Russia's top court removes Taliban's terror group designation
Russia's Supreme Court lifted the ban on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a group that had been designated as a terrorist organisation more than two decades ago.
The Islamist militants wrested power from the Ashraf Ghani administration in August 2021 as US and Nato troops were in the final weeks of withdrawing from the country after two decades of war.
Moscow previously called the Nato withdrawal a 'failure' and had taken steps to normalise friendly relations with the de facto rulers of Afghanistan.
The Russian court's ruling on Thursday marked a diplomatic victory for the Taliban, who were put on Moscow's list of terrorist organisations in 2003, making any contact with them punishable under Russian law.
However, the Supreme Court ruling does not amount to formal recognition of the Taliban authorities.
Taliban delegations have attended various forums hosted by Russia as Moscow has sought to position itself as a regional power broker. In 2024, Russian president, Vladimir Putin, called the Taliban 'allies in the fight against terrorism'.
The ruling was prompted by a request from the prosecutor general's office following last year's adoption of a law stipulating that the official designation as a 'terrorist organisation' could be suspended by a court. Judge Oleg Nefedov announced that the ruling is effective immediately.
The former Soviet Union fought a 10-year war in Afghanistan that ended with Moscow withdrawing its troops in 1989. Russian officials have recently been emphasising the need to engage with the Taliban to help stabilise Afghanistan.
In recent years, the Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have removed the Taliban from their lists of terrorist groups.
The Taliban's promises of a more moderate rule after their 2021 takeover were quickly overshadowed by the reintroduction of strict restrictions on women and girls. Women are banned from most jobs and public spaces, including parks, baths, and gyms, while girls are prohibited from continuing education beyond the sixth grade.
Such measures have isolated the Taliban on the world stage, although their government has established diplomatic ties with countries including China and the United Arab Emirates.
The UN this year renewed its call for the Taliban to lift the bans.
The group's decrees limiting the participation of girls and women have affected foreign aid to the country. The Taliban have also brought back their strict interpretation of Islamic law, or Shariah, including public executions.
Some members of the Taliban have expressed a desire for greater engagement with the international community and advocate for relaxing harsh policies in order to gain more external support. This has led to increased interaction with the US, particularly under the Trump administration, focused on prisoner exchanges and releases. However, the broader policies of the Taliban, particularly regarding women's rights, have remained a significant barrier to wider international recognition and support.
Ibraheem Bahiss, a senior analyst with Crisis Group's Asia Program, said the Taliban's listing as a terrorist group was a legal impairment for trade and political ties with Kabul and its lifting reflected Moscow's desire to improve relations.
'However, beyond making it easier for individuals and businesses to engage with Afghanistan, I am not sure what other major benefit this will have,' he said.
South Asia analyst Michael Kugelman said the Russian move was not ground-breaking because many countries had never formally designated the Taliban as a terrorist organisation. At the same time, he called the decision a 'win-win' for bilateral relations.
For Russia, he said it would serve as a confidence-building measure, helping pave the way for more engagement and enabling Moscow to better protect its interests in Afghanistan, particularly concerns about anti-Russia terror groups like Islamic State -Khorasan. 'Meanwhile, for the Taliban, the court decision is a legitimacy-boosting outcome they can leverage to point to international acceptance of their rule,' Mr Kugelman observed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump to send 9,000 migrants to terrorist detention center
Donald Trump is set to send thousands more illegal migrants to the infamous terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay starting this week in an acceleration of his mass deportation plan. In February, Trump deployed members of the Armed Forces to expand the capacity of a detention facility at the Cuba base. This week, at least 9,000 people are being identified for a potential transfer to the prison as early as Wednesday, Politico reported. Currently, around 500 migrants have been held at the jail known as 'Gitmo' for short stints in the past few months. These holds would also be temporary, as it would be a pit stop on the way to being deported to the country they came from. However, it would reportedly send a message to foreign countries that America is closed to migrants who aren't willing to go through the legal process. A document obtained by the outlet said that several hundred Europeans - including over a hundred Russians and Romanians - that has the State Department worried. 'The message is to shock and horrify people, to upset people, but we're allies,' an anonymous State Department official familiar with the plans said. The White House also faces legal challenges to the policy. The United States Navy announced that its combat ship USS St. Louis was moored at the Guantanamo Bay naval station and that the crew was supporting the expansion in February. Photographs showed members of the armed forces setting up army green tents and pounding large stakes into the ground to hold them up. The first phase of the expansion is expected to increase the center's capacity to 2,000, according to the Navy, with plans to expand it to fit 30,000 migrants. The detention facility is widely known as the location for detained terrorism suspects in recent years, but the Trump administration has decided to expand it's use for detaining migrants scheduled for deportation. Trump announced plans for his administration to detain as many as 30,000 high priority migrants with criminal records at the military base at Guantanamo Bay. Legal experts stress that detainees at Guantanamo Bay will still have legal rights afforded to them by the Constitution, as the Supreme Court defended terror suspects right to habeas corpus and a lawyer. 'The government's view at that time was that Guantanamo was sort of outside the parameters of the U.S. Constitution, and whoever was there had no rights, whatever. And the Supreme Court rejected that,' Eugene Fidell, Yale Law School military law expert noted. 'We don't want them coming back, so we're sending them to Guantanamo,' he said at the White House. Trump's border czar Tom Homan (pictured) told reporters the administration would expand the capacity of the facility as the military has planned to erect temporary tents. 'We're just going to expand upon that existing migrant center,' Homan said.
Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Israel's contentious military exemption for ultra-Orthodox community
JERUSALEM, June 11 (Reuters) - A dispute over how many members of Israel's ultra-Orthodox Haredi community should serve in the military has destabilised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's governing coalition. The ultra-Orthodox have long been exempt from military service, which applies to most other young Israelis, but last year the Supreme Court ordered the defence ministry to end that practice and start conscripting seminary students. The exemption, in place for decades and which over the years has spared an increasingly large number of people, has become a heated topic in Israel with the military still embroiled in a war in Gaza and after defeating Hezbollah in Lebanon. Two religious parties in Netanyahu's coalition have demanded a new law to enshrine the status of ultra-Orthodox religious seminary students - a group that has grown significantly over the decades - threatening to vote with the opposition parties and disband parliament if they don't get their way. Here are some facts about the dispute: The exemptions offered to the ultra-Orthodox Haredi community date back to the early days of the state of Israel in 1948 when its first prime minister, the socialist David Ben-Gurion, exempted about 400 students from military service so they could devote themselves to religious study. In so doing, Ben-Gurion hoped to keep alive sacred knowledge and traditions almost wiped out in the Holocaust. Since then, the exemptions have become an increasing headache as the fast-growing community has expanded to make up more than 13% of Israel's population, a proportion expected to reach around a third within 40 years due to a high birth rate. The Haredi resistance to joining the military is based around their strong sense of religious identity, which religious leaders fear risks being weakened by army service. Some Haredi men do serve in the army but most do not, which many secular Israelis feel is deeply unfair. Living in tight-knit communities and devoting their lives to religious study, many Haredi men do not work, but live off donations, state benefits and the often paltry wages of their wives. For mainstream Israelis, whose taxes subsidise the Haredim and who are themselves obliged to serve in the military, the exemptions have long bred resentment, and this has grown since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. Many Israelis regard the war against Hamas as an existential battle for the future of the country, and some 300,000 reservists joined up to fight at the start of the war, leaving their families and putting their careers on hold. Opinion polls have indicated broad public support for drafting the Haredi. Netanyahu's government includes two Haredi parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, whose spiritual leaders are demanding a special status enshrined in law for their young men. However, some inside Netanyahu's Likud party have shown unease or outright opposition to blanket exemption. The prime minister is trying to find a compromise deal on a new law that would be consistent with the Supreme Court ruling. If the deadlock persists, the Haredi parties say they will vote with the opposition to dissolve parliament.
Rhyl Journal
19 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Chagossians want sovereignty deal to go ahead, says Mauritius legal adviser
Philippe Sands KC, who has represented Mauritius in its legal battle with the UK since 2010, told a House of Lords committee he wanted to 'knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved' in negotiations over the deal. His comments came a day after a panel of UN experts urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to abandon the agreement reached with Mauritius last month and negotiate a new one. The panel, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, said it was 'gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in the processes that have led to the agreement'. The experts also criticised the continuing bar on Chagossians returning to Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, because of the ongoing presence of a joint UK-US military base. On Wednesday, Mr Sands told the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee: 'To be clear, it is not the case that Chagossians had no role in the negotiations. 'I can tell you that Chagossians in Mauritius and Seychelles were deeply involved in consulting with successive prime ministers of Mauritius and they attended the hearings at the International Court of Justice.' He added: 'I want to really knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved in the various processes. That is simply not true. 'It is true, however, that the Chagossian community is divided and I respect that division.' Earlier, he had told the committee that, while some UK-based Chagossians wanted the islands to remain British territory, 'most in Mauritius and Seychelles have made very clear…that they wish this deal to go ahead'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the Diego Garcia base and have not been allowed to Mr Sands told peers the 'quid pro quo' for the military base remaining on Diego Garcia was Chagossians would be allowed to settle on the outer islands of the archipelago. The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has said will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States, the UN secretary general and the African Union, but heavily criticised by the Conservative Party as a 'surrender'. Mr Sands disagreed with that on Wednesday, saying the deal 'will enhance Britain's position in the world'. He said: 'I can tell you from personal experience, direct comments from countries, ambassadors, prime ministers, presidents around the world, this is seen as Britain back on the world (stage), acting honourably and decently, protecting its interests and safeguarding…the rule of law.'
