Badri 313 outfit of Taliban providing security at Kabul airport

Taliban-linked social media accounts claim that members of the group’s Badri 313 outfit are providing security at Kabul international airport. Badri 313 is a Special Forces wing of the Taliban’s army. 

It has been responsible for some of the group’s key battlefield successes and has also conducted complex “martyrdom” (suicide) operations.

Photos posted on Taliban-associated feeds purportedly show Badri 313 units in and around the airport in Kabul. It is not clear how many of the group’s men are there.

The Haqqani Network, which plays an integral role in the Taliban’s political and military command structure, has long advertised the operations carried out by its special forces in the “Badri Army.”

In February 2020, for instance, the Haqqani’s Manba Al Jihad media arm released a video entitled, “Badri Strike.” The production was posted online just weeks before the Trump administration entered into a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban in Doha.

“Badri Strike” contains clips of President Trump saying that “the American people are weary of war without victory.” Trump continued: “Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history, 17 years.” The video’s producers say America and its allies in Kabul have been defeated.

The video’s narrator states that whereas the US once declared the Taliban to be “terrorists,” it was forced to negotiate with the jihadists. The talks are portrayed as a clear victory for the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate, which the narrator holds up as an example for other Muslim groups around the world. The production also places the impending return of the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate in the context of Muslims’ quest to restore an Islamic caliphate to power. In other words, the Taliban was anticipating a complete victory in the months to come.

A key ideologue featured in “Badri Strike” is Ustadh Mohammad Yasir, a dual-hatted Taliban-Al Qaeda figure. Yasir reportedly died in 2012 under somewhat murky circumstances. 

He had been arrested by Pakistani forces several years before. Yasir was a key ideologue for al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yasir appeared in al Qaeda’s media, including an interview with As Sahab. Ayman al-Zawahiri honored Yasir in a talk released on the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Zawahiri recounted a meeting between Yasir and bin Laden in the Tora Bora Mountains in late 2001, during which the pair discussed the 9/11 hijackings.

The archival audio of Yasir included in “Badri Strike” is therefore telling. It demonstrates that the special forces wing of the Taliban is drawing from the same ideological well as al Qaeda. In the brief clip, Yasir explains the supposed virtues of martyrdom.

“This is the blessing of your sacrifices, blood and martyrs,” Yasir says in the clip included in “Badri Strike.” Yasir goes on: “Martyrs in every nation are like candles. It burns its own self, but lightens the darknesses, it burns its own self, but gives light to others. Similarly, if your martyrs have sacrificed and burnt their lives (for Allah SWT), they have also brightened the house of Islam.”

Much of “Badri Strike” is devoted to glorifying the team of jihadists responsible for the November 2018 attack on a G4S compound in Kabul. G4S is a British security and intelligence firm. “Badri Strike” documents the meticulous planning and training that went into the complicated suicide operation. A team of Badri 313 commandos received elite training in small arms beforehand. They infiltrated the compound after one of their comrades detonated a large vehicle bomb outside.

Commander Pakistan Navy visits Tehran

Admiral Mohammad Amjad Khan Niazi, Commander Pakistan Navy, visited Tehran on Saturday and was officially welcomed by his Iranian counterpart Shahram Irani. Admiral Niazi is visiting Iran upon the official invitation of the Iranian Navy commander.

The two commanders discussed a range of issues including expanding military relations, deepening ties in the sea, protecting regional security, and using military experience in undertaking missions and safeguarding the two neighboring countries’ national interests at the sea.

On the sideline of the meeting, Iranian and Pakistani navy commanders also paid tribute to the anonymous martyrs of the eight-year Sacred Defense buried in the National Museum of the Islamic Revolution and Holy Defense and then made a tour at the museum.

Iran refers to resistance against the invading Saddam Army in the 1980s as Sacred Defense.

Admiral Irani said that Iran and Pakistan could serve together as a powerful arm for ensuring regional security. 
  
Referring to strategic relations between the naval forces of Iran and Pakistan, the commander said that the two forces have staged different joint naval maneuvers over the past years.

He also called for efforts by the naval forces of both countries to establish security, particularly in the Northern Indian Ocean.

Iranian and Pakistani naval forces have in recent years promoted cooperation and staged several joint drills in the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman.

In April, a flotilla of the Pakistani Navy berthed at Iran’s southern port city of Bandar Abbas and held a joint war game in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman with the Iranian units.

The Pakistani Navy commander is scheduled to visit Iran’s northern fleet deployed at coasts of the Caspian Sea.

China to be the first major power to recognize new Afghan regime

I request all the readers of my blog to read this article written by Admiral James Stavridis. He was 16th Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and 12th Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He spent the bulk of his operational career in the Pacific, and is author of "2034: A Novel of the Next World War."

For most of the 19th century, the Russian and British empires contended over Afghanistan in what was known as the Great Game.

The geopolitical competition recognized the strategic position of Afghanistan, and its potential to influence what is today Pakistan and India. Both the Brits and the Russians, of course, were defeated over time in Afghanistan, the so-called "graveyard of empires."

Today, following the spectacular collapse of the American-trained Afghan army, the triumph of Taliban and the humiliating withdrawal under combat conditions of the remnants of the US diplomatic mission, Afghanistan seemingly reverts to 2001 ‑ run by hardline religious zealots determined to follow strict Shariah law. Will anything change, and a new Great Game emerging?

Stavridis believes, Taliban 2.0 will not be kinder or gentler to their own citizens, they have probably learned that allowing their nation to serve as a base for international terrorist operations can lead to twenty years in the wilderness or in this case, the mountains of Pakistan. Likely they will be less interested in spreading jihad globally than in simply dominating the fractious Afghan nation.

That will not be easy. There are still regional warlords, especially in the north, which will not willingly bend a knee to the Taliban for long. Likewise, there are restive ethnic elements in the Afghan population - notably the Tajiks and Hazaras - who have no love for what they see as Pashtun fanatics from Kandahar. Afghanistan has a long and rich tradition of internal squabbling once an external foe is ejected.

All of which brings us to the role other major nations will play in Afghanistan now that the US has folded its tents and flown away into the night. The sudden shock to the system regionally is palpable. Other Asian nations, including China, Russian, India, Pakistan and Iran, all have interests that will drive events going forward.

China is clearly positioning itself to be a major international partner to the Taliban. They could care less about human or gender rights in Afghanistan, and will only want to consolidate a dominant position in regard to the US$2 trillion worth of rare earths - most notably lithium. As China seeks to consolidate as much control as they can over strategic supply chains for everything from microchips to electric car batteries, they want primacy in Kabul -- and will be the first major nation to recognize the new regime.

For Pakistan, this is a moment of triumph. They have assiduously supported the Taliban for the past two decades, both to control terrorist groups that occasionally threaten Pakistan and to deny India a foothold in a country on the other side of their border. Closely aligned with China internationally, they will seek to partner with the Chinese in exploiting the mineral wealth and blocking India from a role with the Taliban regime. Pakistan also wants a certain level of stability to avoid mass illegal migration, something they have dealt with repeatedly from Afghanistan.

Russia has a different set of interests than the China-Pakistan axis. They seek first and foremost a stable situation that can reduce the propensity for radical Islamic terrorism exported north through the former republics of the old Soviet Union.

And while Putin is always happy to see the US receive a black eye, the Russians are also hopeful that the Taliban can be encouraged to exert a higher level of control over the massive heroin production - much of which ends up in the arms of young Russians and other Europeans. Look for Russia to quickly recognize the Taliban, ignore any human or gender rights violations, and offer modest assistance in return for stability and at least some level of reduction in the narcotics trade.

