security or regional demands. New strategies and friendships are being developed where Beijing has played a major role in controlling power dynamics.
The Belt and Road initiative, first time mentioned during President Xi’s 2013 speech in Kazakhstan, then officially in 2015, lays emphasis of achieving a Chinese Dream of bringing countries under one umbrella, ensuring their security, providing them with infrastructure projects such as ports, railways, pipelines, highways etc. The main bottleneck is the China Pakistan Economic Corridor when it comes to India’s security threats, passing through disputed boundaries of Gilgit and Baltistan in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir till Gwadar. Other projects have been initiated in Chittagong, Hambantota, Gwadar , Kyapkyou. These projects form a String Of Pearls in the Indo Pacific where New Delhi is being balanced against through economic plus development incentives being given to the member countries under the project. That’s why in the recent past, New Delhi is asserting its influence in the region, looking at new dimensional threats where Beijing’s threats in the maritime domain in the islands in East as well as South China seas are not being seen favourably in many countries such as ASEAN, US, Australia and Japan which is giving India an opportunity to look towards countries with a common threat. Amidst this great power struggle between Washington and Beijing, New Delhi is stuck between a rock and hard place i.e., having a clear and strong foreign policy with its neighbours.
In this region, India has a sole threat which is mainly Beijing where the latter has achieved prowess technologically and militarily where New Delhi lags behind the latter twenty fold. So, there is a need for improvising military technology, increase economic activities with countries, reduce dependence on foreign aid, ensure self-reliance.
South Asia is backward when it comes to economic development, human development and is a home to majority of the world’s population which lives below poverty line. The colonial rule has left a never-ending impact on divisions based on communal, linguistic and ethnic grounds. Even, in terms of infrastructure and connectivity, New Delhi lags behind Beijing significantly in the neighbourhood because the latter is at an edge when it comes to bringing countries under the same umbrella. Due to these, many initiatives have been taken up by New Delhi on developing infrastructure, providing humanitarian aid to needy countries.
There have been numerous efforts made by India with respect to reaching out to the Neighbours in 2020 through setting up of the SAARC Covid Fund where many Neighbourhood countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka gave contributions to ensure cooperation, joint scientific research, sharing information, healthcare kits where the countries contributed USD $ 18 million jointly towards this fund where New Delhi made an initial offer of USD $ 10 million.
New Delhi has even mustered ties with the Association of Southeast Asian countries during the pandemic under its Act East Policy where proper connectivity through the Northeast could be useful in easing movement of goods but currently, the infrastructure in Northeast needs more improvement where issues such as unemployment, poor connectivity are prevalent whereby disconnecting it from rest of the other states. This region could play an important role in linking Bangladesh, Myanmar to New Delhi along with the proposed India-Thailand –Myanmar Trilateral Corridor. Focus has also been laid to develop inland waterways, rail links and pipelines to ease connections between countries, making trade free and more efficient.
India is focussing on developing the Sittwe and Paletwa ports in Myanmar under the Kaladan Development Corridor, at the cost of INR 517.9 Crore in order to provide an alternative e route beneficial for the Northeast for getting shipping access
These above developments and power display by a strong adversary, give good reasons for New Delhi to adopt collective security mechanisms through QUAD, SIMBEX and JIMEX with a common perception of having safe and open waters through abiding to the UNCLOS which China isn’t showing too much interest in, seen through surveillance units, artificial islands being set up on disputed territories which countries likewise India are facing in context to territorial sovereignty and integrity. These developments make it important for India to look at strategic threats by coming together with countries based on similar interest’s vis-à-vis Chinese threat.
There is a need for India to develop and harness its strength through connectivity and its self reliance initiative ( Aatmanirbharta ) so that there is no dependence on any foreign power at times of need . Proper coordination between policy makers and government officials could make decision making even easier, which is not there completely because of ideological differences, different ideas which makes it important for the political leadership to coordinate with the military jointly during times of threats on borders. Self-reliance could only come through preparedness and strategy.
India is in big trouble as UK stands for Kashmiris
A London-based law firm has filed an application with British police seeking the arrest of India’s army chief and a senior Indian government official over their alleged roles in war crimes in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Law firm Stoke White said it submitted extensive evidence to the Metropolitan Police’s War Crimes Unit on Tuesday, documenting how Indian forces headed by General Manoj Mukund Naravane and Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah were responsible for the torture, kidnapping and killing of activists, journalists and civilians – particularly Muslim – in the region.
