Latest news with #HeartlandTheory
Hindustan Times
09-08-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Afghanistan: Regional repercussions and India's strategic outlook
Afghanistan, historically known as the graveyard of empires, continues to occupy an unmatched position at the geopolitical crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and West Asia. Its landlocked geography positions it as a vital corridor for trade and energy pipelines, linking the Arabian Gulf to the Eurasian Heartland. Drawing from Mackinder's Heartland Theory, Afghanistan may not be the pivot for global control, not just the southern gateway. According to Mackinder, 'Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world.' The Taliban in Afghanistan (AFP) This grants the country enduring strategic relevance, which explains why regional and international powers, despite ideological misgivings about the Taliban, remain unable to detach themselves from Afghan affairs. In a world increasingly polarised between multipolar alignments and resource politics, Afghanistan's stability or instability will profoundly influence regional connectivity, transnational trade, and global security calculations. Since assuming power on August 15, 2021, the Taliban have pursued a centralised, ideologically driven form of governance, replacing the constitutionally-based republic with a Sharia-centric emirate. The Islamic Emirate's administrative structure is overwhelmingly composed of Taliban loyalists, many of whom lack formal education or bureaucratic experience. Ministries were dissolved or repurposed, such as the ministry for women's affairs being replaced by the ministry for the propagation of virtue and prevention of vice. Judicial mechanisms were reshaped around Islamic courts operating without a codified legal framework, leading to inconsistencies in rulings and erosion of due process. The Taliban have demonstrated some administrative discipline in revenue collection and border control. Yet, the absence of political pluralism, electoral processes, and civil society participation reveals a governance model marked by exclusion and ideological rigidity. Provincial governance remains opaque, and local disputes are often settled through traditional mechanisms, further blurring the line between religious authority and State function. The initial months following the Taliban takeover witnessed economic paralysis—international aid, which formed nearly 75% of Afghanistan's public expenditure, was abruptly halted. In the absence of central bank access and donor funding, the Afghan economy appeared destined for collapse. However, the Taliban have demonstrated a degree of fiscal resilience. Through taxation on customs and cross-border trade, as well as fees on mining, especially coal and lithium extraction, the regime has generated annual revenues exceeding $2 billion as of 2024. Nevertheless, the Afghan economy remains heavily informal, dollarised, and disconnected from global financial systems. Inflation has stabilised, but unemployment remains endemic, and the absence of a functioning banking sector continues to erode business confidence. Humanitarian assistance from the United Nations, Qatar, and a handful of regional partners, such as China and India, has been critical in mitigating starvation and providing basic health care. However, such aid remains insufficient and cannot substitute for systemic development, especially in education, infrastructure, and industrial revival. One of the most radical transformations under Taliban rule has been in the education sector. Girls have been systematically excluded from secondary and tertiary education. Despite global condemnation, Taliban authorities insist that their policies reflect religious imperatives and cultural authenticity. While primary education for girls is allowed in some provinces, these instances are sporadic and vulnerable to reversal. In contrast, the growth of madrassas—religious seminaries—has surged. These institutions, often supported by private donations and state approval, focus overwhelmingly on Islamic jurisprudence, Arabic grammar, and memorisation of religious texts, with minimal emphasis on science or mathematics. The Taliban's educational vision appears to prioritise doctrinal loyalty over employability, fostering concerns that a generation of Afghans is being trained in isolation from global knowledge systems. This ideological filtering of education is likely to deepen the country's socio-economic stagnation and foster extremism over the long-term. Afghanistan under the Taliban has regressed into one of the most gender-segregated societies in the modern world. Women are banned from most public employment, including humanitarian organisations, media, and government positions. They are restricted in movement without male accompaniment and are required to adhere to strict dress codes. Public lashings and extrajudicial punishments have returned in several provinces. The cumulative impact of these policies is a near-complete erasure of women from public life, violating multiple international human rights conventions to which Afghanistan was once a signatory. The Taliban continue to argue that their model safeguards women's honour and familial roles, yet data indicates increasing mental health crises, economic dependency, and growing rates of child marriage. These developments are not merely human rights issues but are structurally undermining national resilience and productivity by sidelining half the population. Despite widespread international rejection of formal recognition, the Taliban have engaged in a nuanced form of diplomacy often described as functional pragmatism. Delegations have visited