To the west, Iran has had a fractious relationship with the Taliban in the past. Taliban are Sunni and the Iranians, of course, are Shia. Overall, the Iranians are thrilled with the ejection of the US from bases on their border and will place a premium on how the Pashtun Taliban treat the Tajiks, who are linguistically connected to the Iranians and constitute almost a third of the nation's population. In the west around Herat and in the north surrounding Mazar-e-Sharif, the Iranians will strengthen commercial relationships and seek amicable relations with the new government.

Perhaps the most interesting role may be played by India. The Indians have long sought relationships in Afghanistan, both for the commercial potential of the nation and to put pressure on Pakistan. China will do all it can, in concert with Pakistan, to foreclose any Indian influence in Kabul -- which had grown significantly under Ashraf Ghani's presidency.

Finally, while the US has departed Afghanistan, it will seek to maintain intelligence overwatch through satellite surveillance; clandestine CIA operations; cooperating with other nations who continue to maintain embassies there; monitoring cyber and cellphone intelligence; and building human networks.

NATO and other US allies will operate around the edge. But for the moment, the dominant forces in Afghanistan will be from the neighborhood -- notably led by China. Thus the Great Game continues, but the players are all locals.

Kamala Harris getting ready to visit Asia

US Vice President, Kamala Harris's trip to Singapore and Vietnam starting on Sunday will show that the United States is in the region "to stay," a senior administration official said, as Washington seeks to bolster international support to counter China's growing global influence.

Harris will be the most senior US official to visit the region since President Joe Biden took office in January promising to shore up alliances, which the United States considers key to checking Chinese expansion.

A senior White House official told Reuters earlier this month that the vice president's focus would be on defending international rules in the South China Sea, strengthening US regional leadership and expanding security cooperation in the region.

"The administration is ... making clear that we have an enduring commitment to this region, that we're part of the Indo-Pacific and in the region to stay," the official said.

The trip coincides with chaos in Afghanistan following Biden's decision to withdraw US troops after a 20-year war, the planning of which has been criticized at home and abroad.

The official said Harris would continue to work on issues tied to Afghanistan while on her Asia trip.

"It's been an overwhelming focus and priority of the whole team including the vice president ... at the same time; it is also true that Southeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific are really important. And that's why she's going," the official added.

Harris is due in Singapore on Sunday. She will be the first US vice president to visit Vietnam and arrives in the country on Tuesday and departs next Thursday.

During her trip, Harris will meet Singapore's President Halimah Yacob, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and deliver remarks on a US combat ship visiting Singapore. She will also hold a meeting to discuss supply chain issues with representatives from the private sector and government.

In Hanoi, Vietnam, Harris will meet with leaders including President Ngyuen Xuan Phuc and Prime Minister Pham Ming Chinh and lead the US delegation in launching a regional office for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The visit to Southeast Asia will be Harris' second foreign trip as vice president. In June, she went to Guatemala and Mexico for meetings on the "root causes" of the migrant crisis at the US-Mexico border.

Who is Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar?

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Taliban’s top political leader, who made a triumphal return to Afghanistan this week, battled the US and its allies for decades but then signed a landmark peace agreement with the Trump administration.

Baradar is now expected to play a key role in negotiations between the Taliban and officials from the Afghan government that the group deposed in its blitz across the country. Taliban say they seek an “inclusive, Islamic” government and claim they have become more moderate since they last held power.

But many remain skeptical, and all eyes are now on Baradar, who has said little about how the group will govern but has proven pragmatic in the past.

Baradar’s biography charts the arc of the Taliban’s journey from an Islamic militia that battled warlords during the civil war in the 1990s, ruled the country in accordance with a strict interpretation of Islamic law and then waged a two-decade insurgency against the US. His experience also sheds light on the Taliban’s complicated relationship with Pakistan.

Baradar is the only surviving Taliban leader to have been personally appointed deputy by the late Taliban commander Mullah Mohammed Omar, giving Baradar near-legendary status within the movement. He is far more visible than the Taliban’s current supreme leader, Maulawi Hibatullah Akhunzada.

On Tuesday, Baradar landed in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban movement he helped found in the mid-1990s. Ending 20 years of exile, he was thronged by well-wishers as he stepped off a Qatari government aircraft and drove off in a convoy.

Baradar, who is in his early 50s, was born in the southern Uruzgan province. Like others who would eventually become Taliban leaders, he joined the ranks of the CIA- and Pakistan-backed Mujahideen to fight against the Soviet Union during its decade long occupation of the country that ended in 1989.

In the 1990s, the country slid into civil war, with rival Mujahideen battling one another and carving out fiefdoms. Warlords set up brutal protection rackets and checkpoints in which their forces shook down travelers to fund their military activities.

In 1994, Mullah Omar, Baradar and others founded Taliban, which means religious students. The group mainly consisted of clerics and young, pious men, many of whom had been driven from their homes and had known only war. Their unsparing interpretation of Islam unified their ranks and set them apart from the notoriously corrupt warlords.

Baradar fought alongside Mullah Omar as he led Taliban through its seizure of power in 1996 and its return to an insurgency following the 2001 US-led invasion.

During the group’s 1996-2001 rule, the president and governing council were based in Kabul. But Baradar spent most of his time in Kandahar, the spiritual capital of Taliban, and did not have an official government role.

The US invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, which had been planned and carried out by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida while it was sheltering under Taliban rule. Baradar, Omar and other Taliban leaders fled into neighboring Pakistan.

In the ensuing years, the Taliban were able to organize a potent insurgency based in rugged and semi-autonomous tribal areas along the border. Baradar was arrested in Pakistan’s southern city of Karachi in 2010 in a joint raid by the CIA and Pakistan’s counterterrorism forces.

At the time, he had been making peace overtures to Afghanistan’s then-President Hamid Karzai, but the US was bent on military victory and it appeared that Pakistan wanted to ensure control over any political process. Baradar’s removal empowered more radical leaders within the Taliban who were less open to diplomacy.

Karzai later confirmed the overtures to The Associated Press and said he had twice asked the Americans and the Pakistanis to free Baradar but was rebuffed. Baradar himself refused an offer of release in 2013, apparently because the US and Pakistan conditioned it on his cooperation.

Karzai, who is now involved in talks with the Taliban about shaping the next government, could once again find himself negotiating with Baradar.

By 2018, Taliban had seized effective control over much of Afghanistan’s countryside. The Trump administration, looking for a way out of America’s longest war, persuaded Pakistan to release Baradar that year and began pursuing peace talks with Taliban.

Baradar led the Taliban’s negotiating team in Qatar through several rounds of those talks, culminating in a February 2020 peace agreement. He also met with then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Under the deal, the Taliban agreed to halt attacks on international forces and prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for terror groups in return for a full U.S. withdrawal, now planned for the end of the month.

Last week, Taliban pushed into the country’s cities, seizing nearly all of the country in matter of days and then rolled virtually unopposed into the capital, Kabul.

In his first comment after the capture of Kabul on Sunday, Baradar acknowledged his surprise, saying that “it was never expected that we will have victory in Afghanistan.”

Wearing a black turban and vest over a white robe, the bespectacled Baradar looked straight into the camera.

“Now comes the test,” he said. “We must meet the challenge of serving and securing our nation, and giving it a stable life going forward.”

