The spokesperson for the UN General-Secretary has said that the UN chief is set to travel to Qatar on Sunday (February 18) to participate in the meeting.
In two days, Doha will be hosting a meeting with nearly 20 countries’ representatives on Afghanistan, but the Islamic Emirate has yet to confirm its participation in the meeting.
TOLOnews has seen a list showing that representatives from Russia, China, Iran, India, Japan, Tajikistan, US, France, Germany, and the EU will take part in the meeting.
The spokesperson for the UN General-Secretary has said that the UN chief is set to travel to Qatar on Sunday (February 18) to participate in the meeting.
“As we mentioned when we first announced the meeting, the objective is to discuss how to approach increasing international engagement in a more coherent, coordinated and structured manner, including through consideration of the recommendations of the independent assessment on Afghanistan,” said Stéphane Dujarric, the spokesman for the UN chief.
Dujarric added that women will also participate in the meeting to raise the voices of Afghan women.
“As we said there will be a meeting between the envoys and civil society groups, which of course include Afghan women. It is very important that the voices of Afghan women be heard in these discussions,” said Stéphane Dujarric.
As the meeting is set to begin on Sunday, Uzbekistan president’s Special Representative for Afghanistan, Ismatullah Irgashev met with Hassan Hamza Assad Muhammad Hoshim, Qatar’s ambassador to Uzbekistan.
They talked about the importance of the Doha meeting.
“The two sides discussed the current state of cooperation between the two countries on Afghanistan and the upcoming Doha meeting,” reads part of the statement of the foreign ministry of Uzbekistan.
“The upcoming Doha meeting is important for Afghanistan and if the Taliban participate in the meeting, it will be a plus point, so that they see the world’s decisions,” said Wais Naseri, a political analyst.
Earlier, the Islamic Emirate said that they have presented conditions to the UN for their participation in the Doha meeting.
President Biden is privately defiant that he made the right calls on Afghanistan in 2021 despite the U.S. military’s chaotic exit, according to an upcoming book obtained by Axios.
Why it matters: Biden believes history will look kindly on his decision to end the two-decade war — America’s longest — even though it came at an enormous political cost to Biden, whose polling numbers have never recovered from the fallout.
13 U.S. service members were killed in a suicide bombing outside Kabul’s airport as the U.S. evacuated. In all, more than 2,400 U.S. service members died in Afghanistan during the war, and more than 20,000 were wounded.
Driving the news: After Afghanistan, “no one offered to resign, in large part because the president didn’t believe anyone had made a mistake. Ending the war was always going to be messy,” Politico’s Alexander Ward writes in “The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore Foreign Policy After Trump.”
“Biden told his top aides, [National Security Advisor Jake] Sullivan included, that he stood by them and they had done their best during a tough situation.”
“There wasn’t even a real possibility of a shake-up,” a White House official told Ward.
The intrigue: The book provides fresh reporting and vivid scenes on the Biden team’s decisions to exit Afghanistan — and the internal fights along the way.
Ward captures the subtle and not-so-subtle tensions between the State and Defense Departments in the run-up to the withdrawal.
Biden was wary of the Defense Department — something Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was focused on remedying.
Biden was partial to the State Department, given his time chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
His skepticism of the Pentagon grew after the Obama administration’s debate in 2009 about a troop surge in Afghanistan. Biden felt the Pentagon boxed Obama in politically, Ward writes.
Zoom in: The Pentagon’s leaders pushed the hardest to keep troops in Afghanistan, and after Biden’s withdrawal order in April 2021 the sides feuded about how to get out.
On May 8, 2021, during a rehearsal for the evacuation operation with Sullivan, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and others, the Pentagon and the State Department feuded over whether they had to close the U.S. embassy in Kabul as troops withdrew.
The Defense Department argued that the country would be too dangerous to have the embassy try to do business as usual.
Brian McKeon, the deputy secretary of state for management and resources, jumped in and said their diplomats would be fine: “We at the State Department have a much higher risk tolerance than you guys,” he told the uniformed personnel.
Ward writes that “Milley nearly jumped out of his chair, but restrained himself from shouting how he and many serving in the armed forces had lost friends in war. Austin showed no signs of anger, but he later told colleagues that he was offended by McKeon’s remark.”
Reality check: During the chaotic scenes that unfolded around Kabul’s airport as Taliban-aligned forces began taking over the capital, White House officials knew the president was making promises he couldn’t keep to get people out of the country, Ward writes.
