Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Afghanistan

1. Afghan Peace and Reconciliation: Pakistan's Interests and Policy Options 11

Author:
Osama Ahmad, Imran Mukhtar, and Hina Saleem
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS)
Abstract:
This report is outcome of the 11th PIPS-led structured consultation out of a series of twelve such events that have been designed to discuss and critically evaluate evolving aspects of Afghan conflict and political reconciliation and suggest policy options and strategies to the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan. To that end, PIPS has established a network of credible resource persons including former diplomats, academicians, government officials, and representatives of political and religious parties, security and law enforcement agencies, civil society, and media, as well as those living at the border including Afghan refugees. The underlying goal is to support Afghan peace and reconciliation and tackle its trickle-down effect for Pakistan including in terms of militancy and insecurity, among other things.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Refugees, Conflict, and Reconciliation
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South Asia

2. Advise, Assist, Enable: A Critical Analysis of the US Army's Security Force Assistance Mission During the War on Terror

Author:
John A. Nagl and Marshall Cooperman
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:
The U.S. Army struggled to build capable host-nation security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan because it did not give those security force assistance (SFA) missions the priority and support they deserved. Both the selection and training of U.S. advisors were highly flawed. The Army also struggled to ensure the selection of high-quality personnel into the host-nation forces. Much of the SFA effort was conducted in an ad hoc manner, without sufficient funding or strategic prioritization. Today, the Army has corrected many of the issues that plagued its SFA formations during the War on Terror by creating a permanent Security Force Assistance Command and six Security Force Assistance Brigades. It is essential for the Army to maintain and support these formations to ensure that the bitter lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan are not forgotten.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Armed Forces, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iraq, North America, and United States of America

3. The US Should Support the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan

Author:
Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
More than three years ago, the Taliban swept back into power in Afghanistan after a two-decade insurgency against the internationally backed Afghan government. Since then, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated considerably. The country faces an acute humanitarian crisis affecting millions and has once again become a haven for transnational terrorism. This tragic outcome was not inevitable, and it is worth reviewing recent history. Starting in 2014, United States troops in Afghanistan were no longer leading daily combat operations but were instead primarily training the Afghan military. When President Donald Trump entered office in January 2017, there were only 11,000 US troops in Afghanistan conducting the counterterrorism and training mission. This was down from a peak of 100,000 troops in 2010–11. In February 2020, Trump agreed to a deal with the Taliban that would have seen the phased withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. This agreement was the starting point of the Afghan government’s collapse and the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. In January 2021, when President Joe Biden entered office, there were only 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan. Crucially, the US still provided close air support for Afghan forces. While this was not enough troops to ensure that the Afghan government could control the whole country, it was enough for the US to meet its counterterrorism objectives and prevent the Taliban from taking power. Instead of canceling the flawed withdrawal agreement with the Taliban—something that was in Biden’s power to do—the president merely delayed the date from May to September. On July 2 the US departed the strategically located and geopolitically important Bagram Airfield in the middle of the night without warning its Afghan partners. Around the same time, the US stopped providing Afghan troops with close air support. By the end of July, almost all US and international forces had left the country. On August 6, 2021, the Taliban captured Zaranj, the capital of Nimroz Province. This was the first time in almost 20 years that the terror group had successfully captured and held one of Afghanistan’s 34 provincial capitals. Soon after, government-controlled capitals started falling like dominos. The Taliban finally captured Kabul on August 15. By September 11—the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—the Taliban controlled more of Afghanistan than it did on that day in 2001. Since the Taliban’s return to power, only one credible and non-extremist group has been willing to take up arms in opposition: the National Resistance Front (NRF) of Afghanistan, led by Ahmad Massoud. Based in the Panjshir Province and operating in more than a dozen other provinces, the NRF has continued to fight against the Taliban against all odds and without any international support. Though there is no longer an American presence in Afghanistan, the country remains geopolitically important. Afghanistan’s location in the heart of the Eurasian landmass has made it strategically significant in great power competition throughout the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. There is no reason to assume this will change anytime soon. The Biden administration’s actions have left the US without many good policy options in Afghanistan. Furthermore, many Afghans remain distrustful of the White House. But a new US administration will have an opportunity to reset American policy toward the country.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Terrorism, Taliban, Democracy, and National Resistance Front
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia

4. The Berlin Pulse 2024/2025 (full issue)

Author:
Hanno Pevkur, Stephanie Zonszein, Majed Al-Ansari, Halyna Yanchenko, and Boris Pistorius
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Körber-Stiftung
Abstract:
Welcome to the eight’s edition of The Berlin Pulse! As every year, we compare international expectations of Germany with public opinion in Germany. But this year’s edition is special, as it comes off the press with one part of our representative survey conducted right after the polls have closed in the United States and the German coalition collapsed. Thanks to our editors Julia Ganter and Jonathan Lehrer, this issue underlines that Germany must decide what image it wants to project and what international expectations it wants to meet. Bangladeshi analyst Shafqat Munir and Russian opposition politician Andrei Pivovarov want Germany to live up to its moral aspirations and support the revival of democratic values in their countries. Israeli journalist Mairav Zonszein argues that precisely Germany’s reputation as a defender of democratic norms complicates its arms support to Israel, calling on Berlin to ensure its weapons are not used in human rights violations. Meanwhile, Ukrainian politican Halyna Yanchenko urges Germany to supply more arms to help end Russia’s illegal war of aggression. These expectations illustrate that Germany’s international standing as a partner in upholding international law, human rights and democracy is currently at stake. Berlin faces a complex balancing act, striving to avoid perceptions of selectively applying international law. Estonia’s Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur argues that half-hearted actions will not suffice – or as he puts it, ʻDo we want Ukraine to survive, or do we want it to win?ʼ The German population has a strong opinion on many of these issues. While 57 per cent of German respondents still want Berlin to support Ukraine militarily only 25 per cent want military support for Israel. Despite these dilemmas, it is encouraging that 46 per cent of German respondents want their country to be more engaged on international crises. It is the highest level since we started surveying this in 2017 and it shows that, after three years of war in Ukraine and a year of war in the Middle East, Germans want change and want to see Germany driving change. Thanks to our partner, the Pew Research Center, we know that Germans and Americans have trusted each other to make a change in international politics over the past four years. But our new figures, conducted after the US election, show that this partnership may be threatened: 79 per cent of Germans think President Donald Trump will damage transatlantic relations. But only 35 per cent of Germans think that Germany should step in to lead the West. It is time to decide, Germany. What kind of international player do we want to be, in which areas do we want to go all in? The following pages can help us make difficult decisions in difficult times.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Taliban, Polls, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Russia, Europe, Ukraine, India, Germany, and United States of America

5. Helping the Afghan Allies America Left Behind

Author:
Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
In February 2020, President Donald Trump agreed to a deal with the Taliban that would have seen the phased withdrawal of United States forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. This agreement served as the starting point that eventually led to the Afghan government’s collapse and the Taliban’s return to power. In January 2021, President Joe Biden entered office. Instead of canceling the flawed agreement with the Taliban—something that was in his power to do—he merely delayed America’s withdrawal date from May to September. By July, almost all US and international forces had left. On August 15, the Taliban took Kabul. By September 11, 2021, the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban controlled more of Afghanistan than it did on September 11, 2001. During the chaotic retreat, the US left an estimated $7 billion in military equipment in Afghanistan, most of which has now fallen into the hands of the Taliban or ended up on the black market around the region. However, this hefty price tag pales in comparison to the moral cost of leaving behind tens of thousands of Afghan allies who sacrificed so much for the United States over 20 years. In the weeks leading up to the final withdrawal, the US and its international partners attempted to evacuate Afghans who helped the international coalition over the years. By any objective measurement, this effort was a failure. The evidence of this failure was clear for the world to see during the final chaotic weeks at Kabul International Airport.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Taliban, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

6. Can the Belt and Road Initiative Succeed in Afghanistan?

Author:
Sudha Ramachandran
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
At a trilateral meeting in Islamabad on May 9, the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) into Afghanistan and reaffirmed their support for multilateral infrastructure projects already underway, including the Central Asia-South Asia (CASA) power project and the Trans-Afghan Railways (People’s Republic of China Ministry of Foreign Affairs [FMPRC], May 9). Earlier on January 5, the Taliban regime signed an agreement with the Xinjiang Central Asia Petroleum and Gas Company (CAPEIC), a subsidiary of the state-owned China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), for the extraction of oil from the Amu Darya basin, under which China will invest $150 million annually for three years and increase it thereafter to $540 million for the contract’s 25-year duration (Kabul Now, January 5). Then on April 13, Afghanistan’s Ministry of Mines and Petroleum announced that the Chinese company Gochin had expressed interest in investing $10 billion in Afghanistan’s lithium reserves (Kabul Now, April 13). Meanwhile, China is reported to be in talks with the Taliban regime over renegotiating the terms of a 2008 contract to mine copper from the Mes Aynak reserves in Logar province (The Print, June 8, 2022). The agreements, including plans to extend CPEC—a key leg of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—into Afghanistan, are a significant development. The deal relating to oil extraction in the Amu Darya basin is the Taliban regime’s first major foreign investment deal. However, in the past, major Chinese projects have failed to take off. Will the recent deals remain in limbo as well? China’s growing role in Afghanistan faces formidable challenges.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Infrastructure, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, and South Asia

