Latest news with #DohaAccordof2020
Express Tribune
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Widening diplomatic space for Taliban 2.0
Listen to article On July 3, Russia became the first country to formally recognise the Taliban regime as a legitimate government. China welcomed the Russian move but adopted a cautious approach of not going beyond maintaining contacts with Kabul. Other countries like Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and India also possess ties with the Taliban regime short of granting diplomatic legitimacy. So far 17 countries have established embassies in Kabul but except Russia, none has formally granted diplomatic recognition to Taliban 2.0. For the Afghan Taliban, the Russian diplomatic recognition is a big victory because so far Kabul has no representation in the UN. Recently the UN General Assembly also passed a resolution against the Taliban regime which was supported by Pakistan but not endorsed by India. From a pariah state and a source of international condemnation because of its repressive policies against women and girls, Taliban 2.0 failed to comply with the Doha Accord of 2020 which called for forming an inclusive government in Kabul. Since seizing power in August 2021, the Taliban regime is able to widen diplomatic space and seeking full control of Afghanistan. The first Taliban regime which ruled from 1996 and 2001 controlled 90% of Afghan territory and its writ was effectively challenged by the Northern Alliance. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its granting of diplomatic recognition to Kabul means that Afghan Taliban will now try to extend their legitimate status. Russia as a successor state of the Soviet Union is however carrying the baggage of 10 years of its military intervention from 1979 and 1989 which devastated Afghanistan. According to the July 4, 2025 report of Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), "The normalisation of diplomatic ties with the Taliban since their 2021 takeover has come gradually. China became the first country to accredit a Taliban diplomat as an ambassador in December 2023. Beijing was nonetheless quick to claim that this did not amount to diplomatic recognition. Since then, several other countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Türkiye and Pakistan, have upgraded diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level. So far no Western country has granted legitimacy to Taliban regime despite the fact that the Trump administration is in contact with Kabul on security issues." Facing threats from IS (K), Russia considers Taliban regime as a lesser evil and its natural ally. The ICG report further states, "Although it has been critical of the presence of transnational jihadist groups in Afghanistan, Moscow has found a willing partner in the Taliban in addressing the threat posed by Islamic State's Khorasan Province (IS-KP), which was involved in the March 2024 Crocus City Hall attack that killed 145 people. Moscow went on to remove the Taliban from its list of designated terrorist organisations in April 2025. Russian special envoy Zamir Kabulov stated that Afghan authorities will participate as a full member in the upcoming Moscow Format meeting — a regional forum for addressing concerns around the country." How is the Taliban regime, despite condemnation from human rights organisations, able to widen its diplomatic space? When Taliban rule is highly authoritarian in nature and prevents any dissent, how has it maintained peace in Afghanistan and given the impression to the outside world that it is focusing on development? Certainly, it is the ambition of Kabul to get maximum legitimacy without reforming its mode of governance, but in view of its rigid approach vis-à-vis women and opposition, it may not be able to achieve its objective so easily. The widening diplomatic space for the Taliban regime needs to be examined from three ways. First, the Afghan Taliban seem to be confident that after Russia's diplomatic recognition, other countries will follow suit. According to a BBC report of July 4, "Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi said he hoped it would serve as an example to other countries, which have been reluctant to recognise a regime which implements a version of Sharia law along with severe restrictions on women and girls. Others have decried the move, with former Afghan politician Fawzia Koofi saying 'any move by any country to normalise relations with the Taliban will not bring peace it will legitimise impunity'." For those countries which have established diplomatic contacts with the Taliban regime despite legitimacy issue, it doesn't matter who rules Afghanistan. What matters is that Taliban government, despite its repressive policies, is a reality and controls the country. Economic, security and strategic interests in Afghanistan are more important than human rights violations by the Taliban regime and denial of a democratic mode of governance by Kabul. Critics argue that compromising on Taliban's exclusive form of government is a violation of Doha Accord which will further encourage the Islamic Emirate to deny women and opposition parties their legitimate rights. Second, Russia's diplomatic recognition of the Taliban regime will certainly push other countries to follow suit. In that case, voices of dissent against Taliban's denial of fundamental rights to girls and women will be further suppressed. It will create a bad precedent and deprive the people of Afghanistan of their democratic rights. When political opportunism on the part of some countries leads to diplomatic recognition to the once outlawed Taliban regime, it means political repressive regimes of North Korea and Myanmar will also get diplomatic space. Finally, so far Taliban rulers have been able to convince the world that they different from those of their leaders who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Although, the Taliban regime is trying to argue that it is fighting the terrorist organisation IS-K, it doesn't mean that its links with TTP don't exist. Islamabad has repeatedly blamed the Afghan Taliban rulers for looking the other way as the TTP carries out terrorist activities inside Pakistan with Indian involvement. Henceforth, the Afghan Taliban's contradictory policy vis-à-vis Pakistan must not lead to Islamabad granting formal diplomatic recognition to Kabul. The only plausible solution to the Afghan predicament is to launch a political process leading to an inclusive mode of governance instead of granting diplomatic space to a regime which has violated Doha Accord and is in no mood to grant girls, women and opposition their legitimate rights.