Biden told ABC News on Aug. 18, 2021, that he was committed to having troops stay in Afghanistan until every U.S. citizen who wanted to leave could do so.
A senior White House official told Ward at the time: “There’s no one here who thinks we can meet that promise.”
Ultimately, Bidenwithdrew the last U.S. troops there two weeks later, but left more than 800 American citizens in Afghanistan.
Also left behind: Tens of thousands of Afghans who allied with the U.S. and had been promised refuge in the U.S.
Exclusive: Biden defends deadly Afghanistan withdrawal — doesn’t think anyone made a mistake
Two more Afghan former inmates of the United States’ Guantanamo detention camp have finally returned home after more than two decades incarcerated or in exile. Abdul Zahir from Logar was detained by US forces and rendered to Guantanamo in July 2002, while Bostan Karim from Paktia was arrested by Pakistan a month later and handed over to the US, which took him to Guantanamo in March 2003. In 2017, after the US deemed the two men not to be a risk to its national security, it transferred them, not to Afghanistan, but to Oman. Finally, they are now back on home soil. As Kate Clark reports, the cases against them were among the flimsiest she has looked into of the Afghans who were rendered to Guantanamo.
As they stepped off a plane from Oman at Kabul International Airport on 12 February 2024, Abdul Zahir and Bostan Karim were given a hero’s welcome.[1] There were garlands and flowers, hugs from officials and uniformed members of the security forces kissed their hands. See this video released by the Ministry of Interior, with its celebratory nashid (Islamic anthem) soundtrack, which praises those who defend Afghanistan, the ghazis (fighters of jihad). Billboards showing the two men had been put up at the airport and all along the main route towards the city centre.
A statement from the Emirate’s interior ministry on X said the two men’s return had come about as a “result of the continuous efforts [made by] the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,” while another post by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, Abdul Qahar Balkhi, expressed the Emirate’s gratitude and appreciation to the fraternal Sultanate of Oman for hosting and taking care of the two individuals.”
Abdul Zahir and Bostan Karim both featured in an in-depth study by the author into the cases of the last eight Afghans held in Guantanamo, which was published in 2016, ‘Kafka in Cuba: The Afghan Experience in Guantanamo’.[2] Each had been caught up in the wave of mass arrests carried out by the US as it sought information about the whereabouts of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and to hunt down what it referred to at the time as ‘Taleban remnants’. There was little or no actual Taleban resistance at this time – most in the ranks had melted back to their villages, while senior figures who had slipped across the border to Pakistan were often trying to get security guarantees to come home. Even so, the US was determined to detain those ‘remnants’ and its willingness to accept tip-offs and pay for intelligence led to many Afghans being falsely accused by their personal enemies or informed on for money, either by individuals or by the Pakistani state. [3] Zahir appears to have been one such person, as well as Karim.
The cases of Zahir and Karim
Abdul Zahir’s official Guantanamo photo taken from his Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessment, dated 19 November 2008, and subsequently published by Wikileaks, available here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/ISN_00753%2C_Abdul_Sahir%27s_Guantanamo_detainee_assessment.pdf.
Abdul Zahir, born in Hesarak district of Logar province in 1972, was detained by US forces in a house raid after an anonymous tip-off that he had chemical weapons stored at his house. This turned out to be untrue: the suspicious substances found at his house turned out to be salt, sugar, and petroleum jelly[4] However, during his interrogation, he told his captors that, before 9/11, he had worked as a choki dar (doorman) and occasional translator for an Arab commander, Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi (real name Nashwan al-Tamir), who was also taken to Guantanamo. During the first emirate, this would have been an uncontroversial job – times were hard, work was scarce and working either for the Taleban’s ‘Arab guests’ or their ‘foreign guests’ (in NGOs) was no indication in itself of ideological persuasion. Even so, the US military accused Zahir of having been a “trusted member” of al-Qaeda.
Years later, in 2016, the body set up by President Barak Obama to assess the threat posed by Guantanamo detainees, the Periodic Review Board, ruled that Zahir had “probably [been] misidentified as the individual who had ties to al-Qaeda weapons facilitation” and had had only “a limited role in Taliban structure and activities.” It deemed him safe to transfer out of Guantanamo.
Bostan Karim’s official Guantanamo photo taken from his Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessment, dated 5 June 2008, and subsequently published by Wikileaks, available here https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/82387-isn-975-bostan-karim-jtf-gtmo-detainee-assessment/2944f0abe6fdb320/full.pdf.
