Current Projects
After America’s Longest War, Refugees Face Forced Return to Afghanistan
As Afghanistan fades from international attention and the Taliban control more territory than any time since the American led invasion of 2001, over one and a half million refugees that managed to flee from the conflict may now have to return. A deal struck between the European Union and Afghanistan seeks to send Afghans that were denied asylum status in Europe back to a country that has seen continual war. The repatriation deal, called the Joint Way Forward, was announced alongside a promise to provide $3.75 billion in developmental aid per year for the next 4 years. The agreement states: “The EU and the government of Afghanistan intend to cooperate closely in order to organize the dignified, safe and orderly return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan who do not fulfill the conditions to stay in the EU.” Despite a leaked memo that referred to some aid as “migration sensitive” and an acknowledgment to a worsening security situation, EU officials denied that there was an ultimatum to accept the asylum seekers or risk losing aid. Iran and Pakistan have also increased efforts to deport Afghan refugees. According to the United Nations High Commission of Refugees, Pakistan alone hosts 1.4 million registered, and as much as 600,000 undocumented Afghan refugees. The government of Pakistan gave Afghans seeking refuge a deadline of November 15th to obtain legal documents. Those that fail to obtain a passport or visa will face arrest and deportation. Pakistan has already forced more than 10,000 refugees back to Afghanistan, and authorities continue to apply increased pressure to those that remain, with some facing arrest and police harassment. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), 2015 had the highest recorded amount of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. UNAMA documented 11,002 civilian casualties in 2015, with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, stating “The people of Afghanistan continue to suffer brutal and...
The New Battle over The Longest War
If Hillary Clinton had won the race for the White House, the world would now have a good sense of what her foreign policy would look like. With Donald Trump coming into office, however, nothing is certain. With his thinking on foreign policy largely unknown, much of what Trump does will depend on who he appoints to key positions, as secretaries of defence and state, to the top jobs in the National Security Council, the CIA and others. The influential blog, Politico, warns, however, that his “divisive campaign may make it difficult for him to attract top talent, especially since so many politicians and wonks openly derided the president-elect over the past year.” This might result in low-quality politics. Afghanistan—where the US is fighting its longest war ever—barely featured in the 2016 election campaign. Associated Press saw the reason why this happened in the “tough choices” the new president will have to make early in the term, “including whether to increase or reduce US troops levels”. He will also have to make up his mind about whether the Afghanistan challenges are military in the first place. And if it came up, it was in a strange way. Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson demonstrated at least bad memory, if not a lack of knowledge, when she claimed on CNN in October that “Barack Obama went into Afghanistan.” There is a compilation of ‘positions’ of the Trump-Pence campaign titled “Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS” in bullet-point form on its website. The title indicates that the war against the Islamic State (IS, ISIS or Daesh) is Trump’s priority, apparently equal to all other foreign policy issues. Although Daesh’s Afghan-Pakistani chapter, the Islamic State in Khorasan Province, is only a sideshow, it did galvanise Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama into signing off on an increasing number of airstrikes against the group. Nevertheless, in Afghanistan, the outgoing president’s policies have encompassed far more than just addressing the Daesh...
One Step Closer To War Crime Trials? New ICC Report on Afghanistan
The International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor has said it will “imminently” be taking a decision on whether to request authorisation from judges to commence an investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. The Taleban could be investigated, among other offences, for murder and intentionally attacking civilians, while Afghan government forces, and the US military and CIA could be investigated for torturing security detainees. As Kate Clark and Ehsan Qaane report, this next step towards US citizens possibly being called to trial in The Hague has arisen just as Donald Trump, a man who believes in torture, has been voted into the White House. The ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) released its 2016 Preliminary Examination Report on Afghanistan (released annually) on 14 November 2016. The report says that the OTP had determined there was a reasonable basis to believe that, at a minimum, the following crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction had occurred: Crimes against humanity and war crimes by the Taliban and their affiliated Haqqani Network; War crimes of torture and related ill-treatment by Afghan government forces, in particular the intelligence agency (National Directorate for Security) and the Afghan National Police; War crimes of torture and related ill-treatment, by US military forces deployed to Afghanistan and in secret detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, principally in the 2003-2004 period, although allegedly continuing in some cases until 2014. The Preliminary Examination also said that thresholds of admissibility had been reached, ie the alleged crimes are under ICC jurisdiction, are sufficiently grave, are not being addressed by domestic or other legal bodies (although this is “subject to further information that could be provided by the relevant national authorities in the course of the preliminary examination or any subsequent investigation”) and there are “no substantial reasons to believe that the opening...
