US designates Pakistani group's offshoot as 'terrorist' organization over Kashmir attack
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the move follows the April 22 militant attack in India-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people.
The Resistance Front, also known as Kashmir Resistance, initially took responsibility for the attack in Pahalgam before denying it days later.
Lashkar-e-Taiba, listed as a "foreign terrorist organization" by the United States, is a group accused of plotting attacks in India and in the West, including the three-day deadly assault on Mumbai in November 2008.
TRF's designation by Washington as a "foreign terrorist organization" and "specially designated global terrorist" enforced President Donald Trump's "call for justice for the Pahalgam attack," Rubio said in a statement.
Rubio called TRF, which emerged in 2019, a "front and proxy" for Lashkar-e-Taiba. It is considered an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, a Delhi-based think tank.
India said it appreciated the move, with Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar calling it a "strong affirmation of India-US counter terrorism co-operation," in a post on X.
The April attack sparked heavy fighting between nuclear-armed Asian neighbors India and Pakistan in the latest escalation of a decades-old rivalry. New Delhi blamed the attack on Pakistan, which denied responsibility while calling for a neutral investigation. Washington condemned the attack but did not directly blame Islamabad.
Michael Kugelman, a Washington-based South Asia analyst and writer for Foreign Policy magazine, said in designating TRF, "Washington is flagging its concern about the terrorist attack that provoked the recent India-Pakistan conflict, and siding with New Delhi's view that the group is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba."
He added: "This can be a shot in the arm for a U.S.-India relationship looking to rebound after a few tough months."
On May 7, Indian jets bombed sites across the border that New Delhi described as "terrorist infrastructure," setting off an exchange of attacks between the two countries by fighter jets, missiles, drones, and artillery that killed dozens until a ceasefire on May 10.
The ceasefire was first announced by Trump on social media after Washington held talks with both sides, but India has differed with Trump's claims that it resulted from his intervention and his threats to sever trade talks.
India's position has been that New Delhi and Islamabad must resolve their problems directly and with no outside involvement.
India is an increasingly important U.S. partner in Washington's effort to counter China's rising influence in Asia, while Pakistan is a U.S. ally.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dubai Eye
an hour ago
- Dubai Eye
Two civilians killed in Thailand-Cambodia border clash
At least two Thai civilians have been killed and two others injured by shelling from the Cambodian side on Thursday, a Thai district official told Reuters, as armed clashes broke out between the militaries of the Southeast Asian neighbours. Some 40,000 civilians from 86 villages in Thailand have also been evacuated to safer locations, Sutthirot Charoenthanasak, district chief of Kabcheing in Surin province said. Armed clashes broke out between Thailand and Cambodia along a disputed area of their border on Thursday, both countries said, accusing each other of firing the first shots after weeks of simmering tension and diplomatic spats. The clash came after Thailand recalled its ambassador to Cambodia late on Wednesday and said it would expel Cambodia's envoy in Bangkok, after a second Thai soldier in the space of a week lost a limb to a landmines it said had been laid recently in the disputed area. Thailand has deployed an F-16 fighter jet for action against the Cambodian military along the border between the two southeast Asian neighbours, one of six being readied, the Second Army region said on social media on Thursday. Thailand's military on Thursday said Cambodia deployed a surveillance drone before sending troops with heavy weapons to an area near disputed Ta Moan Thom temple along the eastern border, around 360 km from the capital Bangkok. Cambodian troops opened fire and two Thai soldiers were wounded, a Thai army spokesperson said, adding Cambodia had used multiple weapons, including rocket launchers. A spokesperson for Cambodia's defence ministry, however, said there had been an unprovoked incursion by Thai troops and Cambodian forces had responded in self-defence. Cambodia's influential former premier Hun Sen in a Facebook post said two Cambodian provinces had come under shelling from the Thai military. A spokesperson for Thailand's army said Cambodian troops. Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai said the situation was delicate. "We have to be careful," he told reporters. "We will follow international law." For more than a century, Thailand and Cambodia have contested sovereignty at various undemarcated points along their 817 km (508 miles) land border, which has led to skirmishes over several years and at least a dozen deaths, including during a weeklong exchange of artillery in 2011. Tensions were reignited in May following the killing of a Cambodian soldier during a brief exchange of gunfire, which escalated into a full-blown diplomatic crisis and now has triggered armed clashes. An attempt by Thai premier Paetongtarn Shinawatra to resolve the recent tensions via a call with Hun Sen, the contents of which were leaked, kicked off a political storm in Thailand, leading to her suspension by a court. Chamnan Chuenta, governor of Thailand's Surin Province, in a Facebook post on Thursday asked residents of the district abutting the temple to shelter in their homes and prepare for evacuation. Cambodia has many landmines left over from its civil war decades ago, numbering in the millions according to de-mining groups.