The other Afghan who has returned home from Oman, Bostan Karim, was a businessman who had been born in Paktia in 1970. He had a shop in Khost selling plastic flowers and was arrested by Pakistan as he crossed the border by bus in August 2002 and handed over to the US in February 2003. He alleged he was tortured with sleep deprivation at Bagram before being rendered to Guantanamo on 6 March 2003. Of all the eight cases of Afghans which the author has looked into, Karim’s file contains some of the most glaring mistakes and muddled accusations.[5]
The evidence handed over to the Americans by Pakistan alleging he was a terrorist consisted of him possessing a satellite phone and some US dollars. Yet both were normal for a trader from Khost province to carry at that time. Unfortunately for Karim, his former business partner (with whom he had fallen out), Obaidullah, had also been detained in Afghanistan a month earlier after an anonymous tip-off accusing him of being an al-Qaeda bomb-maker. During his interrogation, Obaidullah named a ‘Karim’ as his co-conspirator; the US assumed this was Bostan Karim, even though Karim is a common name and that Obaidullah had a brother called Faizal Karim. Moreover, it looks likely that the name had been revealed under torture – at least, evidence for Obaidullah’s having been tortured was presented to the US courts as part of his habeas petition and the government chose to drop allegations based on his ‘confession’ rather than contest his claims of torture. The US decided Karim was the leader of Obaidullah’s bomb-making cell.
Problematic for Karim as well is that he was an active member of the quietist, apolitical missionary organisation, Jamat al-Tabligh, along with millions of other South Asians. US intelligence had decided it was a front for al-Qaeda and that a detainee’s membership automatically pointed to terrorist involvement. Jamat al-Tabligh was not on the US government’s list of terrorist organisations. Indeed, during the first Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as Karim testified, he had been targeted by the authorities because of his membership of Jamat al-Tabligh and indeed, the group has regularly come under fire from violent jihadists because of its quietist approach to politics.
Such gross misunderstandings, outlandish errors and fantastical assertions litter the classified intelligence files of the Afghan detainees; they came to light after they were published by Wikileaks in 2011.[6] As evidence of Karim being “a veteran extremist,” for example, one file said he had an uncle who had fought in the “Afghan-Russian war” with Hezb-e Islami, which it described as “one of the seven Al Qaida terrorist groups operating in Pakistan.” Hezb-e Islami was, of course, one of the seven Afghan mujahedin groups, which the US had supported and helped fund, and which was fighting the Soviet army, seven years before al-Qaeda was even established. More examples of the US’ general dearth of knowledge about Afghanistan or apparent ability to find out even basic information can be read about in the author’s 2016 report.
Karim’s perplexity at being in Guantanamo and at the accusations against him was revealed in his statement to an early review body, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, in 2004:
First of all, I am not a member of the Taleban and I’m not a member of al-Qaida. I’m a business man. I have two stores. In one store, I sell plastic flowers. In the other store, I rent furniture and dishes for special occasions. I am a missionary; I go house-to-house, village-to village, spreading my religion.
Also concerning was how the US courts treated Karim in his long-running petition for habeas corpus. There was some evidence that his supposed ‘co-conspirator’, Obaidullah, may have been a low-level insurgent, although most of the US government’s contentions against him were found to be false during his petition. However, there was no evidence that Karim had been involved in the insurgency. Nevertheless, the judge in each case used the assumed guilt of the other petitioner to incriminate the man whose case they were examining. The judge in Obaidullah’s case said his “long-standing personal and business relationship with at least one al Qaida operative [ie Boston Karim]” was one reason why he must also have been an al-Qaeda member. The judge in Karim’s case quoted that fellow judge, saying that Obaidullah was more likely than not “a member of an al Qaeda bomb cell committed to the destruction of [US] and Allied forces” as evidence against Karim.
In June 2016, his Periodic Review Board, while still believing he presented “some level of threat in light of his past activities and associations,” decided to transfer him anyway, noting that he had been “highly compliant while in detention, has not expressed any intent to reengage in extremist activity or espoused any anti-US sentiment that would indicate he views the US as an enemy.” These were the last months of Barak Obama’s presidency, and after he had failed on his campaign promise to close the camp, his administration did strive to clear as many detainees out of Guantanamo as possible before the end of his second and final term. However, escaping Guantanamo did not mean getting home.
