Over 30 people have been killed in an attack, claimed by the ISIS group, at a ceremony in the Afghan capital where a top Afghan political leader, Abdullah Abdullah, was present but escaped unharmed.

Dozens killed in Kabul ceremony attack claimed by Islamic State

US-Taliban Peace Deal: Less than 24 hours after President Donald Trump said he had a “very good talk” with a top Taliban leader and insisted the group wants to cease violence, a U.S. military drone on Wednesday targeted the militant group

Violence increases post US-Taliban peace deal

Less than a week after the peace deal between the US and Taliban, violence in Afghanistan has escalated. This report tells you why the peace process in Afghanistan faces several hurdles.

Afghanistan: Less than a week after peace deal, violence escalates | Gravitas

Afghan Presidential Candidate was attending an event in Kabul when gunmen opened fire. More than 30 people died in the attack. Violence in Afghanistan has spiked after the U.S. - Taliban peace deal. This report has more.

Over 30 dead in Kabul : Moment of attack caught on camera | Gravitas

Amid a political crisis, violence has escalated in Afghanistan. There are major differences between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Many challenges lie ahead in the peace talks.

Gravitas: US - Taliban peace deal on fragile footing | WION Edit

At least 32&nbsp;people have been killed after an assault on a ceremony&nbsp;in Kabul. Interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said women and children were among the dead with at least 29 people injured.&nbsp;

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack while making the announcement on the Amaq news agency&nbsp;which occurred at the commemoration ceremony for Abdul Ali Mazari -&nbsp;a politician from the Hazara ethnic group, most of whom are Shiite.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/war-crimes-judges-to-rule-on-international-criminal-court-probe-in-afghanistan-284409">Also read: War crimes judges to rule on International Criminal Court probe in Afghanistan</a>

An Islamic State group-claimed attack on the same ceremony last year saw a barrage of mortar fire kill at least 11 people.

Interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said gunfire had erupted from a construction site near the ceremony in the city's west, which is largely Shiite.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
"People are becoming more skeptical about the restoration of peace in the country as such attacks continue even after signing of the truce deal with Taliban," WION's Afghanistan correspondent <a href="https://twitter.com/CombatJourno?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CombatJourno</a> tells <a href="https://twitter.com/krishnaksays?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@krishnaksays</a> 
 
Read: <a href="https://t.co/BhCaxbLdSY">https://t.co/BhCaxbLdSY</a> <a href="https://t.co/fHt2b9xJJY">pic.twitter.com/fHt2b9xJJY</a>
— WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONews/status/1235870235749580800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

At least 18 people had been wounded so far, he added.

"Soon after the attack, police forces and police special forces units rushed to the scene," Rahimi told a local news station, noting that sporadic gunfire was ongoing.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/will-continue-to-support-government-and-people-of-afghanistan-india-284567">Also read: Will continue to support government and people of Afghanistan: India</a>

Photos on social media showed at least two bodies, but there was no official word on a death toll.

"We left the ceremony following the gunfire, and a number of people were wounded, but I do not have any reports of martyred people for now," Hazara leader Mohammad Mohaqiq told Tolo News.&nbsp;

<img alt="Afghan security forces keep watch near the site of an attack in Kabul" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="0e6d8ccd-ec44-4684-9525-b09857f0f2a7" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2846%29_3.jpg" />

The ceremony was attended by many of the country's political elite, including Afghanistan's chief executive Abdullah Abdullah.

The interior ministry later confirmed to reporters that "all the high-ranking officials were safely evacuated from the scene".

The incident comes less than a week after the US and Taliban signed a deal that would pave the way for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops in 14 months.

<img alt="British soldiers with NATO-led Resolute Support Mission arrive at the site of an attack in Kabul" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="659bab54-b184-4f94-9070-9cb21e9f0463" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2845%29_5.jpg" />

However, fighting has continued to rage across the country, casting a pall over hopes that the agreement would lead to a reduction in violence.

IS, which follows the Sunni branch of Islam, first became active in Afghanistan in 2015 and for years held territory in the eastern province of Nangarhar.&nbsp;

It has claimed responsibility for a string of horrific bombings, including several in Kabul targeting the city's Shiite community.