Deep Challenges for Trump In The Region
The ground realities in the region demonstrate that the US President-elect, Donald Trump, would have limited options while reviewing foreign policy amid growing complexities around stabilising Afghanistan and Middle East. Managing ties with Islamabad and New Delhi is also complicating the regional situation for Washington. With the stunning result of the presidential election on November 8 in the US, Trump’s victory surprised majority around the world. This was also a shift of power from Democratic Party to Republican. The two often differ at the foreign policies of the country. The unexpected result of the elections triggered speculations about Trump’s future priorities in the region and the world. His country has been facing policy issues in the region for long and the US, a country with an abundance of talented policymakers and experts, have to tackle it now. Almost daily, Trump is getting briefings from experienced officials on a complex situation around the US, especially difficulties in the region. The stabilisation of Afghanistan and Iraq-Syria region, where the US engagement is prolonging more than it was expected, are the first of challenges that the Trump Administration would have to tackle at the foreign front after January, when power would be formally handed over to him. In Afghanistan and the Middle East, the US is facing dilemmas of strategic and tactical goals that is a hurdle in coordinating efforts with its regional allies and players. Washington needs regional players like Turkey and Iran for the Middle East, and Pakistan, India, Iran, China for Afghanistan. A significant circle in the US believes that their country’s engagements in the two regions were prolonged due to the dissimilarity of the tactical goals among the players. In the case of the Middle East, Turkey is sharing strategic goals with the US to defeat terrorism/Daesh but seriously differ which at the tactical level. Turkey is targeting Kurdish fighters while the US needs them at the...
Bad Goodbyes
Two Kabul-based dailies, Afghanistan Times and Daily Outlook Afghanistan, prominently placed two news items out of Peshawar and Islamabad on Tuesday: ‘Afghan return deadline may be extended’. It referred to a decision taken at the parliamentary party conference in Islamabad. Additionally, Pajhwok news agency reported that Islamabad is telling the provinces not to harass Afghan refugees and not to take any legal action against undocumented Afghans. These two pieces of information must have come as a relief for scores of families currently divided across the Durand Line. There is hardly anyone in Afghanistan who doesn’t have a family member or has never been to Pakistan. And hence they have legitimate concerns for their safety and possible harassment by the police and other agencies. Around the same time this news surfaced, the Ministry for Refugees and Repatriations issued a statement saying that the number of returnees from Pakistan this year had touched 600,000 and 300,000 Afghans had returned from Iran since January. Concerns about the well-being of the Afghans resonated a day earlier also during interactions with nearly 200 students of the state Balkh University and the private Mawlana University in Mazar-e-Sharif. This bustling town is home to the mausoleum of Hazrat Ali (AS), the fourth caliph. And only three days earlier a massive suicide attack on the German consulate there had shaken the city centre. But you could hardly tell because most of the students appeared to welcome to the delegates of the Pak-Afghan Track II Beyond Boundaries. 600,000 is the number of people who have returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan this year, says the Ministry for Refugees and Repatriations. An additional 300,000 Afghans returned home from Iran since January While greeting Pakistani guests, former ambassadors Qazi Hamayun and Mian Sanaullah and the young men and women were curious why Pakistan was forcibly sending its refugees back; How would this benefit Pakistan? Was...
TAWDE KHABARE: Implications of Tensions Between Afghanistan-Pakistan Discussed
In this episode of Tawde Khabare, host Khpolwak Sapai looks at what the implications in terms of peace and stability are in the face of ongoing tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also looks at what roles Afghans and Pakistanis can play on both sides of the Durand Line in order to resolve the problems. With him in the studio are the following guests: Helai Irshad, MP Khalid Pashton, MP Tahir Khan, Pakistani writer Imtiaz Gul, Pakistani political analyst https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntHqd7WIWv4 This article originally appeared on www.tolonews.com, 16 November, 2016. Original link.
We Want Good Ties with Pakistan, Says Abdullah
Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah on Wednesday said Afghanistanwanted good and positive ties with Pakistan keeping in view the good neighborhood principle. A statement from the CEO office said Abdullah made the remarks during a meeting with Afghanistan and Pakistan’s parliament and civil society members. The joint group members, comprised of lawmakers and civil society activists from both the countries, said the grouping was aimed at reinforcing relations between the two countries and addressing problems. The group stressed improved ties between the two countries and said the joint group through visits and gatherings was trying to find solution to problems the neighbours faced. Abdullah expressed gratitude to the joint group’s efforts and said Afghanistan and Pakistan were neighboring countries and Kabul wanted good and positive ties with Islamabad. He stressed good relations with all neighboring countries and declared his support to the bilateral joint group. Terrorists were not only a threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan but to the entire region, said Abdullah, stressing a joint and sincere effort by the two countries and the region against terrorism. Abdullah called the dialogue between representatives of the two countries as effective and said such sessions helped governments resolve problems. The joint group held its first meeting in Lahore, Pakistan last year and concluded its second meeting in Mazar-i-Sharif city on Tuesday. This article originally appeared on www.pajhwok.com, 17 November, 2016. Original link. Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are not necessarily supported by CRSS.
