Islamabad, Kabul upgrade envoys status
The two sides decided to upgrade their diplomatic relationship in May when Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi hosted his Pakistani and Afghan counterparts to broker a deal.
On Friday, Foreign Office spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan said that the Chargé d'Affaires (CDAs) in both capitals had been upgraded to the rank of ambassador through mutual agreement.
"The bilateral relations between the two countries are now at the ambassadorial level. And that process, in our view, is complete," he said during his weekly news briefing.
He added that the Afghan envoy in Islamabad now enjoys protocol reserved for a full-time ambassador, and "no further action is required" in this regard.
Normally, ambassadors present their credentials to the president as part of the protocol but in the Afghan ambassador's case, the Foreign Office said no such formality was needed.
Although Pakistan decided to upgrade their ties, there is no plan yet to officially recognise the Taliban government. Currently, Russia is the only country which has recognised the Taliban government.
Even as both sides formally upgraded their ties, the Taliban energy minister on Friday alleged that Pakistan never wanted to see a "strong and stable central Afghan government".
But the Foreign Office spokesperson dismissed those concerns as unfounded. Responding to a question on recent minister's remarks, Shafqat said: "the statement completely belies common sense, history and the facts." He reiterated Islamabad's longstanding view that no country has a greater interest in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan than Pakistan.
On the persistent security concerns along the western border, particularly in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, Khan reiterated Pakistan's position that the issue of cross-border terrorism remains a central concern in its talks with Afghan authorities.
"We have, on a number of occasions, highlighted that the issue of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan is a centrepiece of our conversations with the Afghan government. We have been drawing their attention to the fact that terrorists enjoy sanctuaries in Afghanistan," he said.
He also underscored Islamabad's concerns over Indian involvement in destabilising activities within Pakistan. "We have evidence about India's involvement in fanning terrorism in Pakistan, we have shared those with our friendly countries and will keep highlighting it," he added.
On the possibility of the Afghan Foreign Minister's visit, the spokesperson said no dates had been finalised yet. "If a visit is finalised, the Foreign Ministry makes an announcement. The two sides are still working. I would reiterate that as soon as the dates are finalised, we will officially announce."
Earlier, Afghan Interim Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi was scheduled to travel to Pakistan on a three-day visit on August 4 but the visit was postponed at the last minute due to a "technical issue."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Field Marshal Munir warns of 'forceful response' to any Indian aggression
Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir with outgoing US CENTCOM Commander General Michael E. Kurilla at his retirement ceremony in Tampa. Photo: ISPR Field Marshal Asim Munir has said that India is persisting in its efforts to destabilise the region, warning that any act of aggression will be met with a 'forceful response.' 'India is still bent on creating instability in the region, and Pakistan has made it clear that any Indian aggression will be met with a befitting response,' said Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Field Marshal Asim Munir, while addressing the Pakistani community during his visit to the US on Sunday. Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir is on an official visit to the United States, where he has held high-level meetings with senior political and military leaders and engaged with members of the Pakistani diaspora. Read More: Field Marshal Asim Munir meets US defence officials According to a press release by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the COAS attended the retirement ceremony of outgoing US Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander General Michael E Kurilla and the change of command ceremony for Admiral Brad Cooper in Tampa. While addressing Pakistanis, army chief said India seeks to project itself as a 'Vishwaguru' (world leader) but in reality 'there is nothing of the sort'. He cited transnational terrorism by India's intelligence agency RAW as a matter of grave international concern, pointing to the killing of a Sikh leader in Canada, issue of eight Indian naval officers in Qatar, and the arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav in Pakistan as examples. 