The Independent
19-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump's negotiations with Putin prove he just isn't as good at deal-making as he thinks he is
In his 1987 book The Art of the Deal, Donald Trump gave his readers some excellent advice: 'The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead. The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have. Leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or better yet, needs. Or best of all, simply can't do without.' It is a deep, deep shame, then, that the president is incapable of following his own advice – especially when it comes to his negotiations with Vladimir Putin over the future of Ukraine. In fact, in this case, he has done worse than that – he has done the exact opposite of what he himself advises, and handed over any leverage he might have had before the talks have even started. Suggesting that Ukraine started the war, declaring that no US troops would be stationed there in any peace-keeping deal, and worse still, speculating that Ukraine 'may be Russian some day', he has left Putin in a position of immense strength. Doubtless the laughter from the Kremlin can be heard 5,000 miles away in the White House. As Sir Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, said on the Today programme recently, 'Giving it away up front feels strange' – and he added that it wasn't the first time. It reminded him of Trump's deal with Afghanistan during his first presidency. This was, of course, the Doha Accord of 2020, which – despite a pumped-up Trump selling it as the deal of the century – ultimately gave the Taliban a clear route to power in Afghanistan, and plunged that benighted country back to the darkest of ages, especially for its women. While the deal did require the Taliban not to harbour terrorists and to reduce attacks on Afghan governmental forces, such demands were utterly unenforceable, not least because the same deal idiotically saw the US massively cut its troops on the ground within just 135 days. As a result, thousands were killed in an upswing of Taliban attacks, deaths that surely could have been avoided or at least minimised had Trump secured a proper deal. As it was, Neville Chamberlain could have done a better job. Then there was the utterly risible Phase One trade agreement that the United States signed with China in 2020. After hitting the country with trade tariffs, Trump signed a deal that committed China to buying $200bn worth of goods and services over two years. All this sounded absolutely dandy, but Trump – the supposedly master deal-maker – was easily outsmarted by the Chinese, who, according to the Peterson Institute of International Economics, did not purchase even one dollar's worth of what they had signed up to. Such a shoddy deal was startlingly reminiscent of Trump's often disastrous commercial deals, many of which collapsed and cost millions. Think of the likes of Trump Shuttle (his doomed airline), Trump Vodka, and Trump University, all of which ended in abject failure. His Atlantic City casinos faced multiple bankruptcies, with the apparently great businessman Trump frequently relying on debt and complex financial manoeuvres to keep them afloat. The truth is that Donald Trump 's purported skill of deal-making is just another fairytale we've been sold. In reality, it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. And Trump's complete inability to cut a good deal would be funny, if the potential consequences were not so deadly. While a bad deal in the business world may cost treasure, a bad deal on the world stage costs both treasure and blood. If Trump brokers what is now likely to be a terrible deal over the head of Volodymyr Zelensky, it is likely that thousands will suffer terribly under Putin's jackboot – one that many believe will march over more Ukrainian territory in years to come. But it is not just bad deals that Trump is so good at: he also excels at not being able to make a deal at all. Who can forget his meetings with the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un, a guy Trump said he could do business with? Despite promises of some form of settlement, all those encounters were a complete waste of jet fuel. In fact, North Korea is now even more entwined with China, and Kim is supplying arms and manpower to Russia to help support its war on Ukraine. It would have been better had Trump stayed on the golf course in Florida. One of Trump's biggest and most dangerous failures was his decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. While Trump argued that the deal was flawed and did not sufficiently restrict Iran's nuclear ambitions, pulling out of the agreement did not lead to a more effective alternative. Instead, Iran has resumed much of its nuclear programme, escalating tensions in a region that really does not need to be any more tense. It is now widely believed that Iran will have the ability to make a nuclear bomb within months, if not weeks. As well as securing crappy deals – or indeed