We Want Good Ties with Pakistan: Abdullah
Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah on Wednesday said Afghanistan wanted good and positive ties with Pakistan keeping in view the good neighborhood principle. A statement from the CEO office said Abdullah made the remarks during a meeting with Afghanistan and Pakistan’s parliament and civil society members. The joint group members, comprised of lawmakers and civil society activists from both the countries, said the grouping was aimed at reinforcing relations between the two countries and The group stressed improved ties between the two countries and said the joint group through visits and gatherings was trying to find solution to problems the neighbours faced. Abdullah expressed gratitude to the joint group’s efforts and said Afghanistan and Pakistan were neighboring countries and Kabul wanted good and positive ties with Islamabad. He stressed good relations with all neighboring countries and declared his support to the bilateral joint group. Terrorists were not only a threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan but to the entire region, said Abdullah, stressing a joint and sincere effort by the two countries and the region against terrorism. Abdullah called the dialogue between representatives of the two countries as effective and said such sessions helped governments resolve problems. The joint group held its first meeting in Lahore, Pakistan and concluded its second meeting in Mazar-i-Sharif city on Tuesday. (Pajhwok) This article originally appeared on www.outlookafghanistan.net, 17 November, 2016. Original link. Disclaimer: Views expressed in the article are not necessarily supported by CRSS.
Setback for India As Consensus Eludes NSG Meeting
In what may be called a major setback for Indian ambitions to join the nuclear trade cartel, consensus continued to elude the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) at its last meeting in Vienna held for considering admission of non-NPT countries. Although last week’s meeting was meant to discuss the technical, legal and political matters relating to non-NPT members’ (India and Pakistan) accession to the NSG, the Indian case took the spotlight because of US pressure for getting India into the group before the end of the year. The extraordinary plenary session of the 48-member group that regulates international nuclear commerce had been specially convened for this purpose. At least 12 NSG members at the meeting called for a criteria-based approach. These included China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Belgium, Brazil and Russia, according to a source aware of the proceedings at the Vienna plenary. India has been blaming Beijing for being the chief blocker. At the meeting, China maintained that any formula worked out should be non-discriminatory and applicable to all non-NPT states; without prejudice to the core value of the NSG and the effectiveness, authority and integrity of the international non-proliferation regime with the NPT as its cornerstone; and without contradicting the customary international law in the field of non-proliferation. China told the NSG members that it was ready to work with all parties to promote early progress by the group in this regard, according to a Chinese statement. The source claimed that there was growing support for developing criteria for non-NPT states and the Chinese proposal for a two-step approach for new admissions which involved developing criteria in the first stage and then inviting applications for membership. The source said the development was not surprising because the mood of the NSG members before the meeting had clearly pointed towards the continuing stalemate. It was the...
From Bad to Worse!
Terrorism is a great barrier before the nascent democracy in Afghanistan. With the fall of the Taliban’s regime, democracy was established with the endorsement of Constitution, which includes all the fundamental rights and freedoms of the public. The human rights’ discourse and presidential elections were significant landmarks in our history. Women’s key role in social, cultural and political activities revealed Afghanistan’s high step towards democracy. The hegemony of democracy put major impact on public life in one way or another. Heaving a sigh of relief, Afghans embraced democracy with open arms and dreamt of a civil society, where no one’s rights and liberty are violated. The downfall of the Taliban’s regime was believed to put an end to war and violence and the blood of Afghan nation would not be spilt by the terrorist groups. Afghan men and women celebrated democracy before the ballot boxes with the hope of saving their lives from the bullet of warring parties, who show no mercy to civilians. Suffering under the cruel regime of the Taliban, Afghan women waxed romantic about freedom and democracy. By and large, the last constitution of Afghanistan was approved by people’s elected representatives in Loya Jirga (National Grand Assembly) held on January 3, 2004 in Kabul. This Constitution includes the inherent and inalienable rights, liberty and dignity of the individuals irrespective of their race, creed, color and sex and upholds international charters and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This constitution, which is based on national values and international standards, states, “Liberty and human dignity are inviolable. The state shall respect and protect liberty as well as human dignity.” The US-led NATO “war on terror” believed to root out terrorism from Afghanistan’s soil and strengthen the inchoate democracy. The Taliban’s guerilla fighters, that were a product of social, cultural and political rift, were, however, reorganized and involved in...
TOP STORIES
TESTIMONIALS
“
I am also a member of National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting. Recently, we held a meeting with the Director General of Radio Pakistan and we told them to initiate such local programs (like Constituency Hour) in regional languages to educate and inform people. Even Indian Radio can be heard in FATA which is being used for propaganda purposes and must be closed. Therefore, we should launch some standard and quality programs like CRSS that will change the taste of the listeners.