Latest news with #AshrafGhani
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
US lawmakers urge deportation relief for Afghans
Afghans crowd at the tarmac of the Kabul airport to flee the country as the Taliban took control of Afghanistan after President Ashraf Ghani fled the country and conceded the insurgents had won the 20-year war. PHOTO: AFP A group of 100 Democratic lawmakers is urging top Trump administration officials to restore deportation protections for thousands of Afghans in the US, warning they would be sent back to "devastating humanitarian and economic conditions" in Afghanistan. In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the lawmakers called on the administration to restore access to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programme for Afghans. They warned that women and children could face particular harm under the Taliban-led government in place since 2021. "The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the US following the return of the Taliban to power remain," the lawmakers said. "Because of this harsh reality, forcing Afghan nationals in the US to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls." The effort is being led by US Senator Chris Van Hollen, Representative Glenn Ivey and Senator Amy Klobuchar. TPS provides deportation relief and work permits to people already in the US if their home countries experience a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. The Homeland Security Department announced to terminate TPS for Afghans in a May. It said that Noem had determined conditions in Afghanistan had improved enough to allow Afghans to return and that letting them stay in the US would be contrary to national interests. The decision to end TPS — set to take effect July 14 – has sparked concern among Afghans depending on the status. DHS said in its termination notice that 11,700 Afghans were currently enrolled in TPS but that 3,600 had been approved for green cards as of April.
Indian Express
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Ram Madhav writes: Pakistan's delusions
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's warning to Pakistan that the outcome of any future misadventure — 'casting an evil eye towards India' — would lead to 'destruction and total annihilation' must not be taken lightly by that country. The power asymmetry between the two countries has been established in this conflict, with India busting many illusions that the Pakistan army had entertained over decades, including its so-called 'strategic depth' and nuclear blackmail. When India decided to engage with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after it took over in 2021, many eyebrows were raised. However, the strategic diplomacy that India developed with that regime resulted in Pakistan failing to capitalise on its old friendship. Indian and Afghan officials have been engaging with each other regularly for several months. In early 2021, India entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the erstwhile Ashraf Ghani government for the construction of the Shahtoot Dam on the Maidan River near Kabul, which would help provide clean drinking water to more than 2 million residents and irrigate millions of hectares of agricultural land. The Salma Dam in Herat province was the second major dam project that India was to undertake in Afghanistan. Ignoring Pakistan's flimsy protestations, India and Afghanistan went ahead and even discussed additional projects on the Kabul and Kunar rivers. Regime change in Afghanistan pushed this agreement into temporary limbo. India is now discussing its revival with the new regime in Kabul. The Pakistan army clandestinely supported the Taliban for many years and hoped that with the latter capturing power in Kabul, it would once again acquire the required strategic depth in dealing with India. But things did not go as expected. Far from becoming Pakistan's backyard, the Taliban regime became a military challenge on the western front, with regular clashes taking place between the two sides. In the recent conflict with India, Afghanistan did not come to Pakistan's rescue. The loss of support from Afghanistan means Pakistan cannot go far beyond Islamabad to the West because the entire northwestern region, from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to Balochistan, remains lawless and restive. Not a single week passes without the Pakistan army losing men in clashes with militants in the region. Far from securing strategic depth, Pakistan ended up with strategic shrinking. India conveyed this reality effectively by targeting the Nur Khan airbase located in Chaklala, some 350 km away from its border. Nur Khan airbase is Pakistan's most strategic asset, housing several important air squadrons and also the entire management of its nuclear arsenal. It is less than 15 miles from Pakistan's military headquarters and the prime minister's office. That brings us to Pakistan's second delusion around nuclear deterrence. Unlike India's 'no first use' doctrine, Pakistan explicitly says that it follows a 'first-use policy' against India when faced with any existential threat. The Pakistan military and political regimes relied on this blackmail for a long time, hoping to deter India. But PM Modi made it clear that 