“There is strong reason to believe that Indian authorities are conducting war crimes and other violence against civilians in Jammu and Kashmir,” the report states, referring to the territory in the Himalayan region.
Based on more than 2,000 testimonies taken between 2020 and 2021, the report also accused eight unnamed senior Indian military officials of direct involvement in war crimes and torture in Kashmir.
The law firm’s investigation suggested that the abuse has worsened during the coronavirus pandemic. It also included details about the arrest of Khurram Parvez, the region’s most prominent rights activist, by India’s counterterrorism authorities last year.
“This report is dedicated to the families who have lost loved ones without a trace, and who experience daily threats when trying to attain justice,” Khalil Dewan, author of the report and head of the SWI unit, said in a statement.
“The time has now come for victims to seek justice through other avenues, via a firmer application of international law.”
The request to London police was made under the principle of “universal jurisdiction”, which gives countries the authority to prosecute individuals accused of crimes against humanity committed anywhere in the world.
The international law firm in London said it believes its application is the first time that legal action has been initiated abroad against Indian authorities over alleged war crimes in Kashmir.
Hakan Camuz, director of international law at Stoke White, said he hoped the report would convince British police to open an investigation and ultimately arrest the officials when they set foot in the UK.
Some of the Indian officials have financial assets and other links to Britain.
“We are asking the UK government to do their duty and investigate and arrest them for what they did based on the evidence we supplied to them. We want them to be held accountable,” Camuz said.
The police application was made on behalf of the family of Pakistani prisoner Zia Mustafa, who, Camuz said, was the victim of extrajudicial killing by Indian authorities in 2021, and on behalf of human rights campaigner Muhammad Ahsan Untoo, who was allegedly tortured before his arrest last week.
Tens of thousands of civilians, rebels and government forces have been killed in the past two decades in Kashmir, which is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed by both in its entirety.
Muslim Kashmiris mostly support rebels who want to unite the region, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.
Kashmiris and international rights groups have long accused Indian troops of carrying out systematic abuse and arrests of those who oppose rule from New Delhi.
Rights groups have also criticized the conduct of armed groups, accusing them of carrying out human rights violations against civilians.
In 2018, the United Nations human rights chief called for an independent international investigation into reports of rights violations in Kashmir, alleging “chronic impunity for violations committed by security forces”.
India’s government has denied the alleged rights violations and maintains such claims are separatist propaganda meant to demonize Indian troops in the region. It seems, India is in big trouble and may not be able to escape this time. A tough time for Modi-led extremist government and his discriminatory policies. The world opinion about India has been changed completely, and it has been realized that there is no longer a democratic and secular India. India has been hijacked by extremist political parties and heading toward further bias policies. Minorities may suffer further, unless the world exert pressure to rectify the deteriorating human rights records in India.
S. Jaishankar’s ‘The India Way’, Is it a new vision of foreign policy?
S. Jaishankar has had an illustrious Foreign Service career holding some of the highest and most prestigious positions such as ambassador to China and the US and as foreign secretary of India. Since 2019 he has served as India’s foreign minister. S. Jaishankar also has a Ph.D. in international relations from JNU and his academic background is reflected in this book.
His main argument is simplistic, yet the issues involved are complex. Jaishankar argues that the world is changing fundamentally, and the international environment is experiencing major shifts in power as well as processes. China is rising and western hegemony is declining. We are moving away from a unipolar system dominated by the US to a multipolar system. Globalization is waning and nationalism and polarization is on the rise (p. 29). The old order is going away but we cannot yet glimpse what the future will look like. This is the uncertain world that Dr. Jaishankar sees.
Dr. Jaishankar also argues that India too has changed, it is more capable and more assertive. The liberalization program that began in 1991 has made the Indian economy vibrant and globally competitive and it is well on track to becoming the third biggest economy in the world, after China and the US. The war of 1971 that liberated Bangladesh, the liberalization of the economy after 1991, the nuclear tests in 1998 and the nuclear understanding with the US in 2005, Jaishankar argues are landmarks in India’s strategic evolution (p. 4). So given that both India and the system have changed, Jaishankar concludes, so should India’s foreign policy.