7. Pakistan’s Afghan perspective and policy options

Author:
Safdar Sial
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS)
Abstract:
With the aim of strengthening Pakistan’s support for the peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan, Pak Institute for Peace Studies initiated a comprehensive research and advocacy program in July 2021. Since then, PIPS has developed and published 8 quarterly monitors titled "Perspectives from Pakistan on Afghan peace and reconciliation," a same number of expert consultation reports, and 16 analytical papers embodied in 8 quarterly situation reviews titled "Afghanistan as seen from Pakistan." This policy-oriented final report builds upon the findings of the entire PIPS monitoring and analysis produced as well as consultations held over the project course. The main focus of this report is placed on exploring, analysing and informing Pakistan’s policy responses and options to support Afghan peace and stability. It comprises eight chapters. While chapter 2 provides a brief historical background of Pak-Afghan ties, chapter 3 narrates official and public responses from Pakistan since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021. Chapter 4 analyses the challenges confronting the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan and the following chapter discusses the fallout of emerging Afghan situation on Pakistan. Chapter 6 offers a detailed account of challenges and opportunities in Pakistan’s bilateral engagement with the Taliban-led Afghanistan. Chapter 7 evaluates evolving geopolitical dynamics and developments in relation to Afghanistan including international concerns and responses, the refugee issue, humanitarian aid and assistance, the recognition issue, as well as an analysis of geopolitical machinations and standpoints on Afghanistan and regional politics. The eighth and last chapter exclusively focuses Pakistan’s Afghan policy challenges and options as well as policy recommendations.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Taliban, Peace, and Reconciliation
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South Asia

8. Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan: Foreign Policy Responses

Author:
Farkhondeh Akbari and Jacqui True
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Women's Development Agency (IWDA)
Abstract:
Nearly two years on from the Taliban’s takeover, diplomatic efforts have so far failed to anticipate or halt the unfolding regressive regime in Afghanistan. Feminist foreign policy approaches can guide both normative and practical efforts to protect and defend women’s fundamental rights in the country and support local actors to create alternative spaces for women’s and girls’ to reclaim their rights to education, employment, and political agency. This paper makes the case that governments employing a feminist foreign policy approach – as well as those who claim to prioritise gender equality – must use the term “gender apartheid” to signal their condemnation in the strongest terms. The situation of women and girls in Afghanistan is becoming more critical every day under the Taliban’s terror regime of gender apartheid. The international war fought by militaries has ended but the war against women and girls has escalated. Egregious violations of human rights and pervasive gender-based violence are occurring, targeting women protesters, women associated with the previous government, and ethnicminority women. The Taliban regime not only restricts the rights of women, but also commits new forms of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), such as abducting women who protest peacefully, raping them in custody, burning the hands of Panjshiri women, and lashing Hazara women. The latter are specific tortures for specific ethnic identities. These acts are also intended to dishonour the families and communities of the victims.1 The war against women is an extension of conflict by other means. The Taliban’s barbaric treatment of women and the international community’s apparent impotence to gender oppression emboldens the Taliban regime and its extremist ideology. The Taliban threatens regional and global peace and stability as extremist groups and regressive leaders in other countries are galvanized by the Taliban’s success. Despite not formally recognising their regime, some regional countries, namely China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Qatar, have chosen to cooperate more with the Taliban by giving them control of Afghanistan’s consulates. To date, diplomatic engagements to negotiate with the Taliban regarding its political and ideological gender policies have been futile and ineffective. The brutal oppression of women has been the defining characteristic of Taliban rule and a chief symbol of its grip on power.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Apartheid, Development, Human Rights, Taliban, Women, and Gender
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia

9. A question of balance: India and Europe after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Author:
Frédéric Grare
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
European officials are frustrated at India’s apparent fence-sitting over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet, for Indian policymakers, maintaining a workable relationship with Russia is central to counterbalancing Chinese hegemony in their shared neighbourhood. India also depends significantly on Russia for arms supplies, including advanced systems that help it keep pace with China. Despite this, India has for some time been slowly decoupling from Russia and strengthening its relations with the West, especially the US. Europeans should be aware of how India defines its own strategic positioning, and support India where possible as they negotiate the tricky issues relating to the Indo-Pacific region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sanctions, Arms Trade, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and India

10. Apply the Logic of the Afghanistan Withdrawal to Syria

Author:
Natalia Armbruster
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
The logic President Biden used for removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan applies to Syria. Since a U.S. intervention should be defined by clear, achievable goals, and since long-range strikes, instead of occupying forces, can accomplish U.S. counterterrorism goals, there is no good case for keeping U.S. troops in Syria either. Around 900 U.S. forces currently occupy territory in eastern and southern Syria, risking conflict with Syrian forces and local militias, as well as Russian, Iranian, and Turkish forces. ISIS’s territorial caliphate in Syria was eliminated in 2019. The few, small, remote areas the remnants of ISIS now hold are largely within territory held by Syrian government forces. Local forces can fight the remnants of ISIS. None of the other standard rationales for keeping U.S. forces in Syria—protecting the Kurds, countering Iran and Russia, unseating the Assad regime—justifies keeping troops in Syria either.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Islamic State, Military Intervention, Syrian War, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America