Leaving Guantanamo … but only eventually reaching Afghanistan
In 2017, the US organised for Zahir and Karim to be sent to Oman and for four other Afghans, who had also been cleared for transfer, to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Republican-controlled Congress had blocked any Afghan returning home (despite not blocking more than 200 transfers during President Bush’s time in office). The four men sent to the UAE were immediately detained and only finally brought home during President Ashraf Ghani’s tenure; one was from a prominent Hezb-e Islami family and a Hezbi minister had pushed for his repatriation. (For more on their incarceration in the UAE and final homecoming, see the author’s December 2019 report, Freed at Last: Three Afghans sent to Guantanamo in 2002 and 2003 are finally home.) Zahir and Karim, sent to Oman, were treated far better, allowed to settle in the country and for their families to join them. (For more on this, see pages 19-20 of the author’s 2021 report.) Only now, however, have they been allowed to come back to Afghanistan.
On the day of his homecoming, Karim said in a short video tweeted by Hurriyat Radio that returning home meant he felt “I have not travelled at all, nor spent any time in any prison.” Zahir said his joy was such that he had not “the words for expressing my happiness.” Both men thanked God and the ‘mujahedin’ (the Emirate) for getting them home.
Those like Zaher and Karim who have experienced such long-term arbitrary detention, and often torture as well, and the people who have supported former inmates of Guantanamo all say the road to full recovery after such trauma is long and uncertain. Symptoms, wrote Katie Taylor and Polly Rossdale, who have both worked on Reprieve’s programme to help former detainees adjust to life outside Guantanamo typically include persistent insomnia, memory loss, inability to concentrate, confusion, anger, fear and an inability to trust. The particular harm done by conditions in Guantanamo, they say, goes even further:
In Guantánamo mistrust and paranoia have also arisen as a result of specific circumstances: sensory deprivation, isolation, inhumane treatment, humiliation and attacks to identity, the indefinite nature of the detention, administrative and legal practices that exert psychological control, a profound sense of personal injustice, opacity and deception. A lack of confidence is especially noteworthy. According to Reprieve clients, interrogators often pretended to be a doctor or the Red Cross (ICRC) or a detainee’s defence lawyer. … Paranoia and mistrust after many years of experiencing such practices are logical responses to illogical events.[7]
Taylor told the author that three factors could help ex-detainees recover from Guantanamo.
Family support is huge…. Secondly, time. It really is a matter of time and that has to be safe time – not under threat of prison, deportation or other arbitrary things…It takes time for men to recover. [I’ve seen men that] when they first got out, I honestly felt quite pessimistic about their prospects, but after three to four years, such a transformation can happen, it’s really heartening. Thirdly, adaptability or capabilities. This is to do with them as individuals. All of us have our own pockets of resiliency.
These two men, who were wrenched from their homes more than twenty years ago, will find much has changed in their absence. There will be personal losses. Abul Zahir’s mother, for example, died just a year before his transfer to Oman. “She was very anxious,” his brother told AAN in 2018, “and she had a heart problem because of the grief [over her son’s absence].” At least the US army is no longer in Afghanistan. That was a source of dread for earlier released detainees.
Zahir and Karim are almost the last of the 225 Afghans rendered by the US to Guantanamo who are able to come home. Three Afghans died in the camp, but one remains: Muhammad Rahim from Nangrahar, was detained by Pakistan in 2007, rendered first to Afghanistan where he was tortured by the CIA and then to Guantanamo, where he has spent much of the last almost two decades in solitary confinement. As AAN reported in December 2023, the US continues to insist he would be a threat to its national security if released. The “horrors and harms” of Guantanamo[8] for that one Afghan continue, even as his two newly-returned compatriots try to restart their lives back in their homeland.
References
References
↑1
The Islamic Emirate released their names as Mullah Abdul Zahir Saber and Haji Abdul Karim, for example, here.
↑2
AAN’s reports and special reports about the Afghan experience in Guantanamo (the first from 2012) were gathered together in a dossier published in October 2023.
↑3
The mass arbitrary detentions, often accompanied by forced nudity, use of dogs in people’s homes and torture, during this period, were one driver of the insurgency. For more, see the author’s 2013 report, ‘Talking to the Taliban: A British perspective’.
↑4
This was according to Zahir’s Guantanamo Detainee Profile released by the Periodic Review Board from 3 February 2015, the link to which no longer works. However, more details about this and Zahir’s case in general can be read in the author’s 2016 report, pp30-33.
↑5
For more on Karim, see pages 42-45 of the author’s 2016 report. The closely linked case of Obaidullah can be read about on pages 32-42.
↑6
The Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessments came to light after they were published by Wikileaks in 2011. The assessments contained background information on the detainees and something of their version of events, as well as allegations against them and the threat they were deemed to pose. There is information about each person’s capture and the reasons for his transfer to Guantanamo and continuing detention. Detainees’ behaviour at Guantanamo and mental and physical health are also detailed. The allegations made are usually very serious, but the Assessments are littered with factual errors, gross misunderstandings and hearsay.