Fall of Kabul and implications for Pakistan economy

Taliban which had been making rapid advances across Afghanistan in the wake of US evacuation, were finally able to take control of the capital, Kabul, in what was a rather swift, seamless and somewhat peaceful transition. The development finally puts an end to the uncertainty over the political future of Afghanistan.

In contrast to what had been feared, Taliban seek to present a moderate face by offering general amnesty to masses, preserving the infrastructure deployed in the past 20 years while remaining mostly in compliance with agreements forged with the international community, opening up possibility of international recognition of the new political setup. Further, China, Pakistan and Iran are on the same page on maintaining stability in the Afghanistan region.

Rise of new power in Afghanistan

Major regional powers, China, Iran and Pakistan have all showed a willingness to work with the new setup in Afghanistan and help maintain peace in the region. The geographical and political dynamics have changed significantly since the last time Taliban government was in power in Afghanistan with China establishing its strong presence in the region through economic corridors in Pakistan and also in Iran.

The economic corridors in Pakistan and Iran connect landlocked Afghanistan and the central Asian Republics to the sea ports, thus giving them access to global markets. The integrated economic interests of major powers in the region will help bring these players closer and work together and potentially bring peace and economic prosperity in the region.

Implications for Pakistan

From Pakistan’s vantage the peaceful transition has so far has ended concerns for a civil war that could have resulted in unrest on Pakistan’s western border, increasing law and order risks and potentially putting projects under CPEC into jeopardy. Moreover, the threat of an influx of refugees that could further put pressure on already strained fiscal side has been allayed, somewhat.

Further, with Pakistan likely being the preferred partner for the west amongst the Russia-China-Pakistan-Iran quartet to keep its influence, strengthening of relationship could unlock some concessions in med-to-long run while improving prospects of Pakistan’s status with global agencies (IMF, FATF etc.).

Pakistan’s net trade for FY21 with Afghanistan is reported around US$804 million mostly consisting of food related items while cements, pharma, and aluminum cans (PABC) occupy a minimal share. Analysts do not expect any material impact on cements given the strong robust domestic demand and coal alternatively imported through sea while PABC could witness neutral to negative impact given Afghanistan occupying a significant share in sales mix. The company has ventured into other markets to neutralize the impact. Lastly, with the tight border controls in the near term, Pakistan could witness inflow of smuggled products subsiding, opening up prospects for local players (such as in auto parts tyres, and consumer items).

Investment perspective

The fall of Kabul in the hands of Taliban may not turn out to be as negative as feared earlier, especially if the major powers in the region show willingness to work together. Though, still early at this point, a stable and peaceful Afghanistan will have positive spillover effects for Pakistan and the region at large. The potential positive idiosyncrasies related to lasting peace in the region may help expand market multiples in the medium and long term.

What next in Afghanistan?

The Taliban’s swift takeover of Afghanistan has set off a chain reaction of chaos just two weeks before the US was set to officially withdraw the last of its troops in the country.

The fall of Kabul on Sunday came after a week of lightning-fast territorial gains and crumbling government forces that could not hold off the Islamist group that ruled Afghanistan before the arrival of American forces in 2001. Americans, as well as Afghan civilians who worked with the US government, are now scrambling to get out of the country.

While President Biden is standing by his decision to withdraw US troops, he acknowledged Monday that the situation “did unfold more quickly than we’d anticipated.”

Here are the five takeaways from the collapse of the Afghan government and Taliban takeover:

Evacuation has turned desperate 

The scene at Kabul’s international airport descended into chaos Monday as military and civilian flights stalled on the tarmac when thousands of Afghan civilians flooded the runway in desperate search of a way out.

Photos and videos show people surrounding planes, with dozens of them clinging to a US C-17 transport aircraft or running beside it as it tried to take off. In another video, several Afghans were seen falling off the plane as it left the runway.

The surge of panicked civilians grew so quickly that the US military, in the midst of evacuating American personnel, had to halt flights for several hours.

The scene also prompted the Pentagon to send thousands more US troops to the country to help secure the airport, bumping the US military presence from 1,000 to 6,000 in a matter of days to support the evacuation.

At the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, all American personnel were evacuated, leaving unguarded a building that cost the United States nearly US$800 million to construct, according to the State Department. 

Elsewhere in the capital, Taliban fighters went door to door looking for any men who served in the Afghan Special Forces or helped the US military, Fox News reported.

The Taliban has said it would not interfere with US evacuation efforts, but that’s just one of many hurdles to getting tens of thousands of Afghan civilians out of the country. 

The US has pledged to assist more than 80,000 people who qualify for special immigrant visas meant to help Afghans, and their family members, who worked with the US government.

 “The idea that visa processing can provide protection as the country is crumbling and is now in the hands of the Taliban ignores the grim reality on the ground,” said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which will help resettle Afghan evacuees.

Afghan women, girls once more at risk 

The United States had long touted gains made in women's rights in Afghanistan as one of the main accomplishments in the country over the past two decades.

But the Taliban takeover means women and girls are once again at risk of losing their freedoms.

From 1996 to 2001, when the Taliban controlled the country and ruled with an extreme interpretation of Islamic law, women and girls were prohibited from attending school, working or leaving their homes unless accompanied by a man. Women were also prohibited from driving and required to cover most of their body, including their face.

Those who broke the rules were sometimes subjected to humiliation and public beatings.

On Monday, CNN’s Clarissa Ward reported that of the women she saw outside their homes in Kabul, many were dressed more conservatively than they were just a week ago.

Taliban leaders, during failed peace talks over the last several years, have assured Western officials that women would be given equal rights as granted by Islam, though many, including numerous US lawmakers, have expressed serious doubts.

“There must be an immediate expansion of the refugee program for Afghan women seeking asylum, whose lives are in jeopardy as the Taliban resumes control and turns back the clock on 20 years of progress for women’s rights. A failure to act now will seal their fate, and the generation of girls who grew up with freedoms, education and dreams of building their country’s future will die with them,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), said in a statement Monday.

In the Pentagon’s press briefing room on Monday afternoon, a female Afghan journalist became emotional over the Taliban takeover of her country and the fate of women and girls there. 

“I'm very upset today because Afghan women didn't expect that overnight all the Taliban [would come],” she said. “They took off my flag. ... Everybody is upset, especially women.”

China, Russia are prepared to move in

While the United States continues to pull out of Afghanistan, China and Russia appear ready to move in, signaling openness to working with the Taliban.

Zamir Kabulov, Moscow’s representative in Kabul, said Russia would not evacuate its embassy in Kabul and would “stay in contact” with Taliban officials in Doha “to work out a permanent mechanism of ensuring safety of our embassy.” 

China, meanwhile, which met with Taliban leaders last month in Beijing, called for a “smooth transition” in Afghanistan. The country also said it is willing to seek “good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation” with the Taliban, signaling it may recognize them as a legitimate government. 

It remains unclear how China's and Russia's approaches to Afghanistan could either hamper or bolster U.S. efforts in the region.

Biden on Monday said Beijing and Moscow “would love nothing more than for the United States to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing Afghanistan indefinitely.”

Terrorist groups have room to reemerge

The Pentagon is already warning that terrorist groups based in Afghanistan could regain footholds more quickly than expected with the Taliban back in control.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin wants to look at whether groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State will be able to strengthen after 20 years of being on the run, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Monday.

“The secretary certainly believes that in light of recent events that a reassessment of the possibilities for reconstitution of terrorist networks inside Afghanistan is warranted,” Kirby said.

But he added that “we’re in no position at this point just one day after the events in Kabul to make a firm judgment either way or what that's going to look like” and that it's “way too early to make assessments and judgments about what the counterterrorism threat” is going to be. 

