U.S., Pakistan to deepen bilateral cooperation to tackle leading terrorist groups
It transpired during their bilateral counterterrorism dialogue in Islamabad on Tuesday (August 12, 2025), a day after the U.S. designated the Pakistan-based BLA a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.
The dialogue was co-chaired by Nabeel Munir, Pakistan's Special Secretary for the U.N., and Gregory D. LoGerfo, the Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State.
According to a joint statement issued after the meeting, the two sides reaffirmed their shared commitment to combating terrorism in "all its forms and manifestations".
'Both delegations underscored the critical importance of developing effective approaches to terrorist threats, including those posed by Balochistan Liberation Army, ISIS-Khorasan, and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan,' it stated.
Reaffirming the "long-standing partnership" between Pakistan and the U.S., both sides stressed that "sustained and structured engagement" is vital to countering terrorism and promoting peace and stability.
The U.S. applauded Pakistan's "continued successes in containing terrorist entities that pose a threat to the peace and security of the region and the world".
Both delegations emphasised the importance of building stronger institutional frameworks and developing capabilities to respond to security challenges and to counter the use of emerging technologies for terrorist purposes.
They also reaffirmed their intention to work closely in multilateral fora, including the United Nations, to "promote effective and enduring approaches to counterterrorism".
The BLA was blacklisted in 2019 following a string of deadly attacks in Pakistan but it has continued terrorist activities, including taking credit for the hijacking of the Jaffar Express this year. Pakistan had blamed India for allegedly supporting the BLA.
Pakistan and the U.S. ties have markedly improved in recent months, as witnessed by back-to-back visits of Army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir to the US and having high profile interaction, including with President Donald Trump.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Starvation is a war crime, but will justice ever be done?
Calls to prosecute the war crime of starvation are becoming louder and more frequent. "[Famine] is a weapon of war being wielded across the globe at the moment. But this has to stop, it's against international humanitarian law," Shayna Lewis, senior adviser on Sudan for the US-based group PAEMA (Preventing and Ending Mass Atrocities) told DW recently. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now She was talking about the Sudanese city of El Fasher, which has been under siege for a year now and where food is running out for around 30,000 people trapped there. "It is a crime internationally and it needs to be prosecuted as such," Lewis argued. Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have said similar about Israel's blockade of aid and food into the Gaza Strip. "Israel is starving Gaza. It's genocide. It's a crime against humanity. It's a war crime," Michael Fakhri, the United Nations' special rapporteur on the right to food, told UK newspaper the Guardian last week. Food as a weapon of war Experts say that part of the reason there are now more calls to prosecute starvation of civilians as a war crime, is that there is more famine being caused by conflict. Over the first decade of this century, there was very little famine, researchers at the World Peace Foundation, or WPF, wrote in a 2022 collection of essays, "Accountability for Starvation." But more recently that has changed. "This is an ancient phenomenon, warring parties have been using it for centuries," Rebecca Bakos Blumenthal, a legal adviser with the Starvation Accountability project run by Netherlands-based law foundation, Global Rights Compliance, or GRC, says. After 2015, this kind of tactic has re-emerged, she noted. Over the past decade, there have been conflict-related famines in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Food security experts suggest Russian attacks on Ukraine's agricultural sector could also be seen as criminal attempts to weaponize food. Basically there's just more of this war crime happening again, they argue. "Even while global food security is improving, the incidence of famines is increasing," Alex de Waal, a professor at Tufts University in the US and head of the WPF's research into mass starvation, wrote last week. "This tells us that the global food security is more volatile and unequal. That's consistent with hunger being used as a weapon." The deliberate withholding of food or other essentials needed for civilians' survival is categorized as a war crime by many nations as well as in various iterations of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute (which is applied by the International Criminal Court, or ICC). But so far, those who wield that "weapon" have never been brought to trial: The war crime of starvation has never been prosecuted in an international court on its own, only as a part of around 20 other war crimes cases. And just because civilians are going hungry in a conflict, doesn't mean a crime was committed. "One of the issues in law is the question of intent," de Waal told DW. "The war crime of starvation requires that the perpetrator is acting with intent." Starvation happens over the longer term, de Waal points out, and some legal scholars have argued it must be proven that a perpetrator intended to starve people from the very beginning of, for example, a siege or blockade. But most legal experts believe there could also be "indirect intent," de Waal explains. That is, it's clear that starvation will occur "in the normal course of events," and the perpetrator knows that, they've had opportunities to prevent it, but didn't do so. Another issue for any legal case involving starvation is the lack of precedent, and which international or national courts have jurisdiction over the alleged war criminals. Changing views on starvation as war crime Up until a couple