Much of the sourcing is raw intelligence, defined by the FBI as “unevaluated intelligence information, generally from a single source, that has not fully been… integrated with other information, or interpreted and analysed.” An analysis of the sourcing by Tom Lasseter and Carol Rosenberg also revealed dependence on a handful of ‘supergrasses’, eight detainees whose testimony formed the basis of accusations against 225 other detainees, roughly a third of the camp’s population. The reporters noted that such testimony found its way into government evidence presented in court. Because the Assessments were unlawfully disclosed, they cannot be cited in court by defendants or habeas petitioners.
↑7
See Polly Rossdale and Katie Taylor, ‘An Account of ‘Life after Guantánamo’: a rehabilitation project for former Guantánamo detainees across continents’, in Torture, vol 37, no 3, 2017, 44-58.
↑8
The quote is from the now former Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. In 2023, she became the first independent United Nations investigator to visit the camp. Read her report here, and AAN analysis here.
Home at Last: After more than 20 years, two former inmates of Guantanamo reach Afghanistan
Beijing’s move is being seen as a shot in the arm for an isolated Taliban as it struggles for global recognition amid Western sanctions.
At an official ceremony held by the Chinese government in Beijing on January 30, a queue of foreign diplomats lined up to present their credentials to President Xi Jinping. Among the 309 diplomats was an unlikely participant.
After over two years of negotiations, China recognised Bilal Karimi, a former Taliban spokesman, as an official envoy to Beijing, making Xi’s government the first in the world to do so since the group seized power in Afghanistan in 2021.
China has been making inroads into Afghanistan through investments and projects since the United States withdrew forces from the country in 2021, triggering a collapse of the Western-backed Afghan government and paving the way for the Taliban to return to power.
But as the news of Beijing’s formal acceptance of the Taliban on January 30 spread, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs was quick to issue a statement, clarifying that the acceptance of diplomatic credentials did not signal Beijing’s official recognition of Afghanistan’s current rulers.
It was too late.
By then, Beijing’s move had already secured a major diplomatic win for the Taliban which has been struggling for global recognition for its government, say analysts. Since taking power, the group has remained isolated on the international front, owing in large part to its imposition of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of women. Sanctions by the West on the Taliban have in turn had a crippling impact on the Afghan economy.
But why did China recognise Karimi as the Taliban envoy to Beijing — and what does it mean for the group?
China’s deep interests in Afghanistan
At a time when Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers are treated as outcasts by much of the world, China has stepped up engagement with the group.
In 2023, several Chinese companies signed multiple business deals with the Taliban government. The most prominent among them was a 25-year-long, multimillion-dollar oil extraction contract with an estimated investment value of $150m in the first year, and up to $540m over the next three years.
There’s a history to that relationship, said Jiayi Zhou, researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
“The Taliban are not an unknown entity to the Chinese government, which reached out to them when they were a pariah government in the late 1990s and continued to maintain a working relationship with the Taliban as an insurgency group,” she told Al Jazeera.
Beijing’s decades-long pragmatic relationship with the Taliban, Zhou said, is a “natural consequence” of a number of factors, most prominently security.
“As a direct neighbour of Afghanistan, China’s own security depends on the Taliban. It can ill-afford to alienate or antagonise them, and certainly has no interest in doing so over values,” she said,
And Beijing isn’t alone in seeking such a pragmatic relationship with the group.
“Most of Afghanistan’s neighbours hold the same position as China: that the Taliban need to be engaged with, rather than isolated,” she said. “China’s [acceptance of the Taliban ambassador] is very much indicative of a China that has become comfortable being a first mover in the foreign policy domain.”
‘Realism and opportunity’
Many regional countries had taken a critical stance against the Taliban when it was in power in Afghanistan during the 1900s. However, “realism and opportunity” have overtaken as prime motivators in geopolitics since its 2021 takeover, Gautam Mukhopadhaya, senior visiting fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research and former Indian ambassador to Kabul, told Al Jazeera.
“Realism in the sense that for the moment, it looks like the Taliban in the only game in town,” he said. “Despite the unpopularity of the Taliban and its repressive measures, resistance [against them], civic as well as military, is almost crushed… Today, the US has made it clear it has no compelling geopolitical interests, stomach or desire to commit resources to Afghanistan.”