Members of al Qaeda who participated in the 9/11 attacks had trained in Afghanistan, making the country a primary target after the terrorist attacks were carried out. 

Last week, thousands of Taliban, al Qaeda and ISIS prisoners were reportedly released from Bagram air base after the Taliban took over the hub of the US war effort.

Lawmakers have been dubious of the Biden administration’s ability to keep terrorists at bay without U.S. troops in the country. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said recently it “would be very very difficult” for Washington to do exactly that.

“I think Afghanistan is lost. Every terrorist around the world is cheering in Syria, in Yemen, in Africa. They've watched the Taliban ... defeat America in effect,” McConnell said during a press conference in Kentucky.

The region is on shakier ground 

The Taliban’s takeover means Afghan citizens are streaming across the border to neighboring countries, and beyond, to get out of the country through any means.

The humanitarian disaster, in which refugees have fled to countries such as Tajikistan, Turkey, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, has already led to strained U.S. relations with regional partners.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Sunday pledged to increase diplomatic and security efforts to prevent a rush of Afghan refugees into his country, warning that the Taliban’s takeover would mean a refugee crisis.

“Turkey is facing a growing migration wave of Afghans transiting through Iran,” Erdoğan said alongside Pakistan's president, Arif Alvi, who is also working to staunch the flow. “We will continue to make efforts to bring stability to the region, starting with Afghanistan.”

Additionally, the quick and chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan is likely to dent America's position on the world stage and undermine efforts to bolster democracy in the region.

Taliban Enter Afghan Capital Kabul

Taliban entered Afghanistan's capital Kabul on Sunday and said they expected to take power within days, promising to moderate their earlier hard-line Islamist rule even as foreign diplomats and many locals tried to leave. 

Taliban fighters were reaching the capital "from all sides", a senior Afghan interior ministry official told Reuters. However, there were no reports of fighting.

The group was in talks with the Western-backed government for a peaceful surrender, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said. "Taliban fighters are to be on standby on all entrances of Kabul until a peaceful and satisfactory transfer of power is agreed," he said in a statement.

Ali Ahmad Jalali, a US-based academic and former Afghan Interior Minister, could be named head of an interim administration in Kabul, three diplomatic sources said, though it was unclear whether the Taliban had agreed.

Known during their past rule for keeping girls out of school and their hard-line practice of Islamic law, including punishments of amputation, stoning and hanging, the Taliban appear to be trying to project a more modern face.

Another spokesman Suhail Shaheen said the group would protect the rights of women, as well as freedoms for media workers and diplomats.

"We assure the people, particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe," Shaheen told the BBC, saying a transfer of power was expected in days.

The ease of the Taliban's advance, despite billions of dollars spent by the United States and others to build up local Afghan government forces, has stunned the world.

Just last week, a US intelligence estimate said Kabul could hold out for at least three months.

There was no immediate word on the situation from President Ashraf Ghani. A palace official said he was in emergency talks with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and officials from the NATO transatlantic alliance.

Power would be handed over to a transitional administration, the government's acting interior minister, Abdul Sattar Mirzakawal, tweeted on the Tolo news channel. "There won't be an attack on the city, it is agreed that there will be a peaceful handover," he said without elaborating.

A tweet from the Afghan presidential palace account said firing had been heard at a number of points around Kabul but that security forces, in coordination with international partners, had control of the city.

Many of Kabul's streets were choked by cars and people either trying to rush home or reach the airport, residents said.

"Some people have left their keys in the car and have started walking to the airport," one resident told Reuters by phone. Another said: "People are all going home in fear of fighting."

Afghans had fled the provinces to enter Kabul in recent days, fearing a return to hard-line Islamist rule.

Early on Sunday, refugees from Taliban-controlled provinces were seen unloading belongings from taxis and families stood outside embassy gates, while the city's downtown was packed with people stocking up on supplies.

US officials said diplomats were being ferried by helicopters to the airport from its embassy in the fortified Wazir Akbar Khan district. More American troops were being sent to help in the evacuations after the Taliban's surge brought the Islamist group to Kabul in a matter of days.

"Core" US team members were working from the airport, a US official said, while a NATO official said several European Union staff had moved to a safer location in the capital.

Earlier on Sunday, Taliban captured the eastern city of Jalalabad without a fight, giving them control of one of the main highways into landlocked Afghanistan. They also took over the nearby Torkham border post with Pakistan, leaving Kabul airport the only way out of Afghanistan still in government hands.

"The governor has surrendered to Taliban," a Jalalabad-based Afghan official told Reuters. "Allowing passage to Taliban was the only way to save civilian lives."

After US-led forces withdrew the bulk of their remaining troops in the last month, Taliban campaign accelerated as the Afghan military's defences appeared to collapse.

President Joe Biden on Saturday authorized the deployment of 5,000 US troops to help evacuate citizens and ensure an "orderly and safe" drawdown of military personnel. A US official said that included 1,000 newly approved troops from the 82nd Airborne Division.

Taliban said its rapid gains showed it was popularly accepted by the Afghan people.

Ashraf Ghani must immediately leave Afghanistan to save his life

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is calling on the international community to aid in the country’s fight against Taliban, getting too close to Kabul and fears are growing that the capital could soon be overrun by them.

The US-backed leader said in a televised address on Saturday, his first public appearance in days as Taliban have made significant territorial gains. 

Ghani said he wished to “stop the civil war imposed on Afghans and prevent more innocent deaths and the loss of 20 years of achievements” since US troops first arrived in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban in 2001. 

“We have started consultations, inside the government with elders and political leaders, representatives of different levels of the community as well as our international allies,” he said, as reported by The Associated Press. 

“The consultations are happening at great speed and the results will soon be shared with you dear countrymen,” added the president, who is facing growing pressure to step down amid the crisis. 

The address came as Taliban captured Afghanistan’s Logar province Saturday, with Afghan lawmaker Hoda Ahmadi saying that the group has now reached the Char Asyab district, located just seven miles south of Kabul, according to the AP. 

Ghani is facing diminishing support at home, with thousands of his soldiers surrendering en masse, a move former Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal said indicates the Afghan troops believe the president is not “worth fighting for.” 

The president’s plea to the international community comes as the US and others such as Canada and the United Kingdom are removing large numbers of their diplomats from Afghanistan amid the worsening security situation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday urged the Biden administration to conduct airstrikes against Taliban to support local security forces and prevent the insurgent group from taking control of Kabul, warning that failing to act would allow the security threat to the US to "assuredly grow" and lead to a "catastrophic" humanitarian cost within Afghanistan.

The State Department confirmed to The Hill on Friday that the US Embassy in Kabul had ordered staff to start destroying sensitive material, including “embassy or agency logos, American flags, or items which could be misused in propaganda efforts.”

The US has significantly reduced its military presence there amid President Biden’s goal to remove all troops from the country by the 20th anniversary of the 11th September 2001, terrorist attacks, though the Defense Department this week said it would temporarily be sending an additional 3,000 US troops to assist in the large departure of US diplomats.

US defeat in Afghanistan

As the last men of the dwindling American garrison in Afghanistan pack their bags, there is an echo of the Soviet Union's own withdrawal from the country, more than 30 years ago. But, in truth, Washington's defeat is far greater.

In December 1979, Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan to support the unpopular government of the ruling People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). They soon found themselves bogged down in a war against Mujahedeen.

Nine years later, the Soviets decided that there had been enough bloodshed and, in May 1988, they began their exit. The final contingent of Soviet troops drove back across the bridge to the USSR in February the following year.