But his prescription for India’s foreign policy, in the grand scheme of things, is the same as before – India should remain nonaligned and not join the US in its efforts to contain China. India will try to play with both sides it seems in order to exploit the superpowers and maximize its own interests (p. 9). But he fails to highlight how India can find common ground with China other than to say the two nations must resolve things diplomatically. He also seems to think that the US has infinite tolerance for India’s coyness. In his imagination the US will keep making concessions and India will keep playing hard to get.
Jaishankar has a profound contradiction in his thinking. He argues that the future will be determined by what happens between the US and China. In a way he is postulating a bipolar future to global politics. But he then claims that the world is becoming multipolar and this he claims will increase the contests for regional hegemony. The world cannot be both bipolar and multipolar at the same time.
There is also a blind spot in Jaishankar’s book. He is apparently unaware of the rise of Hindu nationalism and the demand for a Hindu state that is agitating and polarizing India’s domestic politics. The systematic marginalization and oppression of Muslim minorities at home and the growing awareness overseas of the dangers of Hindutva extremism do not exist in the world that he lives in. He misses all this even as he goes on to invoke the Mahabharata and argue how Krishna’s wisdom and the not so ethical choices during the war between Pandavas and Kauravas should be a guide for how India deals with this uncertain world – by balancing ethics with realism (p. 63). Methinks his little digression in discussing the ancient Hindu epic is more to signal his ideological predilections than to add any insights to understanding the world or India’s place in it.
One aspect of his work that I found interesting is his awareness of the importance of democracy and pluralism. He states that India’s democracy garners respect and gives India a greater opportunity to be liked and admired by other nations in the world (p. 8). Yet recently when he was asked about the decline of India’s democratic credentials, his response was very defensive, and he showed visible signs of irritation. It is possible that he realizes India is losing ground internationally but is unwilling to acknowledge that his political party is responsible for the deterioration of India’s democracy.
This is also apparent when he talks about the importance of India improving its relations with its immediate neighbors. He calls the strategy as neighborhood first approach (pp. 9-10). What he does not explain is how an Islamophobic India will maintain good relations with Muslim majority neighbors like Bangladesh, Maldives, and Pakistan.
The book is interesting, it has its limitations and both, what is addressed and what is left out, are clearly political choices and provide insights into how New Delhi thinks about foreign policy. So, coming to the question with which we started, does India have a new foreign policy vision? The answer is no. Dr. Jaishankar is right, there is indeed an India way, but it is the same old way, and it entails remaining nonaligned with some minor attitudinal adjustments.
Bringing dry land in the Sahel back to life
Millions of hectares of farmland are lost to the desert each year in Africa’s Sahel region, but the UN Food...
“Kurdish Spring”: drawing to a close?
For decades, the Kurdish problem was overshadowed by the Palestinian one, occasionally popping up in international media reports following the...
Great powers rivalry in Central Asia: New strategy, old game
In international politics, interstate rivalry involves conflicting relations between two international rivalries that are nation states. A fundamental feature of...
How UNEP is helping education systems go green
The world is facing a three-pronged environmental crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste. To...
South Africa’s Covid-19 Response Gets a $750 Million Boost
The World Bank Group Board of Executive Directors today approved South Africa’s request for a $750 million development policy loan...
Urgent action needed to protect Vietnamese workers trafficked to Serbia
Urgent action is required to assist and protect some 400 Vietnamese migrant workers who were allegedly trafficked to Serbia, experts...
Introducing India’s first ever diving grant
Mumbai-based Vidhi Bubna, the founder of ‘Coral Warriors’, India’s first ever diving grant, is a keen humanitarian and is passionate...
Crypto Insights4 days ago
The First Crypto Mortgage: Bitcoin Continues to Rapidly Expand Across the US Markets
Middle East4 days ago
Iraq: Three Years of Drastic Changes (2019-2022)
Defense3 days ago
In 2022, military rivalry between powers will be increasingly intense
South Asia2 days ago
India is in big trouble as UK stands for Kashmiris
East Asia2 days ago
The Global (Dis) Order Warfare: The Chinese Way
Crypto Insights3 days ago
The Subtle Dominance of Stablecoins: A Ruse of Stability
Central Asia3 days ago
Unrest in Kazakhstan Only Solidifies China-Russia Ties
East Asia3 days ago
Rebuilding the World Order