countries such as Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan, discussing trade, connectivity, border security, and humanitarian coordination. In return, several countries—including India—have re-established technical missions in Kabul, facilitating consular work and aid delivery without recognising the Islamic Emirate. The Taliban's outreach appears aimed at establishing economic partnerships and easing isolation while avoiding commitments to reform. Notably, China has signed preliminary agreements on mineral extraction, and the Uzbekistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan railway corridor has received tentative political support. Yet, the absence of legal guarantees, transparency, and security assurances has limited these projects' implementation. Recognition remains elusive as most States link it to inclusive governance, women's rights, and counter-terrorism commitments, none of which the Taliban have met meaningfully. The Taliban claim to have restored peace by ending decades of insurgency, and there is some truth to this within major urban centres. However, the broader security landscape remains volatile. ISIS-K continues to operate, launching high-profile attacks against both Shia minorities and Taliban installations. The presence of groups like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in eastern provinces has inflamed tensions with Islamabad, occasionally leading to cross-border shelling. Furthermore, the Taliban's ties to Al-Qaeda remain ambiguous, with UN reports suggesting continued contact between senior leadership. While the Taliban have demonstrated greater control over territory than the previous government, their refusal to dismantle terrorist networks has undermined international confidence and complicated regional security. This ambiguity suggests the Taliban are using their leverage over terrorist actors as both a deterrent and a bargaining chip in foreign relations. India's engagement with the Taliban regime has been pragmatic but cautious. After closing its embassy in August 2021, New Delhi reopened a technical mission in 2022 to oversee humanitarian delivery and maintain a minimal diplomatic presence. India has donated food grains, medicines, and Covid-19 vaccines, while simultaneously enhancing intelligence cooperation with regional actors. India's principal concern remains the potential resurgence of Pakistan-backed anti-India groups in Afghanistan's southern and eastern provinces. Despite ideological differences, India's strategic community recognises that disengagement risks ceding ground to China and Pakistan. Thus, India's policy has combined humanitarian outreach with hedging strategies, aiming to retain leverage without legitimising the Taliban. Afghanistan today is a paradox—internally controlled but externally illegitimate, administratively active but economically anaemic, strategically central but diplomatically marginalised. The Taliban have demonstrated governing stamina, but their model is intrinsically limited by exclusion, rigidity, and religious orthodoxy. International actors must avoid normalisation without conditionality. Recognition must remain tied to tangible progress in gender rights, education, and counter-terrorism compliance. At the same time, humanitarian aid must be depoliticised to prevent famine and disease. Engagement should continue through multilateral platforms such as the UN, regional mechanisms like the SCO, and technical coordination on issues such as border management, connectivity, and health. Crucially, regional powers must adopt a unified position to avoid fragmented bilateralism that allows the Taliban to play one actor against another. The future of Afghanistan will be determined not by ideology alone, but by whether its rulers can evolve from fighters into statesmen—a transformation that remains far from assured. This article is authored by Soumya Awasthi, fellow, Centre for Security Strategy and Technology, Observer Research Foundation, Delhi.
AllAfrica
03-03-2025
- Politics
- AllAfrica
Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism
The public spat between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump at the White House last week sent shockwaves through Europe, and rightly so. With Trump advocating for an end to the Ukraine war and signaling a hard shift in US policy, Europe finds itself caught in a geopolitical non-man's land. It alienated China, severed economic ties with Russia and failed to anticipate Trump's historic strategic shift. Making matters worse, Europe disqualified itself as a reliable interlocutor after EU leaders publically admitted that the Minsk negotiations were used to buy time for Ukraine's military buildup. In a few short years, Europe managed to isolate itself on the world stage. Henry Kissinger once said that the US has no permanent friends, only interests. The war in Ukraine is a case in point. Starting about 30 years ago, most European countries, influenced by a neoliberal wave in the US, elected a slew of Atlanticist-minded political leaders who agreed with US neoliberal policies. Consecutive US administrations, including Bush, Clinton and Obama, supported NATO expansion. The pretext was the spread of democracy and freedom, which obscured the geopolitical and economic reasons that can be traced to the colonial era. The Heartland Theory, developed by British geographer Halford Mackinder in the early 20th century, argued that Western hegemony relied on a divided Eurasian continent. Mackinder addressed the battle as one between emerging maritime powers (mostly Western European) and land-based powers (Russia, China, India). The development of railroads challenged the maritime hegemonic power