Twelve years later, US troops arrived to fight Taliban. Soldiers of other NATO states then followed. Together, they stayed even longer than the Soviets, but are now on the way out. US President Joe Biden has promised that American soldiers will leave Afghanistan by the end of August.

As the US completes its retreat from its longest war, its enemy is on the march. Lately, Taliban have captured 12 of Afghanistan’s 34 provincial capitals, including the second and third largest cities in the country, Kandahar and Herat, both of which fell on Thursday.

The pace of Taliban advance has been remarkable. In some places, government forces simply ran away without a fight. The Governor of Ghazni province was said to have surrendered his city in exchange for free passage out of the area. US-trained government troops have fled or deserted en masse and, in some cases, gone over to Taliban. It’s fair to say that it’s been a rout, and the Americans haven’t even fully left yet. The government may be able to hold onto the country’s capital Kabul, but even that is no longer certain.

In short, the 20 years of America’s and NATO’s war in Afghanistan has ended in ignominious failure – total and absolute. So, of course, did the Soviets’ war, but not quite so abruptly.

After the last Soviet troops crossed over the Friendship Bridge linking Afghanistan and Soviet Uzbekistan, Mujahideen launched a major offensive, confident that they would be able to defeat the government forces in short order. Their offensive collapsed completely. The Afghan army stood its ground and not a single major population center fell into the hands of their opponents. It was not until two years later, when the post-Soviet Russian government of Boris Yeltsin cut off funding to the Afghans that the PDPA regime finally fell.

The contrast with what has happened this past week could not be clearer. Even after the Soviets had left, the troops they had trained and equipped fought hard and successfully. Today, the troops that America and its allies trained and equipped at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars have scattered to the four winds with only the slightest effort at resistance.

But, to be fair, the problem lies not in army exercises or crates of machine guns. The current batch of Afghans has had plenty of both. They outnumber Taliban and are better supplied. The problem is one of morale: not many of them are willing to die for their government.

The PDPA had a well-deserved reputation for corruption, incompetence, factional in-fighting, and dogmatic, counterproductive policies that alienated the Afghan people, such as its Marxist assaults on religion and private enterprise. Mujahideen, the Taliban’s precursor, enjoyed substantial support from the United States, including signing for the delivery of sophisticated Stinger missiles.

The fact that the Soviet-backed government put up a better fight than its contemporary counterpart can, therefore, only have one explanation, Afghans respect their current rulers even less than they respected the socialist PDPA. And that is really saying something.

All of which begs the questions of why America and NATO spent so long supporting the regime in Kabul, and why the latter got to be so disliked.

The answer to the first question is largely one of prestige. Having installed the current government, Western states felt that their reputation was tied to its survival and thus refused to abandon it even when it became clear that it wasn’t worth supporting.

The answer to the second question is that the awfulness of the current government owes a lot to the policies pursued by Western states.

After Najibullah was overthrown in 1992, Afghanistan suffered a vicious civil war in which drug-running warlords competed for power and inflicted all sorts of atrocities on the Afghan people. When Taliban came along offering fierce but incorruptible justice, many Afghans breathed a sigh of relief and gave them their support.

Canadian General Rick Hiller famously said that Taliban were “detestable murderers and scumbags.” What he failed to note was that Taliban enemies were, on occasion, even worse. When America and its allies moved into Afghanistan, these enemies returned to their homes, this time with the backing of Western powers, and resumed their criminal ways. Unsurprisingly, the locals weren’t too impressed.

Beyond that, Western powers flooded the country with money. Pour cash into an impoverished country without adequate controls, and the consequence will be mass corruption. So it was in Afghanistan.

Not only did this delegitimize the government, but much of the aid flowed down into the hands of Taliban. As John Sopko, the US official responsible for auditing American expenditures in Afghanistan put it, “the end of the US supply chain in Afghanistan is Taliban.” If you want to know who armed and paid for Taliban, the answer is that America did.

While innocent civilians and Afghan soldiers are dying, Biden has no regret

It is height of disgrace to humanity to read a statement of Joe Biden, saying he does not regret his decision to pull US forces out of Afghanistan amid reports of rising civilian casualties as the Taliban makes gains in the country.

On the contrary he said, "We spent over US$ one trillion over 20 years. We trained and equipped with modern equipment over 300,000 Afghan forces," Biden said at a news conference.

"And Afghan leaders have to come together. We lost to death and injury, thousands of American personnel. They’ve got to fight for themselves. Fight for their nation."

Biden vowed the US would keep its commitments to provide air support, resupply Afghan forces with food and equipment and pay their salaries. "But they’ve got to want to fight," Biden added.

Over the weekend, the Taliban seized a string of provincial capitals including the strategically and economically important city of Kunduz. The battlefield gains come as the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is largely done, with an official end date set by Biden of 31st August 2021.

Using so-called over-the-horizon forces, the US military in recent days has conducted some airstrikes in support of Afghan forces, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby confirmed, but declined to provide any specifics.

Moral of the story

Over the last two decades, US troops helped achieve their ‘undeclared’ objectives. Among these weeding out terrorists and ushering development in Afghanistan were on the lowest priority.  Now the same will be done by ‘operators’ who can work the best under the chaotic condition. The US president is not talking about security of Afghans, but the operators living under the disguise of Afghan soldiers.

Defense officials have not confirmed whether such airstrikes will continue after US troops are fully withdrawn as per the deadline.

Lawmakers and critics of Biden's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan have raised concerns over the possibility of a full Taliban takeover of the country and the chaos that will be created without American forces.

Administration officials also briefed senators on the situation behind closed doors and faced what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell described as “tough” questions.

US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad warned the Taliban government that assumes power through use of force in Afghanistan will not be acknowledged by the international community.

Lately, Khalilzad traveled to Doha, Qatar, where Taliban has a political office, to help formulate a joint international response to the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

He will urge the Taliban to stop their military offensive and arrange a political settlement, which the State Department said “is the only path to stability and development in Afghanistan.”

Khalizad, who negotiated the peace deal brokered with the Taliban under the Trump administration, and other officials reportedly hope that the stern warning will encourage Taliban leaders to engage in peace talks with the Afghan government.

CIA head to meet Israeli Military Intelligence Chief

The head of the CIA, Bill Burns will meet with the head of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Tamir Hayman during his visit to Israel on Tuesday. He will also meet with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and with the new Mossad Director David Barnea.

Burns is in Israel amid reports that the US is considering alternative ways to get Iran to stop advancing its nuclear program as negotiations to return to the 2015 Iran deal stall.

Israel considers Iran’s nuclear program as the number one concern. Though, Tehran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons, it is believed that they are continuing to develop the capabilities to produce a nuclear weapons arsenal as well as produce ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Last week Defense Minister Benny Gantz said that Israel was ready to strike Iran, saying that the Islamic Republic was a threat to the country, Middle East and the entire world.

“Iran is an international and regional problem. The world witnessed one example on Friday,” Gantz told Ynet, referring to the deadly attack against the Mercer Street tanker that was struck by a suicide drone. “This could happen to anyone,” he said.

With new Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi taking over from moderate Hassan Rouhani on Thursday, Gantz said that he could lead Iran to even more extreme regional and security policies.

Between the long lull in negotiations and Raisi entering office, plus recent attacks on ships in the Persian Gulf, including on the Mercer Street, in which a Romanian and a British national were killed, many in the State Department think a return to the JCPOA is unlikely, though there is still a faction that remains hopeful, according to an Israeli official involved in talks with the US on Iran.