While China is the first country to recognise a Taliban ambassador, several other countries including Russia, Iran, Turkey and India have made efforts to engage with the Taliban, not only on humanitarian projects but also by reopening their diplomatic missions in Kabul.
An International Crisis Group (ICG) report released last month, examining the Taliban’s relationship with its neighbours, observed similar patterns of engagement. “They are convinced that the best way to secure their countries’ interests and moderate the Taliban’s behaviour in the long term is patient deliberation with Kabul, rather than ostracism,” said the report.
“The world will not stop and wait for Western sentiment to shift in favour of the Taliban. We are here on the frontlines,” a regional diplomat is quoted as saying in the ICG report.
What does the Taliban gain?
The West’s antagonism, especially in the form of sanctions, has had severe effects on aid-dependent Afghanistan. There is widespread unemployment and starvation, with an estimated 23.7 million people requiring humanitarian assistance in 2024.
According to data gathered by multiple international agencies, more than 13 million people – nearly 30 percent of the country’s population – are facing extreme food insecurity. That figure is projected to rise to 15.8 million by March.
Similarly, an estimate by the International Labour Organization in 2022 observed a 35 percent drop in Afghanistan’s gross domestic product (GDP) since the Taliban takeover, resulting in more than 900,00 job losses since 2021 and causing widespread unemployment.
Faced with these crises, the Taliban needed partners. It now has one, said Mukhopadhyaya. “It can now count on a major power more or less on its side,” the former Indian diplomat said.
“Ideally, the Taliban would’ve wanted strong relations with major global powers such as the US and China, and regional powerhouses like Russia and India for various reasons,” Ibraheem Bahiss, analyst with the International Crisis Group (ICG), told Al Jazeera.
With the US unwilling to play ball, China becomes even more important for the Taliban, he said.
A cautious Taliban
Deeper ties with China could “come with a cost” for the Taliban, warned Bahiss, in the form of “falling into the Chinese grip that other countries have discovered to their chagrin.
“But for now, both sides seem willing to play that game.”
The ICG analyst, however, said the Taliban, despite being starved for recognition, may still be cautious about how much to engage with Beijing.
“The Taliban are still trying to keep their relationship with China somewhat in check because they seem to be aware that the more they gravitate towards Beijing, the more regional powers like Russia and India will hesitate to expand relations with Kabul, thereby prompting the very dilemma of singularity of foreign patrons that the Taliban are so desperate to avoid,” he said.
“China, for obvious reasons, has emerged as a key driver of the region’s outreach and engagement with the Taliban,” Bahiss added.
“All this, however, seems to have created a spiral where the more isolated the Taliban becomes, the more they turn to China to replace the diplomatic weight the US previously provided.”
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
Why has China recognised Taliban’s envoy to Beijing?
The Islamic Emirate on the other hand denied the detentions of women and added that the government is committed to fighting against family violence.
The UN Secretary General’s spokesperson expressed concern about the alleged arbitrary arrests and detention of women in Afghanistan.
Speaking at a briefing, Stéphane Dujarric said that the UNAMA is concerned that the ongoing restrictions on Afghan women will further isolate them and will lead to an increase in family violence.
“The UN Mission fears the current crackdown is pushing women into even greater isolation due to fear of arbitrary arrest and creating a permissive environment for men to enforce repressive measures at home,” said Stéphane Dujarric the spokesman for the UN Chief.
The Islamic Emirate on the other hand denied the detentions of women and added that the government is committed to fighting against family violence.
“If we witness any kind of violence, the relevant bodies will act and sisters are immune to any kind of attack. Families should also be cautious, there exist laws and implementing administrations in country,” Zabiullah Mujahid, the spokesperson of the Islamic Emirate, told TOLOnews.
“Providing physical and mental security is one of the main obligations of the government, both at the society and family level,” Zakiullah Muhammadi, a university lecturer, told TOLOnews.
The acting minister of vice and virtue has denied any women’s arrests for alleged improper dress code and called the allegations “propaganda” against the Islamic Emirate.
UNAMA Concerned About Arrests of Afghan Women: UNSG Spox
The report says that ISIL-K has taken a broad strategy for the recruitment of troops in Afghanistan.
The Islamic Emirate rejected the UN report about the activities of Daesh in Afghanistan.
The spokesman of the Islamic Emirate told TOLOnews that Daesh has been suppressed in Afghanistan and cannot harm other countries from Afghanistan.
“Unfortunately, some NGOs want to campaign for Daesh, they are busy on the magnification of Daesh, which is not the right step. We ask that instead of this Daesh campaign, the facts should be taken into consideration and the public mind should not be filled with anxiety,” he said.