'Pakistan has fought a successful diplomatic battle against India's discriminatory and hypocritical policies,' Field Marshal Munir said. 'The recent Indian aggression, carried out under shameful pretences, was a grave violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and resulted in the martyrdom of innocent civilians.' He said the incident had brought the region to 'the brink of a dangerously escalating war, where any miscalculation could lead to a major conflict'. He expressed Pakistan's gratitude to US President Donald Trump for what he described as 'strategic leadership' that helped prevent not only an India-Pakistan war but also 'many conflicts around the world'. The army chief said Pakistan had given a 'resolute and robust' response to India's provocation and succeeded in preventing a wider confrontation. COAS Munir reiterated that Jammu and Kashmir was 'not India's internal matter' but an 'unfinished international agenda'. Quoting Pakistan's founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, he said Kashmir is Pakistan's 'jugular vein' and emphasised that UN Security Council resolutions on the territory remain valid. On regional security, the army chief warned that multiple terrorist groups, including the fitna-al-khawarij, were operating from Afghanistan against Pakistan. 'Pakistan is the last stronghold in the fight against terrorism,' he said. 'There will be no sympathy for terrorists, and they will face justice with full force.' Overseas Pakistanis not brain drain but brain gain COAS Munir praised overseas Pakistanis as 'a source of dignity and honour' during an address to the Pakistani community in the United States, describing them as 'brain gain' rather than 'brain drain.' 'It is an honour for me to address Pakistanis living in the US. Overseas Pakistanis are a source of dignity and honour, and they are as passionate as those living in the homeland,' said Munir. 'Overseas Pakistanis are not a brain drain but a brain gain.' The army chief said that his second visit to the United States within six weeks was 'a sign of a new dimension' in Pakistan–US relations. 'These visits aim to put relations on a constructive, sustainable and positive path,' he noted, adding that the ongoing bloodshed in Gaza was 'a grave humanitarian tragedy' with serious implications at both regional and global levels. He stressed that Pakistan's development and prosperity were tied to its diaspora. 'Overseas Pakistanis' devotion and attachment to the homeland is an undeniable reality. In times of disaster, they are the first to respond to appeals for aid,' he said. Anti-state elements using social media for chaos Addressing the role of digital platforms, Field Marshal Munir said: 'Social media has become a powerful medium, but anti-state elements also use it to create manufactured chaos.' Quoting the Holy Qur'an, he added: 'O you who believe, if a wicked person comes to you with news, ascertain the truth, lest you harm people unwittingly and afterwards become full of regret for what you have done.' He emphasised the importance of understanding the younger generation. 'The thinking, relationships and priorities of the new generation are different, and understanding them is the need of the hour,' he said, noting that a potential trade agreement with the United States could bring 'substantial investment.' On diplomatic front, Pakistan achieved 'notable successes' On the diplomatic front, COAS Munir said Pakistan had achieved 'notable successes,' with memoranda of understanding under implementation with the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and China to enhance economic cooperation and investment. He said Pakistan's youth — 64 per cent of its population — were brimming with potential. He also hailed recent diplomatic and security gains against India as 'the result of Allah Almighty's blessing, the collective effort of the nation, the foresight and resolve of political leadership, and the professional skill of our brave armed forces.' 'The question before us is no longer whether we will rise,' he said. 'The question is how soon and with how much strength we will rise. Let us, with a new spirit and purpose, move forward while preserving the legacy of our forefathers.'