no deals – Trump's negotiating style is also completely parlous. He has a hectoring and grandstanding approach, which seeks to bully and cow his opposite numbers with unrealistic demands. In The Art of the Deal, Trump was unapologetic: 'My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after.' At first glance, this looks like an effective scare-tactic method, by which he goes high and meets somewhere in the middle. The problem comes, as for all bullies, when people stand up to him or refuse to play by his rules. In essence, he is like the petulant and vengeful child who seeks to destroy what he cannot have, and punishes with tariffs or boycotts. But these 'scorched earth' tactics are 'really substitutes for failed negotiations across a broad swathe of US foreign policy', argue Jeremy Shapiro and Philip H Gordon in a piece titled ' Trump and the Rise of Sadistic Diplomacy ' for Foreign Policy magazine. They also point to his special talent for tearing up or abandoning existing agreements – the Paris Agreement, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Treaty on Open Skies during his first administration – and his complete inability to put anything decent in their place. In fact, he often just drops the ball completely, leaving other world leaders to clear up the mess left in his wake. There is another issue with Trump's disastrous and combative approach. In business, you can afford to make a lot of enemies, largely because there are thousands of businesses out there. But with fewer than 200 countries in the world, negotiations and deals need to be conducted in a spirit of good faith, otherwise you risk alienating even your closest allies. While the United States, with its immense resources, can of course get away with being high-handed, Trump is liable very quickly to use up what little store of goodwill America still enjoys. He is known to be transactional, but the truth is that many of these so-called deals end up harming the very people he is meant to be doing business for. Imposing punishing tariffs on other nations, for example, might make him look like the big man for five minutes, but how long before the public realise the tariffs will come at a cost to them too, as many economists predict? But despite all this, Pete Hegseth, Trump's new secretary of defence, told the world that his boss was 'the best negotiator on the planet'. Such loyalty is perhaps understandable, but with Trump's abysmal track record as a deal-maker, you really have to ask what planet he is on.
The Independent
13-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
The truth is, Trump isn't as good at deal-making as he thinks he is
In his 1987 book The Art of the Deal, Donald Trump gave his readers some excellent advice: 'The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead. The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have. Leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or better yet, needs. Or best of all, simply can't do without.' It is a deep, deep shame then, that the president is incapable of following his own advice – especially when it comes to his forthcoming negotiations with Vladimir Putin over the future of Ukraine. In fact, in this case, he has done worse than that – he has done the exact opposite of his own advice, and handed over any leverage he might have had before the talks have even started. Stating that Ukraine would have to relinquish territory stolen by the Russians, declaring that no US troops would be stationed in Ukraine, and worse still, speculating that Ukraine 'may be Russian someday', he has effectively handed over all his bargaining chips and now Putin in a position of immense strength. Doubtless the laughter from the Kremlin can be heard 5,000 miles away in the White House. As Sir Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, said on the Today programme, 'Giving it away up front feels strange' and said it wasn't the first time. It reminded him of his deal with Afghanistan during his first presidency. This was of course the Doha Accord of 2020, which a pumped-up Trump sold as the deal of the century, but ultimately gave the Taliban a clear route to power in Afghanistan, and plunged that benighted country back to the darkest of ages, especially for its women. While the deal did require the Taliban to not harbour terrorists and to reduce attacks on Afghan governmental forces, such demands were utterly unenforceable, not least because the same deal idiotically saw the Americans massively cutting its troops on the ground within just 135 days. As a result, thousands were killed in an upswing of Taliban attacks, deaths that surely could have been avoided or at least minimised had Trump secured a proper deal. As it was, Neville Chamberlain could have done a better job. Then there was the utterly risible Phase One Trade Agreement which the United States signed with China in 2020. After hitting China with trade tariffs, Trump's deal committed China to buying $200bn-worth of goods and services over