In the latest report on the threat posed by ISIL (Daesh) to international peace and security, the Secretary-General stated that Daesh, as the biggest threat in Afghanistan, can also pose a threat to the region and beyond.
The report says that ISIL-K has taken a broad strategy for the recruitment of troops in Afghanistan.
“Notwithstanding a decrease in the number of attacks perpetrated by ISIL-K and its recent loss of territory, casualties, and high attrition among senior and mid-tier leadership figures, Member States continue to consider the group as the greatest threat within Afghanistan, with the ability to project a threat into the region and beyond,” The report reads.
The findings of this report indicate that the decrease in the attacks of the Daesh Khorasan in Afghanistan probably reflects the effect of the Islamic Emirate counter-terrorism efforts and the change in their leadership strategy.
“This is an international problem. Security plans should be formed in this regard,” said Sayed Muqadam Amin, a political analyst.
“Whenever intelligence information is received, the location and number of Daesh are considered. You see that Daesh attacked in Pakistan, Iran and Tajikistan, and the attacks of Daesh have decreased in Afghanistan,” said Mohammad Matin Madadkhail, another political analyst.
This comes as some more countries have also expressed concerns about the possible threats of Daesh in the country, which have always been rejected by the Islamic Emirate.
Islamic Emirate Rejects Report of Daesh Activity In Afghanistan
Spokesperson Matthew Miller said that the US “strongly supports” the resolution’s call for a UN special envoy for Afghanistan.
The US State Department said that the Special Representative for Afghanistan Tom West and Special Envoy for Women, Girls, and Human Rights in Afghanistan Rina Amiri plan to attend the Doha meeting.
At a press briefing, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said that the US “strongly supports” the resolution’s call for a UN special envoy for Afghanistan.
“Special Representative for Afghanistan Tom West and Special Envoy for Women, Girls, and Human Rights in Afghanistan Rina Amiri attended the last UN secretary-general’s meeting of Afghanistan envoys in May of last year, and they do plan to attend the next one this month in Doha. The meeting follows the UN Security Council resolution on Afghanistan adopted in December. The United States strongly supports the resolution’s call for a UN special envoy for Afghanistan, and urges the secretary-general to appoint a special envoy as soon as possible.
A special envoy will be well-positioned to coordinate international engagement on Afghanistan to achieve the objectives laid out in this resolution,” Miller said.
Meanwhile, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, the ambassador and special envoy of Iran for Afghanistan, on X said: “If others are interested in the regional contact committee and countries follow engagement, we will face a stable Afghanistan.”
Earlier, Iran’s embassy in Afghanistan stated that a regional contact committee was being established to cooperate with the caretaker authorities of Afghanistan.
While the Doha meeting on Afghanistan is scheduled to be held on February 18, the Islamic Emirate’s intent to participate has not yet been confirmed.
Political analysts have varying views regarding the Doha meeting.
“The topic of discussion in this meeting is not recognition, but rather how to get the Islamic Emirate ready to accept world conditions and pave the way for interaction and recognition,”
said Sayed Bilal Ahmad Fatemi, another political analyst.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres will convene a meeting of various countries’ special representatives for Afghanistan in Doha, Qatar on February 18 and will continue for two days.
Some civil society activists, women’s rights advocates and a delegation of the Islamic Emirate have been invited to the meeting.
US Envoys For Afghanistan Plan to Attend Doha Meeting
Meanwhile, political analysts are of the view that the upcoming presidential elections will impact engagement between Kabul and Washington.
Washington says that the Islamic Emirate should meet their own commitments if they want to be recognized.
John Kirby, US National Security Council spokesman, at a press briefing said the Islamic Emirate has not met the requirements for getting recognized.
“We’ve said it numerous times. If they want to be seen as legitimate rulers, they need to meet all the commitments that they said they would meet and make. And they haven’t done that. Nothing has changed about our policy when it comes to the Taliban,” said John Kirby, US National Security Council spokesman.
The Islamic Emirate says that Kabul is committed to its pledges made with the international community and has asked the US to engage with Afghanistan.
“We are engaged with our neighbor, region and world countries. If the US doesn’t want engagement with Islamic Emirate — that depends on them, but bilateral relations are preferable,” said Zabiullah Mujahid, the spokesperson for the Islamic Emirate.
Meanwhile, political analysts are of the view that the upcoming presidential elections will impact engagement between Kabul and Washington.