of the West. From Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory. Railroads changed military logistics. In the 1980s, American geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski updated the Heartland Theory and identified Ukraine as the pivotal nation in the battle for the Eurasian continent. NATO's expansion since the 1990s was orchestrated by Brzezinski's proteges, and championed by successive US administrations. Only by keeping the Eurasian continent divided, the reasoning was, could the maritime powers of the West remain global hegemony. China's Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), which stretches across the Eurasian continent, also concerned the Atlanticists. China's Belt & Road Initiative will ultimately integrate the Eurasian continent. From an Atlanticist perspective, the Ukraine war accomplished its mission: cutting Europe off from the Eurasian continent. Blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline connecting Russia and Europe was part of the program. But the Atlanticists could not have foreseen that Trump would so drastically change the strategic chess board. The old adage 'Follow the money' still holds true. The US is facing a growing and unsustainable national debt, a perennial budget deficit and ever-growing trade deficits. These triple deficits can only be sustained as long as the dollar is the world's reserve currency. The US earns trillions as the 'toll booth' of the global dollar system. However, the US government has now borrowed US$36 trillion to cover its budget deficits. Interest payments on the national debt are larger than the defense budget, and rising. On the current trajectory, the US is heading for default or hyperinflation. Trump's priority is restoring the fiscal health of the US, and to make sure the dollar remains the world's reserve currency. It explains both his ruthless cost-cutting and why he threatens sanctions on countries that try to de-dollarize. The West was never able to convince Russia that NATO expansion to the Russian border was no threat to it. Unconcerned about the possible Russian reaction, they framed NATO expansion as an exercise of democracy and freedom. Ideology trumped pragmatism. But the climb down will be painful. Early on in the war, Western media depicted Russia as weak and corrupt, with a dying economy and an inefficient military. Overly confident or historically naive, the West relied on three pillars that crumbled one after another: – Sanctions to weaken or collapse the Russian economy and cause an uprising against Putin failed – Isolating Russia from the Global South, including China and India, failed – Inflicting strategic defeat on Russia with superior NATO weapons failed Convinced that Russia could be brought to its knees, the West did not bother to formulate a backup plan. When it became clear Russia was not to be defeated, the West flipped the script. Russia was no longer a weak state with an impotent military, it was an existential threat to Europe. Russia has an economy the size of Spain, less than one-third of the European population, and a quarter of the European defense budget (about $84 billion vs Europe's $326 billion). But Europeans are now told that if they don't defend Ukraine, they may have to fight the Russians at their own borders. Fully in denial that the end game has begun and incapable of offering peace proposals, the Europeans are doubling down on their strategic folly. They are discussing a collective European defense fund, and building up a defense industry that does not rely on the US. Experts predict that it could take ten years for Europe to reach military self-sufficiency, not to mention that a growing number of countries in Europe are expressing dissatisfaction with the Ukraine policy. Most EU leaders have approval ratings of under 30%. Europe's weakness is intrinsic and can't be papered over. A Chinese geopolitical analyst recently described the dilemma: 'Europe consists of small countries and countries that don't realize they are small (in the context of geopolitics).' Should the US, Russia, and China discuss a postwar architecture – a Yalta II – Europe may find itself relegated to the sidelines. When the chips are down, Europe lacks the strategic leverage that can be yielded by the 'Big Three.' The biggest challenge for the EU elite is to manage public opinion during the unavoidable climb-down from their ideological crusade. Since 2014, when Russia regained control of Crimea, the Western media has served as the propaganda arm of the Atlanticists, some sponsored by USAID. They demonized Putin and Russia 24/7. Anyone uttering a word of critique of Zelensky or Ukraine was depicted as a Russian asset. The non-stop barrage of anti-Russian propaganda was highly effective. A recent poll in Britain indicated 80+% in favor of boots on the ground in Ukraine. Never mind that the entire British army would fit in Wembley Stadium. The Atlanticist virus that infected Europe in the past three decades has transformed the ideological landscape. Today, the proverbial right, like the AfD in Germany, calls for peace, while the proverbial left, including the 'Greens', are the cheerleaders for continuing the war. This historic role reversal is hardly discussed in Europe. Europe's Green Parties have roots in the student uprisings of 1968 and the anti-Vietnam war protests in the early 1970s. The Dutch Green Party resulted from the merger of pacifists and environmentalists, yet the 'Green' major of Amsterdam displayed a burned-out Russian tank in the center of Amsterdam as a war trophy. When peace returns to Ukraine, Europe would do well to analyze the ideological role reversal that contributed to the Ukraine tragedy.