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
No proof of Pakistani jet losses, says Chinese expert
Listen to article Prof Cheng Xizhong of China's Charhar Institute on Sunday debunked Indian Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh's claim that the Indian Air Force (IAF) had shot down five Pakistani jets and a large aircraft during Operation Sindoor, branding the assertion as baseless and unsupported by credible evidence. Prof Cheng described the statement as groundless and widely questioned by the international community, reported PTV World. Emphasising the need for verifiable proof, he noted that India has failed to provide photographs of wreckage, radar data, or any corroborating material. In contrast, Pakistan had promptly issued comprehensive technical reports following the engagement. He termed Singh's remarks 'comical, implausible, and unconvincing,' calling them an exercise in 'self-amusement.' Three months since the hostilities ended, India has yet to substantiate its claims, while Pakistan's evidence remains on record and publicly available. Prof Cheng also cited corroborations from global leaders, senior Indian politicians, and foreign intelligence agencies affirming that India had suffered significant aerial losses. Read More: Defence minister refutes IAF chief's claim of shooting down Pakistani jets He insisted that no Pakistani fighter jets were downed; rather, Pakistan's forces had effectively deployed air defences, shooting down six Indian fighter jets and neutralising S-400 air defence systems—facts he described as indisputable. The comments followed Air Chief Marshal Singh's statement on Saturday at an event in Bengaluru, where he claimed India had downed 'at least five fighters' and one larger aircraft—possibly a surveillance plane—using the S-400 surface-to-air missile system. He cited electronic tracking data as confirmation. 'We have at least five fighters confirmed killed, and one large aircraft,' Singh said, adding that the larger aircraft was shot down at a distance of approximately 300 km (186 miles). He did not specify the types of fighter jets downed but stated that Indian airstrikes also targeted another surveillance aircraft and 'a few F-16s' parked in hangars at two air bases in Pakistan. In contrast to Singh's statement, the Pakistan Air Force shot down six Indian aircraft during the May conflict, including three Rafale jets, in response to Indian missile attacks. A day later, a senior French intelligence official confirmed to CNN that one Indian Air Force Rafale had been downed by Pakistan—possibly marking the first known combat loss of the French-made aircraft. Also Read: Field Marshal Asim Munir meets US defence officials In response, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif dismissed Singh's remarks as 'implausible' and 'ill-timed,' accusing the Indian military leadership of engaging in politically motivated narrative building. He noted that while Pakistan had immediately shared detailed technical briefings with the international media, India had waited three months before issuing its claim. 'The belated assertions made by the Indian Air Force Chief regarding the alleged destruction of Pakistani aircraft during Operation Sindoor are as implausible as they are ill-timed,' he said in a statement. He further criticised Indian military leaders for being used as 'the faces of monumental failure caused by the strategic shortsightedness of Indian politicians.' Asif invited India to resolve the matter through transparency, suggesting an independent audit of both countries' aircraft inventories. 'If the truth is in question, let both sides open their aircraft inventories to independent verification—though we suspect such transparency would only expose the reality India seeks to obscure,' he added.
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The race to rule AI
In the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, the world watched as the United States and the Soviet Union competed in the 'space race.' As both hurled rockets, satellites, and spacecraft into the upper atmosphere, each launch showcased more than technological prowess. The race to the moon became a test of geopolitical will, a symbol of which superpower would define the future. When Neil Armstrong planted the American flag on the lunar surface, the 'giant leap' he reflected on was not just for humanity, but a step that cemented the technology-powered hegemony the United States would enjoy for decades. Today, against the backdrop of another great-power rivalry, a similar contest is unfolding. The stage this time is not just the vacuum of space, but the invisible architecture of algorithms and the chips that power them. Artificial intelligence is the new frontier, and once again, two superpowers are vying for dominance. But unlike the space race, this competition is not bound by the heavens. It reaches into every industry, every household, and every corner of human life. The stakes are no longer whose flag hangs on the moon but who controls the digital nervous system of the planet. AI is no longer a distant promise. It is here, transforming economies, redefining power, and reshaping societies. Yet as the technology accelerates, so too does the contest over who sets its rules and who benefits from its capabilities. At the heart of this struggle stand two competing visions — one put forward by the United States, the other by China — that reveal not only differing strategic priorities but also fundamentally divergent philosophies on how the next world order is to be structured. Last month, the White House released America's AI Action Plan, a document that frames AI development as a high-stakes race in which 'whoever has the largest AI ecosystem will set global AI standards and reap broad economic and military benefits.' The language is blunt: the US must 'achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance.' This is not simply about innovation; it is about securing and entrenching American power. To that end, the American plan rests on three pillars: accelerating AI innovation, building American AI infrastructure and leading in international AI diplomacy and security, with