two years. All this sounded absolutely dandy, but Trump – the supposedly master deal maker – was easily outsmarted by the Chinese, who, according to the Peterson Institute of International Economics, did not buy even one dollar of what it had signed up to. Such a shoddy deal was startlingly reminiscent of Trump's often disastrous commercial deals, many of which collapsed and cost millions. Think of the likes of Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, and Trump University, all of which ended in abject failure. His Atlantic City casinos faced multiple bankruptcies, with the apparently great businessman Trump frequently relying on debt and complex financial manoeuvres to keep them afloat. The truth is Donald Trump 's purported skill of deal-making is just another fairy tale that we've been sold. In reality, it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. And Trump's complete inability to cut a good deal would be funny, if the consequences were not so deadly. While a bad deal in the business world may cost treasure, a bad deal on the world stage costs both treasure and blood. If Trump brokers what is now likely to be a terrible deal over the head of Zelensky, it is likely that thousands will suffer terribly under Putin's jackboot, a jackboot that many believe will march over much more Ukrainian territory in years to come. But it is not just bad deals that Trump is so good at, but he also excels at not being able to make a deal at all. Who can forget his meetings with the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Un, a guy who Trump said he could do business with? Despite promises of some form of settlement, all those encounters were a complete waste of jet fuel. In fact, North Korea is now ever more entwined with China, and Kim is now supplying arms and manpower to Russia to help in its war on Ukraine. It would have been better had Trump stayed on the golf course in Florida. One of Trump's biggest and most dangerous failures was his decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. While Trump argued that the deal was flawed and did not sufficiently restrict Iran's nuclear ambitions, pulling out of the agreement did not lead to a more effective alternative. Instead, Iran has resumed much of its nuclear program, escalating tension in a region that really does not need any more. It is now widely believed that Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb in months, if not weeks. As well as securing crappy deals – or indeed no deals – Trump's negotiating style is also completely parlous. Trump has a hectoring and grandstanding approach, which seeks to bully and cow his opposite numbers with unrealistic demands. In The Art of the Deal, Trump was unapologetic about such an approach: 'My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after.' At first look, this looks like an effective scare-tactic method, where he goes high and meets somewhere in the middle. The problem comes, like all bullies, when people stand up to him, or refuse to play by his rules. In essence, he is like the petulant and vengeful child, who seeks to destroy what he cannot have and punishes with tariffs or boycotts. But these 'scorched-earth' tactics are 'really substitutes for failed negotiations across a broad swathe of US foreign policy,' argue Jeremy Shapiro and Philip H Gordon observed in a piece entitled Trump and the Rise of Sadistic Diplomacy for Foreign They also point to his special talent for tearing up or abandoning existing agreements – the Paris Agreement, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Open Skies Treaty during his first administration) – and his complete inability to put anything decent in their place. In fact, he often just drops the ball completely leaving other world leaders to pick up and clear up the mess left in his wake. Trump's disastrous and combative approach has another issue. In business, you can largely afford to make a lot of enemies, largely because there are thousands of businesses out there. But with fewer than two hundred countries in the world, negotiations and deals need to be conducted in a spirit of good faith, otherwise you risk alienating even your closest allies. While the United States, with its immense resources, can of course get away with being high-handed, Trump very quickly uses up what little store of goodwill America still enjoys. He is known to be transactional, but the truth is many of these so-called deals end up harming the very people he is meant to be doing business for. Imposing punishing tariffs on other nations, for example, might make him look like the big man for five minutes, but how long before the public realise they will come at a cost to them too, as many economists predict? But despite all this, Pete Hegseth, Trump's new secretary of defence, told the world that his boss was 'the best negotiator on the planet'. Such loyalty is perhaps understandable, but with Trump's abysmal track record as a deal-maker, you really have to ask what planet he is on.