of years ago, starvation was often seen as a developmental or humanitarian issue, GRC's Blumenthal explains. But now there is more attention being paid to its criminal aspects. "I've worked on this issue for quite a few years now and these things do move slowly," concedes Blumenthal, who's been looking at the topic since 2020. "But I do think the needle is moving and there have been some consequential steps taken over the past 10 years." In 2018, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 2417, "condemning the starving of civilians as a method of warfare." In 2019, changes were made to the Rome Statute, making starvation a war crime in non-international armed conflicts too, rather than just international. There have also been UN commissions of inquiry on conflicts in South Sudan and Ethiopia-Tigray specifically focusing on the topic of starvation as a war crime, Blumenthal points out. "We're seeing a lot more international and local organizations, together with accountability mechanisms, calling this out and certain striking examples, like the case of Gaza today, have really amplified awareness around the crime as well," she notes. In fact, the ICC warrants issued against Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024, which specifically mention the war crime of starvation, are a "historic milestone," Blumenthal notes. It's the first time that international warrants have been issued for starvation as a stand-alone crime. The ICC also has an open investigation into Sudan going, she adds. "The issue has undoubtedly gained more attention over the last 10 years," de Waal confirms. "The legal frameworks are all in place. What's lacking is the political will to act." Will perpetrators of starvation ever end up in court? There are still jurisdictional challenges, de Waal told DW. "But I am confident that there are many cases for which conviction is possible. It just requires getting the accused in court." Blumenthal agrees. "There are misconceptions around this and so many people think [starvation] is an inevitable part of war," she says. "But during our in-depth investigations, it's surprising how quickly it becomes clear that actually these patterns are very stark and in many situations, you can discern a deliberate strategy." Blumenthal is cautiously optimistic that one day soon those who deliberately starve civilians will face justice. "That is certainly the hope," she concludes. "That's what we are all working towards."
NDTV
38 minutes ago
- NDTV
Why Russian Minister Sergei Lavrov's USSR Shirt Was In Focus Amid Putin-Trump Summit
Washington: The sartorial choice of Sergei Lavrov, Russia's top diplomat, during US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin's Alaska meeting on Friday, drew the attention of many across the globe. In what's seen as a not-so-subtle act of trolling, the Russian Foreign Minister was seen wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with 'CCCP', the Russian initials for the USSR. Seventy-five-year-old Lavrov's attire is being seen as a nod to Kremalin's imperial ambitions, forwarding Putin's long-running narrative: Russians and Ukrainians are 'one people' -- a claim that denies Ukraine's legitimacy and territorial integrity while promoting a broader notion of unity with Russia. On Telegram, Russian fashion bloggers identified the $120 sweatshirt as the work of Chelyabinsk-based brand, Selsovet, that specialises in 'Soviet heritage' clothing. Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis was quick to point out Lavrov's clothing choice on X and wrote. ''Just give us half of Ukraine and we promise we will stop,' says negotiator wearing USSR sweatshirt.' "Just give us half of Ukraine and we promise we will stop" says negotiator wearing USSR sweatshirt. — Gabrielius Landsbergis🇱🇹 (@GLandsbergis) August 15, 2025 Belarusian politician Franak Viačorka noted that "Lavrov's 'USSR' sweater in Alaska is a clear nod to the Putin regime's imperial ambitions." Lavrov's 'USSR' sweater in Alaska is a clear nod to the Putin regime's imperial ambitions. They're stuck in the past and want to pull Ukraine and Belarus back with them – forgetting we are free nations that will never return to their 'brotherhood'. Dictators cannot be appeased. — Franak Viačorka (@franakviacorka) August 15, 2025 "They're stuck in the past and want to pull Ukraine and Belarus back with them – forgetting we are free nations that will never return to their 'brotherhood'. Dictators cannot be appeased," he said. The Putin aide, who was once seen as a pragmatic and skilled diplomat, has been seen mirroring the Kremlin's radicalised politics in recent years by adopting an increasingly combative tone and often resorting to trolling and mockery. Like most of Russia's veteran delegation to Alaska, Lavrov had also started his political career in the Soviet Union and had been accused of clinging to a Soviet imperialist mentality by the Russian opposition. The Soviet Union, or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), spanned much of Eurasia between 1922 and 1991, before it dissolved, leading to the independence of countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, apart from Russia and Ukraine.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
IAF vs PAF: War of doctrines and the question of aircraft downings
Now that both the IAF and PAF have made their formal claims of having shot down the other's aircraft in the 87-hour, predominantly aerial conflagration in May, we can ask a larger question Shekhar Gupta Listen to This Article I can begin this with a trick question: If in a war, one side lost 13 aircraft to combat and the other five, who won? All of the active India-Pakistan wars and conflicts have been short, 22 days in 1965 being the longest. Operation Sindoor was just over three days. Whenever a conclusive outcome like a capitulation and mass surrender is missing, there's scope for both sides to claim victory. There is clarity in some situations, however. We Indians believe we won every war or skirmish, but accept that we lost 1962 to China. Similarly, the Pakistanis concede defeat in