Dubai Eye
an hour ago
- Dubai Eye
Brazil to join South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at ICJ
Brazil is finalising its submission to join South Africa's genocide case against Israel's actions in Gaza at the International Court of Justice, the foreign ministry said in a statement on Wednesday. South Africa filed a case in 2023 asking the ICJ to declare that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case argues that in its war against Hamas fighters, Israel's military actions go beyond targeting Hamas alone by attacking civilians, with strikes on schools, hospitals, camps and shelters. Other countries – including Spain, Turkey and Colombia – have also sought to join the case against Israel. In its statement, the Brazilian government accused Israel of violations of international law "such as the annexation of territories by force" and it expressed "deep indignation" at violence suffered by the civilian population. Israel denies deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians, saying its sole interest is to annihilate Hamas. Lawyers for Israel have dismissed South Africa's case as an abuse of the genocide convention. The Israeli embassy in Brasilia said the Brazilian statement used "harsh words that do not fully portray the reality of what is currently happening in Gaza," while Brazil also "completely ignored" the role of Hamas within Gaza's reality. Brazil's National Israeli association CONIB said in a statement in response to Wednesday's decision, "The breaking of Brazil's long-standing friendship and partnership with Israel is a misguided move that proves the extremism of our foreign policy." Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has long been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions in Gaza, but Wednesday's decision carries added significance amid heightened tensions between Brazil and Israel ally the US. The Trump administration announced 50 per cent tariffs on all Brazilian goods this month. A diplomat familiar with the thinking of the Lula administration told Reuters that Brazil does not believe its decision to join South Africa's case will impact its relationship with Washington. The US has opposed South Africa's genocide case under both Democratic former President Joe Biden and Trump, a Republican. In February, Trump signed an executive order to cut US financial assistance to South Africa, citing in part its ICJ case.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Strategic neutrality is a smart approach in an uncertain world
Amid escalating tensions between global powers – the US, China and Russia – the Gulf states have adopted a policy of 'strategic neutrality' as a deliberate and calculated choice. This neutrality reflects a rational and forward-looking approach that balances national interests with the evolving geopolitical landscape. It aims to protect diplomatic and economic achievements, enhance regional stability and consolidate the Gulf's leadership in both regional and international affairs. This strategy emerged as a practical response to a volatile global order marked by intensifying rivalries and competing alliances. Rather than aligning with a single axis, Gulf countries have invested in a diversified network of relationships that serve their sovereign development agendas and long-term goals. The US remains a key security partner for the Gulf, particularly in defence and arms co-operation. Yet this relationship has experienced increasing variability due to changes in US administrations and a strategic shift towards the Indo-Pacific. In parallel, China has become a principal economic partner for the region through the Belt and Road Initiative, investing in energy, infrastructure and advanced technologies such as AI and digital systems. Russia maintains influence through its energy partnership in Opec+ and its involvement in regional conflicts such as Syria and Libya. Rather than choosing sides, Gulf states have embraced 'balanced positioning' – maintaining defence and economic ties with Washington, expanding economic and technological co-operation with Beijing, and co-ordinating energy strategies with Moscow. This approach allows them to broaden their strategic space and optimise outcomes without being locked into rigid blocs or reactive alignments. A prime example of this approach was the visit of US President Donald Trump to the Gulf in May. The visit resulted in significant investment commitments by Gulf countries in the US, totalling in the trillions of dollars. These included $600 billion from Saudi Arabia in infrastructure and smart city projects, and more than $1.4 trillion in planned UAE investments targeting clean energy, artificial intelligence and a number of advanced sectors. Bahrain also signed a major package with American companies, signalling a deepening and diversified economic partnership. Gulf neutrality is not limited to great-power relations. It extends to regional diplomacy and influence. Gulf states have encouraged balanced foreign policies across the Arab world, notably with Syria, Jordan and a number of Arab states. This has involved economic support, diplomatic reintegration and quiet advocacy for lifting sanctions. Syria, in particular, illustrates this shift: the Gulf pushed for its return to the Arab League in 2023 while supporting humanitarian and developmental pathways. This stabilising role is expanding beyond the Arab core. In the Red Sea and Horn of Africa, Gulf countries are investing in ports, energy corridors and conflict mediation. Their role in Yemen peace efforts and in balancing military influence along East Africa's coastline underscores their evolution into a regional anchor of stability. As global challenges – from energy transitions to maritime security and AI governance – intensify, the GCC states face complex tests requiring strategic clarity. The Gulf countries' response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict further reflects their diplomatic agility. Key among them refrained from condemning Russia, instead calling for dialogue and restraint. They also facilitated prisoner exchanges, enhancing their reputation as neutral intermediaries. Meanwhile, they continued digital partnerships with Chinese firms, demonstrating pragmatism and a commitment to sovereign decision-making, despite western pressure. Domestically, national strategies like Saudi Vision 2030 and UAE Centennial 2071 promote economic diversification and knowledge-based growth. With more than $4 trillion in sovereign wealth assets, the Gulf enjoys financial autonomy and global investment influence. This economic depth enables the region to pursue foreign policy independently and assertively. Security policy has evolved, too. Gulf states have diversified arms sources, bolstered local defence industries and invested in cybersecurity infrastructure. Their growing ties with Turkey and new bilateral agreements reflect a broader goal: achieving strategic autonomy in a multipolar world. As part of this shift, several of them are exploring engagement with geopolitical blocs such as Brics and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. These moves signal a recalibration, though not without friction – Washington has issued tariff threats against countries deepening ties with rival centres of influence, clearly aimed at overtures by partners towards the East. Beyond traditional diplomacy, Gulf neutrality has morphed into soft power and global engagement. The UAE has hosted major international events such as Expo 2020 and Cop28. Qatar elevated its global standing through the Fifa World Cup, while Saudi Arabia is positioning Riyadh as a hub for investment, diplomacy and cultural exchange. These initiatives reinforce the Gulf countries' collective ambition to define – not merely follow – the contours of the global order. As global challenges – from energy transitions to maritime security and AI governance – intensify, the GCC states face complex tests requiring strategic clarity. What sets this model apart is its adaptability. It has turned geography into leverage, neutrality into influence and diversified partnerships into engines of resilience and sustainable growth. Ultimately, these states are charting a confident and forward-looking course through an era of shifting power dynamics. Strategic neutrality is no longer reactive – it is an active instrument of sovereignty, enabling the region to balance between competing forces while protecting its national interests and shaping its collective future. Whether this approach endures will depend on the Gulf countries' ability to refine it – adapting their neutrality tools to remain aligned with a world in transformation.