'India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail' and warned Pakistan that through Operation Sindoor, 'a new line, new benchmark and a new normal has been drawn' against the terrorism it sponsors. What he meant was that India would not hesitate to attack deep inside Pakistan's territory — a scenario that, according to its nuclear doctrine, allows it to use atomic weapons. By announcing that the Indus Waters Treaty would be kept in abeyance, India called Pakistan's nuclear bluff, as cutting off the water lifeline by India was another clause in its doctrine for using nukes. India is also a major nuclear power. Its doctrine categorically states that its retaliation to any nuclear misadventure against it will be 'massive' and 'designed to inflict unacceptable damage'. That eventuality notwithstanding, given the loose talk of the Pakistani leadership, it is time the world reviewed whether nuclear weapons are safe in the hands of Pakistani regimes. In this conflict, India fought not just against Pakistan but the combined forces of Turkey and China. Pakistan extensively used technologies and weapons supplied by the two countries. Turkey's role went beyond military support. As a founding member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), it got the body to extend full support to the rogue acts of Pakistan. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan even questioned India's decision on the Indus waters, forgetting that his own regime in Ankara denies the waters of the Tigris and the Euphrates to downstream countries like Syria and Iraq on the facetious argument that 'neither Syria nor Iraq can lay claim to Turkey's rivers any more than Ankara could claim their oil'. For India, the involvement of China and Turkey in this conflict should serve as a warning. Turkey provided Pakistan with superior drone technologies, which were used extensively in this conflict. They are cheaper than than Polish, American and Israeli drones India uses. They are also well-tested: Since 2019, Turkish drones have been deployed in several conflicts including Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and recently, in Ukraine. This conflict also allowed China to test advanced defence technologies against sophisticated Indian and Western weapons systems. India responded effectively by deploying indigenously developed missile technologies like Akash and BrahMos besides Russian and Israeli technologies. While Make in India has proven its worth, accessing the best available technologies from all over the world for our defence forces, too, should be a priority. An important lesson from this conflict is that the age of ground combat and aerial dogfights is over and the era of high-tech warfare with unmanned weapon systems has come knocking. The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal
The Independent
18-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
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.
New York Times
31-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Uncertainty Torments Afghan Refugees Facing Deportation from Pakistan
In a refugee settlement on the outskirts of Karachi, Pakistan, Afghan families gathered on Sunday to observe the festival of Eid al-Adha — not in joyous celebration, but in quiet apprehension. On Monday, thousands who have called Pakistan home for generations face a deportation deadline and an uncertain, possibly dangerous future. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, millions of Afghans have sought refuge in neighboring Pakistan, fleeing waves of violence and instability. Over the decades, many have returned home, but conflict and political upheaval continue to send hundreds of thousands back. The latest wave of displacement followed the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, after the collapse of Ashraf Ghani's U.S.-backed government. They included refugees who were promised resettlement in the United States. Many now face mandatory repatriation, with a Monday, March 31 deadline — a decision that was announced only last month, sparking widespread fear. 'As a fellow Muslim nation and a neighbor, Pakistan should show compassion and grant refugees more time to prepare,' said Haji Abdullah Bukhari, a community leader in Karachi. 'Uprooting their lives in just a few days is impossible. Many have spent decades here, and now they are being forced to return to a country they barely know.' Pakistan's ongoing deportation of Afghan refugees stems from growing frustration with the Taliban administration, which it accuses of sheltering Pakistani militants, particularly Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or T.T.P., responsible for deadly attacks inside Pakistan. The Taliban deny these allegations, but tensions continue to rise. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Washington Post
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
9 next steps for the U.S. and Ukraine. First: A visit from Trump.
Regarding the March 1 front-page article 'Fury boils over in Oval Office, shocking globe': President Donald Trump is no stranger to war zones. In 2018, he visited U.S. troops at al-Asad air base in Iraq. The next year, he visited Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where he addressed service members on Thanksgiving and met with then-President Ashraf Ghani.