the last pillar designed explicitly to 'counter Chinese influence in international governance bodies.' The plan promotes an 'AI alliance' composed of the US and select partners, to which Washington will export its full AI technology stack: hardware, models, software, applications and standards. Crucially, this comes with a defensive edge: stringent export controls to prevent 'foreign adversaries' from accessing advanced computing, enhanced location-verification of chips and coordinated global enforcement to keep high-end AI resources out of the hands of rivals. In other words, Washington's AI diplomacy is about building a gated community, one in which entry is granted on US terms. The US openly links this to national security, implying that AI superiority must be preserved not as a shared global asset but as a strategic advantage for America and its allies. Beijing, by contrast, has spent the past two years articulating a vision for AI governance that is overtly multilateral and inclusive, with an emphasis on participation from the Global South. Premier Li Qiang, speaking at the 2025 World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) held in Shanghai from July 26 to 28, called AI 'an international public good that benefits humanity.' He stressed that 'only by working together can we fully realise the potential of AI while ensuring its safe, reliable, controllable, and equitable development.' Li underscored the urgency of creating a truly global framework for governance, stating, 'there is an urgent need to foster further consensus on how to strike a balance between development and security.' He warned that without broad cooperation, AI risks becoming 'an exclusive game for a few countries and companies.' China's Action Plan on Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence frames AI as a tool for 'serving the people, respecting sovereignty, fairness and inclusiveness, and open cooperation.' The plan advocates reducing technical barriers, promoting technology transfer, and developing open-source communities to foster a diverse and accessible innovation ecosystem. It goes further by explicitly committing to support 'countries, especially those in the Global South' in building their AI capabilities in line with their own national conditions. The most concrete manifestation of this philosophy is China's proposal for a global AI cooperation organisation. The body would aim to align governance rules, technical standards, and development strategies, while respecting policy differences between nations. Beijing presents this not as an ideological bloc but as a pragmatic platform: a means for countries to undertake joint technical research, share open-source technologies, and strengthen their own AI innovation ecosystems. As Li explained, 'China is willing to share its AI development experience and technological products to help countries around the world — especially those in the Global South — to strengthen their capacity building.' He further proposed 'greater cooperation on innovation to achieve more groundbreaking results,' pledging that China 'will be more open in sharing open-source technology and products.' The Global South is central to this vision. Chinese officials position the cooperation body as a way to bridge the 'digital and intelligence divide,' ensuring developing nations benefit equally from AI's economic and social potential. For countries outside the US orbit, many already drawn into China's Belt and Road networks, this is an attractive proposition: access to AI technologies, capacity-building support and a seat at the governance table without having to choose sides in a zero-sum competition. This is not to say China's approach is entirely altruistic. Extending AI cooperation deepens Beijing's global influence, especially in regions where Western technology and capital have been limited or conditional. By positioning itself as the champion of multilateralism, China counters the US narrative that it should be isolated from key technological flows. In effect, China's inclusive rhetoric also functions as strategic outreach to counter Washington's exclusionary alliance-building. Still, the differences in tone and substance between the two plans are striking. The US blueprint treats AI as a high ground to be seized and defended. The Chinese plan treats it as a commons to be cultivated. These divergent philosophies carry profound implications for the structure of the emerging AI order. If Washington's approach prevails, the world could see the consolidation of closed technology blocs: one led by the US and populated by its security partners, another orbiting around China and those willing to defy American export controls. Innovation might accelerate within each bloc, but the gaps between them — in capabilities, standards, and access — would widen. The very idea of global governance would fragment into parallel systems, mirroring Cold War-era divides. If Beijing's approach gains traction, there could be greater cross-border sharing of AI resources, especially between advanced economies and the developing world. This could help narrow the AI divide and create more interoperable global standards, though it would also require trust in China's commitment to openness and in its own governance norms. Given that China's domestic AI environment is subject to extensive state oversight and censorship, some countries may remain cautious about whether its version of 'openness' aligns with their values. For the Global South, the stakes are especially high. Under the US plan, access to cutting-edge AI may be contingent on political alignment, limiting the ability of non-aligned nations to leverage AI for their own development. Under the Chinese plan, access might be easier, but the terms could be shaped by Beijing's strategic priorities and its own vision for digital sovereignty. The choice facing much of the world, then, is not simply between 'free' and 'restricted' AI, but between different models of technological interdependence: one based on selective exclusivity, the other on conditional inclusivity. Both are political, both are strategic and both will shape how AI transforms the global economy.