Israel and the US have been working on preparing for that scenario, including when Bennett’s diplomatic adviser Shimrit Meir and National Security Adviser Eyal Hulata visited Washington last week.

Burns will also reportedly meet with Palestinian Authority intelligence chief Majed Faraj in Ramallah, as well as PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Resort bombed in Gaza by ISIS

One might ask if Washington’s obsession with terrorism includes supporting radical armed groups as long as they are politically useful in attacking countries that the US regards as enemies. 

Many analysts say that the American CIA created al-Qaeda to attack the Russians in Afghanistan and the same my-enemy’s-enemy thinking appears to drive the current relationships with radical groups in various countries.

Reportedly, Islamic State (ISIS) inspired groups in the Gaza Strip attacked. Bianco Resort, one of the Gaza Strip’s most luxurious seaside tourist sites came under attack after the resort was accused by Muslim extremists of holding a mixed-gender concert. No one was hurt, but a wall surrounding the resort was damaged. Palestinian sources accused terrorists belonging to Salafi-Jihadist groups of being behind the attack.

Some members of the groups said they had warned the owner against holding the event, but he ignored the warning. Salafi-Jihadist terrorists have regularly clashed with Hamas members in the Gaza Strip over the past decade. Hamas has also arrested or killed some members of the groups.

Earlier, Issa Miqdad, one of the men affiliated with the groups, wrote on Facebook, “Today we went to Bianco Resort in order to deny the evil before it happens, as this resort will hold a mixed singing party tomorrow on the beach of Beit Lahiya. Therefore, we ask the Hamas government to stop this evil before it happens. I call on all preachers and sheikhs to publicly denounce this evil after the owner refused our request not to hold the party.”

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip reacted with mixed feelings to the bombing of the resort. Some expressed appreciation for the perpetrators, while others denounced the attack.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemned the attack and said it was aimed at intimidating the residents of the Gaza Strip.

“PCHR points out that this resort is a modern and private investment project that opened in the middle of last month employs about 120 workers, and it has been very popular since its inauguration,” the center said in a statement.

“We stress the importance of supporting such projects, which contribute to supporting domestic tourism, upgrading the Palestinian economy, creating job opportunities for young people and mitigating the effects of the siege on the Gaza Strip.” It demanded that legal measures be taken against all those involved in “this criminal act.”

According to PCHR’s investigations, at approximately 11:55 Friday night, unknown persons planted an explosive device next to the northeastern wall of the resort and detonated it. The explosion resulted in the collapse of parts of the wall.

A man came to the resort last Wednesday and demanded that the staff cancel a concert that was scheduled to take place the following evening, said the resort’s owner, Suhail al-Saqqa, who rejected the request. He said he had obtained a permit from the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Interior. Some suspects have been arrested in connection with the bombing, a source close to Hamas said.

A number of Palestinian factions, including the PLO’s Leninist-Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and the Palestinian People’s Party (formerly the Palestinian Communist Party) condemned the attack on the resort and called on Hamas to find the perpetrators.

Exploring motive behind attack on Israeli ship

What makes the attack on Mercer Street puzzling is its timing, as it occurred just days before the inauguration of the newly elected president of Iran, the ultraconservative hardliner Ebrahim Raisi.

Could Raisi have ordered a provocative attack on an Israeli-managed vessel, just days before taking office, when his highest priority is a lifting of the "maximum pressure" sanctions imposed on his country by former President Donald Trump? Why?

Would Raisi put at risk his principal diplomatic goal, just to get even with Israel for some earlier pinprick strike in the tit-for-tat war in which Iran and Israel have been engaged for years? Again, why?

If not Raisi, could the outgoing president, the moderate Hassan Rouhani, have ordered such an attack on his last hours in office and risk igniting a war with Israel and the US that his country could not win?

Could the attack have been the work of rogue elements in the Iranian Republican Guard Corps? Gantz and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid claim that Saeed Ara Jani, head of the drones section of the IRGC, "is the man personally responsible for the terror attacks in the Gulf of Oman."

Or was this simply a reflexive Iranian reprisal for Israeli attacks?

For years, Israel and Iran have been in a shadow war, with Iran backing Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the Shia militia in Syria and Iraq.

Israel has both initiated and responded to attacks with strikes on Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and by sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program and assassinating its nuclear scientists.

But whoever was behind the attack in the Gulf of Oman, and whatever the political motive, the US was not the target, and the US should not respond militarily to a drone strike that was not aimed at us.

No one has deputized us to police the Middle East, and we have not prospered these last two decades by having deputized ourselves.

With America leaving Afghanistan and US troops in Iraq transiting out of any "combat" role, now is not the time to get us ensnared in a new war with Iran.

It was in an August, 57 years ago, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred, which led America to plunge into an eight-year war in Vietnam.

President Joe Biden’s diplomatic goal with Iran, since taking office, has been the resurrection of the 2015 nuclear deal from which former President Donald Trump walked away. In return for Iran’s reacceptance of strict conditions on its nuclear program, the US has offered a lifting of Trump’s sanctions.

Whoever launched the drone strike sought to ensure that no new US-Iran deal is consummated, that US sanctions remain in place, and that a US war with Iran remain a possibility.

But, again, why would Tehran carry out such a drone attack and kill crewmen on an Israeli-managed vessel – then loudly deny it?

Since he took office, Biden has revealed his intent to extricate the US from the "forever wars" of the Middle East and to pivot to the Far East and China. By this month’s end, all US forces are to be out of Afghanistan, and the 2,500 US troops still in Iraq are to be repurposed, no longer to be designated as combat troops.

Those behind this attack on the Israeli-managed vessel do not want to reduce the possibility of war between the United States and Iran.

World powers creating ground for Israeli attack on Iran

The statement jointly issued by the world powers on Friday accusing Iran of attacking an Israeli ship reminds me of the saga of presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.  The time proved it was a ‘hoax call’ aimed at creating justification for attack on Iraq.

It may be recalled that earlier Israel convened a meeting in Jerusalem of representatives of United Nations Security Council nations to discuss the possibility of a retaliatory military strike on Iran for its attack on the Mercer Street. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz declared, “Now is the time for deeds — words are not enough. It is time for diplomatic, economic and even military deeds — otherwise the attacks will continue.”

US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken and Foreign Ministers of Group of Seven (G-7) nations and the European Union on Friday issued a joint statement condemning Iran for carrying out a “deliberate and targeted attack” on an Israeli-owned vessel last week that killed two of its international crew.

The statement serves as a show of international unity against Iran’s actions in the region and assigns the Islamic Republic responsibility for the oil tanker attack off the coast of Oman, violating international law meant to guarantee freedom of navigation in the international waters. 

The G-7 nations — United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom — were joined in the statement by the high representative of the European Union. 

“We condemn the unlawful attack committed on a merchant vessel off the coast of Oman on 29th July, which killed a British and a Romanian national. This was a deliberate and targeted attack, and a clear violation of international law. All available evidence clearly points to Iran. There is no justification for this attack,” the statement read. 

The G-7 nations and the EU further condemned Iran’s support for “proxy forces and non-state armed actors” as threatening international peace and security.

The statement follows the US, UK and Romania assigning blame to Iran for attacking the Israeli-owned Mercer Street vessel on July with an explosive drone. 

A report published Friday from US Central Command identified the drones recovered in the attack as Iranian-made.

Blinken on Wednesday spoke with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on “ongoing efforts to forge a coordinated response to Iran’s attack,” according to a readout of the call. 