“After the US elections in 2024, the new US president may begin semi official engagement with Kabul and open their consulate,” said Sayed Bilal Fatimi, international relations analyst.
“The Islamic Emirate should lose something to gain something when it comes to engagement with the world community,” said Moeen Gul Samkanai, a political analyst.
This comes as earlier the US State Department said that they are assessing possibilities of reopening the US consulate in Kabul.
US Policy Towards ‘Taliban’ Has Not Changed: White House
Former US Ambassador Ryan Crocker asserts that the upcoming international meeting on Afghanistan in Doha won’t grant legitimacy to the Taliban’s government.
Crocker told Voice of America that the United Nations, as the meeting’s host, should clarify that the Taliban regime doesn’t deserve recognition and shouldn’t be considered a legitimate government.
Criticizing the Biden administration, Crocker accuses it of neglecting Afghanistan and disregarding the bans on women’s education and work.
He alleges that the Taliban hasn’t undergone intellectual or political changes, maintaining ties with Al-Qaeda and posing a threat to Afghanistan, the region, and the world.
Stressing the need for continued diplomatic efforts, Crocker suggests that the US should thwart potential threats in the region.
Meanwhile, the spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council affirmed that the Taliban government must fulfil its commitments before receiving recognition.
John Kirby clarified that the United States hasn’t made any efforts to normalize relations with the Taliban, reiterating the unchanged US policy towards the group.
Despite the upcoming Doha meeting, where the Taliban’s status might be discussed, Washington asserts no moves have been made to normalize or recognize the Taliban, highlighting concerns over their governance and policies.
The meeting in Doha, set to commence next Sunday, aims to gather special representatives from various countries to discuss Afghanistan’s future.
Crocker’s remarks underscore ongoing international skepticism regarding the legitimacy and intentions of the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Doha meeting won’t grant Legitimacy to Taliban Govt
The World Food Program has announced that it has provided food items and cash assistance to nearly 19 million people in Afghanistan over the past year.
According to a report released on Tuesday, February 13th, these aids were aimed at strengthening local communities, preventing malnutrition, and improving student learning.
Previously, the World Food Program had also reported assisting over half a million women in Afghanistan last calendar year to promote their self-sufficiency.
However, the World Food Program and several other international relief agencies have consistently warned of budget shortages and increasing levels of need in Afghanistan.
The organization’s report indicates that 41 million people in Afghanistan are facing severe hunger at an alarmingly high emergency level.
It’s worth mentioning that the return of thousands of Afghan migrants from countries like Iran and Pakistan, along with the destructive earthquake in Herat, has further exacerbated the humanitarian needs in the country.
These circumstances have heightened the urgency for humanitarian assistance to the people in Afghanistan.
Efforts to address these urgent humanitarian needs are crucial to prevent further suffering in Afghanistan.
WFP assists 19 million people in Afghanistan over the past year
The United Nations says aid workers are still in a “race against time” to remove rubble and rebuild after the devastating earthquake struck eastern Afghanistan last month, killing at least 2,200 people and cutting off remote areas.
The 6.0-magnitude quake on Aug. 31 was shallow, destroying or causing extensive damage to low-rise buildings in the mountainous region. It hit late at night, and homes — mostly made of mud, wood, or rocks — collapsed instantly, becoming death traps.
Satellite data shows that about 40,500 truckloads of debris still needs to be cleared from affected areas in several provinces, the United Nations Development Program said Wednesday. Entire communities have been upended and families are sleeping in the open, it added.
The quake’s epicenter was in remote and rugged Kunar province, challenging rescue and relief efforts by the Taliban government and humanitarian groups. Authorities deployed helicopters or airdropped army commandos to evacuate survivors. Aid workers walked for hours on foot to reach isolated communities.
“This is a race against time,” said Devanand Ramiah, from the UNDP’s Crisis Bureau. “Debris removal and reconstruction operations must start safely and swiftly.”
People’s main demands were the reconstruction of houses and water supplies, according to a spokesman for a Taliban government committee tasked with helping survivors, Zia ur Rahman Speenghar.
People were getting assistance in cash, food, tents, beds, and other necessities, Speenghar said Thursday. Three new roads were under construction in the Dewagal Valley, and roads would be built to areas where there previously were none.
“Various countries and organizations have offered assistance in the construction of houses but that takes time. After the second round of assistance, work will begin on the third round, which is considering what kind of houses can be built here,” the spokesman said.
Afghanistan is facing a “perfect storm” of crises, including natural disasters like the recent earthquake, said Roza Otunbayeva, who leads the U.N. mission to the country.