Taliban takes full control of Zaranj, capital of Nimruz province

According to reports, Taliban have taken full control of Zaranj, the capital of Nimruz province, without a fight. The western locale is the first provincial capital to fall under Taliban control since it launched its offensive across the country in May.

Jihadists and other independent sources on social media have posted videos of Taliban fighters patrolling Zaranj. The images also show them in control of the military base, as well as Zaranj Airport.

Taliban fighters were photographed outside the governor’s compound and the headquarters of the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan’s intelligence agency. Prisoners are streaming out of the local prison.

Some of these images were produced by Taliban spokesman Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, but additional sources confirm the fall of Zaranj.

This afternoon, the governor’s office, command and many other facilities in Zaranj, the capital of Nimroz province, fell into the hands of mujahidin and the remaining areas are being cleared.

Nimroz airfield and the rest of the battalion were also completely conquered.]

Afghan journalist Bilal Sarwary confirmed that the Taliban now controls Zaranj.

“Zaranj city becomes the first provincial capital to fall to the Taliban without a single shot being fired,” Sarwary noted on Twitter.

Taliban takeover of Zaranj is a major victory for the group, which is also battling for control of multiple other provincial capitals. Government forces are currently clinging to a cluster of buildings in the center of Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, as the Taliban controls the rest of the city.

Taliban are in control of neighborhoods in Kandahar and Herat cities, and are launching frequent assaults in other capitals, such as Taluqan, Kunduz City, Ghazni City, Mitharlam, and Shiberghan.

Zaranj, which is on the border with Iran, is a major trade route and was a source of customs income for the Afghan government. The Taliban now operates four of the six major border crossings, and is collecting millions of dollars in revenue daily.

The Taliban’s objective is to restore its Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, either via force or by diplomacy. It is currently fighting to impose its repressive regime on the Afghan people.

Hiroshima marks 76th anniversary of US atomic bombing

Hiroshima on Friday marked the 76th anniversary of the world’s first atomic bombing, as the mayor of the Japanese city urged global leaders to unite to eliminate nuclear weapons, just as they are united against the coronavirus. Mayor Kazumi Matsui urged world leaders to commit to nuclear disarmament as seriously as they tackle a pandemic that the international community recognizes as “threat to humanity.”

“Nuclear weapons, developed to win wars, are a threat of total annihilation that we can certainly end, if all nations work together,” Matsui said.

The United States dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on 6th August 1945, destroying the city and killing 140,000 people. It dropped a second bomb three days later on Nagasaki, killing another 70,000. Japan surrendered on 15th August 1945, ending World War II.

But countries stockpiled nuclear weapons in the Cold War and a standoff continues to this day.

Matsui renewed his demand that Japan’s government “immediately” sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga did not mention the treaty in his speech at the Hiroshima Peace Park ceremony, where aging survivors, officials and some dignitaries observed a minute of silence for the blast. At a news conference later, Suga said he has no intention of signing the treaty.

“The treaty lacks support not only from the nuclear weapons states including the United States but also from many countries that do not possess nuclear arms,” Suga said. “What’s appropriate is to seek a passage to realistically promote the nuclear disarmament.”

The global Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons took effect in January after years of civil effort joined by the atomic bombing survivors, or hibakusha. But while more than 50 countries have ratified it, the treaty notably lacks the US and other nuclear powers as well as Japan, which has relied on the US nuclear umbrella for its defense since the war’s end.

After the ceremony, Suga apologized for inadvertently skipping parts of his speech. Parts that were dropped included his pledge to pursue efforts toward achieving a nuclear free world as head of the world’s only country to have suffered atomic attacks fully aware of the inhumanity of the nuclear weapons, according to his speech posted on the Prime Minister’s Office.

Some said Suga skipping those parts of his speech spotlighted what could be seen as government hypocrisy over nuclear disarmament and the treatment of atomic bombing survivors.

“The important point is that his heart wasn’t simply there,” former Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, told an online news conference later Friday, referring to Suga.

Many survivors of the bombings have lasting injuries and illnesses linked to the bombs and radiation exposure and faced discrimination in Japanese society.

The government began to medically support certified survivors in 1968 after more than 20 years of effort by the survivors.

As of March, 127,755 survivors, whose average age is now almost 84, are certified as hibakusha and eligible for government medical support, according to the health and welfare ministry.

Suga announced last month the medical benefits would be extended to 84 Hiroshima survivors who had been denied aid because they were outside a government-set boundary. The victims were exposed to radioactive “black rain” that fell in the city after the bombing and fought a long legal battle for their health problems to be recognized.

Matsui urged Suga’s government to further widen support and have generous assistance quickly reach all those still suffering physical and emotional effects of radiation, including the black rain survivors who were not part of the lawsuit.

Thursday’s ceremony at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park was significantly scaled down because of the coronavirus pandemic and was also eclipsed by the Olympics being held in Tokyo, where even national NHK television quickly switched to the games after the main speeches.

 

 

Kashmir: Modi trying to convert demographic majority into political minority

Two years ago, on 5th August 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi removed the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir as a state and redesignated it as two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and Ladakh, which are governed directly from Delhi. 

He also scrapped Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which had allowed J&K to make its own laws, and cancelled Article 35A, which gave its legislature the power to determine who was a permanent resident of the state.

The effective annexation of J&K was overwhelmingly rejected by Kashmiri Muslims. Pakistan virulently opposed it, arguing that because J&K was considered by the United Nations Security Council to be disputed territory; its annexation violated international law.

Modi claimed that this unilateral move would bring peace and development to J&K. Not surprisingly, this action by his Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has only brought more misery and more violence. And, sadly, the future doesn’t look promising.

Within a year, the impact on the economy of J&K was disastrous. Another year later, and notwithstanding the Modi government’s assertions that the political changes had brought socioeconomic development to the region, economic activity has come to a standstill. A double lockdown, political and Covid-driven, has hit the tourism industry very hard. Starved of international tourists, those running the famous house boats on Dal Lake in Srinagar are desperately struggling to survive.

Many of the political leaders arrested two years ago are still under house arrest or in jail. The BJP has made rampant use of a particularly harsh piece of legislation, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act—which permits detention without charge for up to six months—to crack down on all forms of dissent. Torture and mistreatment of detainees, including teenagers, is common practice. Less than 1% of arrests under the act have resulted in a conviction in the past 10 years. Modi has used the law to silence civil-society organizations, in particular, the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons and the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society—the only two groups documenting human rights abuses in J&K.

India’s harsh and uncompromising approach to J&K has come to the attention of the UN. In March 2021, five UN special rapporteurs wrote a letter to the Modi government expressing their concerns over arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in J&K. That letter and five previous communications by other UN rapporteurs since 5 August 2019 have been ignored.

In June 2021, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, concerned by grave human rights violations in J&K, asked the Indian government to end the use of shotgun pellets against children. The dire situation in J&K has also come to the attention of the EU. A number of members of the European Parliament have written to the president and vice president of the European Commission expressing concern about the human rights violations in J&K.

Kashmiri political leaders­—most of whom have lost all credibility with Kashmiris—have demanded that J&K’s statehood be restored. Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai has said in the Indian parliament that statehood would be ‘granted at an appropriate time after normalcy is restored’. The Indian government’s response begs more questions about Kashmir’s future.

In the meantime, Delhi has extended until March 2022 the role of the Delimitation Commission established to redraw the electoral constituencies of J&K. Most Kashmiris fear that the commission’s real task is to redraw the electoral map to make it easier for the BJP to win the next election, whenever that will be.

But more worrisome to Kashmiris is that since the legislative changes in August 2019, well over three million domicile certificates have been granted to non-Kashmiris, most of them non-Muslims. Moreover, there’s a fear that Delhi will apply to Kashmir the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act, which requires Muslims to prove their citizenship. Many would not be able to do so because they have no official papers to confirm their legal status.

The Modi government has been keen to assist the return to Kashmir of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) who left because of the security situation in the 1990s. As former J&K finance minister Haseeb Drabu noted, Kashmiris are worried that through the use of legislative and administrative actions the Modi government is trying ‘to convert a demographic majority into a political minority’.

Despite the misery Kashmiris endure daily, the international community has no appetite to confront Modi on this. And he knows it.

There are critical strategic issues to deal with, notably the growing tension between the West and China and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, in which India could play an important role. India’s geostrategic importance is further strengthened by its membership, along with the US, Japan and Australia, of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Given that context, Kashmir simply doesn’t make it onto the agenda.

On his recent visit to India, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken did not allow Kashmir and other human rights issues, such as the poor treatment of Muslims in India, to complicate the bilateral meeting. When asked to comment on the wobbliness of India’s democracy, Blinken stated, ‘We view Indian democracy as a force for good in defense of a free and open Indo-Pacific. We also recognize that every democracy, starting with our own, is a work in progress.’ This would have been sweet music to his host, India’s Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar.

Sadly, once again, politics takes precedence over human rights issues. There’s no expectation that anything will change soon for Kashmiris because there’s absolutely no international pressure on Modi to relent.

Israel shifts target to Lebanon from Gaza

According to an AP report, Israel on Thursday escalated its rocket attacks by launching rare airstrikes on Lebanon. The Israeli army said in a statement that jets struck the launch sites from which rockets had been fired a day ago as well as another target used to attack Israel in the past. 

The IDF blamed Lebanon for the shelling and warned “against further attempts to harm Israeli civilians and Israel’s sovereignty.”

The overnight airstrikes in southern Lebanon were a marked escalation at a politically sensitive time. Israel’s new eight-party governing coalition is trying to keep peace under a fragile cease fire that ended an 11-day war with Hamas in Gaza in May. Several incidents leading up to this week’s rocket fire from Lebanon have focused attention on Israel’s northern border.

The strikes came at a time Lebanon is mired in multiple crises, including a devastating economic and financial crisis and political deadlock that has left the country without a functional government for a full year.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun said Israel’s use of its air force to target Lebanese villages “is the first of its kind since 2006 and indicated the presence of aggressive, escalatory intentions” against Lebanon.

Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah fought a devastating, month-long war in 2006 which killed some 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and around 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers. The war failed to neutralize the group’s rocket threat, and Israeli officials say Hezbollah’s improved missile arsenal is now capable of striking virtually anywhere in the country.

No one has claimed responsibility for the rocket fire from Lebanon, and Hezbollah has not commented. The Hezbollah-owned Al-Manar TV reported the Israeli strikes at around 2 a.m. Thursday, saying they hit an empty area in the Mahmoudiya Village in Marjayoun district.

Avichai Adraee, the Israeli army’s Arabic-language spokesman, said the Lebanese government is responsible for what happens on its territories and warned against more attacks on Israel from south Lebanon.

Three rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israeli territory Wednesday and the army responded with sustained artillery fire, Israel’s military said. The announcement came after sirens sounded in northern Israel warning of a possible rocket attack. Two rockets landed inside Israeli territory, the army said.

Channel 12 reported that one rocket exploded in an open area and another was intercepted by Israel’s defense system, known as the Iron Dome. Israeli media reported that the incoming rockets started fires near Kiryat Shmona, a community of about 20,000 people near the Lebanese border.

The Lebanese military reported 92 artillery shells fired by Israel on Lebanese villages. It said the Israeli artillery shelling resulted in a fire in the village of Rashaya al-Fukhar. In a statement, the Lebanese army also said it was conducting patrols in the border region and had set up a number of checkpoints and opened an investigation to determine the source of the rocket fire.

US State Department spokesman Ned Price condemned the rocket fire from Lebanon. “Israel has the right to defend itself against such attacks,” he told reporters in Washington, adding that the US would remain engaged with partners “in the region in an effort to de-escalate the situation.”

At the United Nations, spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, was aware of the rocket fire and Israel’s artillery response. He said the UNIFIL commander, Maj. Gen. Stefano Del Col, appealed for a cease-fire and urged both sides to “exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation.”

Following Turkey, Pakistan should also refuse influx of Afghan Refugees

The United States has asked Pakistan and Turkey to open doors for the entry of Afghan refugees. Interestingly, Turkey has already refused to be part of this plan. Now the Government of Pakistan has to express its consent to be part of this plan. The popular demand is that following Turkey Pakistan also should not allow influx of Afghan refugees.

The United States wants Pakistan to keep its borders with Afghanistan open for Afghan refugees. The super power taking a retreat from Afghanistan believes that two countries, Iran and Pakistan can play a pivotal role in the resettlement plan.

Since the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, US policy makers look at Pakistan to help them in transferring of refugees to Turkey via Iran.

They are using a strange argument “If people go north or if they go via Iran to Turkey, they have an opportunity both to enter the country as well as to register with either the government or with UNHCR.”

The US State Department asked Turkey to allow Afghans to stay in the country for up to 14 months before they are resettled in the United States.

The Turkish government has refused to follow the US plan to use third countries to resettle Afghans, saying the move would cause a “great migration crisis” in the region.

Reportedly, Pakistan’s National Security Adviser Moeed Yusuf said at a briefing in Washington that arrangements should be made to keep displaced Afghans inside their country instead of pushing them into Pakistan. Adding, “Pakistan does not have the capacity to take more refugees.”

Moeed has also been fully supported by Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed saying, “We have decided not to open our border for refugees; the aid agencies can help the needy on the other side too.”

It is on record that since 1979, Pakistan has been hosting millions of Afghans and more than three million are permanently settled in the country.

Some critics say, “Influx of Afghan refugees into Pakistan has ushered ‘arms and drugs’ culture, religious extremism and sectarian killing. It may be true that most of the Afghans taking refuge in Pakistan are law abiding, but terrorist, under the disguise of refugees, have created safe sanctuaries and use residents of the areas as human shield.”

Turkey refuses to shoulder Afghan migration

Foreign Ministry of Turkey has called the United States “irresponsible” after the Biden administration announced it would expand efforts to assist at-risk Afghan citizens with the major caveat that the adjudication process would take months in a third country.

Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tanju Bilgic said Wednesday the US statement had suggested Turkey as an application spot “without consultation.” He said Turkey does not have the capacity to shoulder another migration crisis.

“The US may directly transport these people by plane. Turkey will not take over the international responsibilities of third countries,” Bilgic said and added Turkey would not allow its laws to be abused by other countries. He said the US announcement would trigger a major refugee crisis.

Turkey is already hosting some 3.7 million Syrians who fled the civil war there. Afghans have also fled to Turkey to escape their country’s war and instability. Media reports from border towns with Iran show the number of Afghans crossing into Turkey is on the rise.

The State Department had said it was widening the scope of Afghans eligible for refugee status in United States to include current and former employees of US-based news organizations, US-based aid and development agencies and other relief groups that receive US funding. Current and former employees of the US government and the NATO military operation who don’t meet the criteria for a dedicated program for such workers are also covered.

But applicants must leave Afghanistan to begin the adjudication process that may take 12-14 months in a third country, and the US does not intend to support their departures or stays there.