<img alt="Afghan security forces arrive near the site of an attack in Kabul" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e4cc3099-dcb4-4cac-a960-90663233549f" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2844%29_4.jpg" />

In recent months the group has been hit by mounting setbacks after being hunted for years by US and Afghan forces along with multiple Taliban offensives targeting their fighters.&nbsp;

Still, IS remains in Afghanistan, notably in eastern Kunar province near the Pakistan border, which also neighbours Nangarhar, as well as in Kabul.&nbsp;

(Inputs: Reuters)

At least 32 people have been killed after an assault on a ceremony in Kabul. Interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said women and children were among the dead with at least 29 people injured.

At least 32 people have been killed after an assault on a ceremony in Kabul. Interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said women and children were among the dead with at least 29 people injured. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack while making the announcement on the Amaq news agency which occurred at the commemoration ceremony for Abdul Ali Mazari - a politician from the Hazara ethnic group, most of whom are Shiite. Also read: War crimes judges to rule on International Criminal Court probe in Afghanistan An Islamic State group-claimed attack on the same ceremony last year saw a barrage of mortar fire kill at least 11 people. Interior ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said gunfire had erupted from a construction site near the ceremony in the city's west, which is largely Shiite. "People are becoming more skeptical about the restoration of peace in the country as such attacks continue even after signing of the truce deal with Taliban," WION's Afghanistan correspondent @CombatJourno tells @krishnaksays Read: https://t.co/BhCaxbLdSY pic.twitter.com/fHt2b9xJJY — WION (@WIONews) March 6, 2020 × At least 18 people had been wounded so far, he added. "Soon after the attack, police forces and police special forces units rushed to the scene," Rahimi told a local news station, noting that sporadic gunfire was ongoing. Also read: Will continue to support government and people of Afghanistan: India Photos on social media showed at least two bodies, but there was no official word on a death toll. "We left the ceremony following the gunfire, and a number of people were wounded, but I do not have any reports of martyred people for now," Hazara leader Mohammad Mohaqiq told Tolo News. The ceremony was attended by many of the country's political elite, including Afghanistan's chief executive Abdullah Abdullah. The interior ministry later confirmed to reporters that "all the high-ranking officials were safely evacuated from the scene". The incident comes less than a week after the US and Taliban signed a deal that would pave the way for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops in 14 months. However, fighting has continued to rage across the country, casting a pall over hopes that the agreement would lead to a reduction in violence. IS, which follows the Sunni branch of Islam, first became active in Afghanistan in 2015 and for years held territory in the eastern province of Nangarhar. It has claimed responsibility for a string of horrific bombings, including several in Kabul targeting the city's Shiite community. In recent months the group has been hit by mounting setbacks after being hunted for years by US and Afghan forces along with multiple Taliban offensives targeting their fighters. Still, IS remains in Afghanistan, notably in eastern Kunar province near the Pakistan border, which also neighbours Nangarhar, as well as in Kabul. (Inputs: Reuters)

At least 32 killed after gunmen target Kabul ceremony; Islamic State claims responsibility

The US-Taliban peace deal is on a fragile footing. Violence, differences between the parties and the divisions between politicians could make the deal worthless.

Earlier this week, when the reports of the violence in Helmand trickled in, a spokesperson for the US &nbsp;forces in Afghanistan blamed the Taliban for breaking the promise to maintain peace in Afghanistan.

The Taliban ramped up violence against the Afghan Security forces, despite US President Donald Trump's calls for peace.&nbsp;

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani stakes claim to the Presidency, but his challenger Abdullah Abdullah has rejected the election results.

On the other side, the Taliban doesn't even recognise the legitimacy of the Afghan government. These differences make peace negotiations more tricky.&nbsp;

As the events are playing out on the ground, it looks like the US still has a long way to go&nbsp;before it can exit the Afghanistan quagmire. There are many hurdles in this path to peace. 
 
The agreement did not include the Afghanistan government led&nbsp;by Ashraf Ghani. At the same time, the United States gave the Taliban an upper hand by conducting a one-way negotiation.

The ambiguity in the agreement does not help, if the parties involved want to ensure peace in Afghanistan - a lot of it depends on the difficult negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

The US-Taliban agreement seems to be clear on one thing - troop withdrawal, a promise that was central to Donald Trump's election campaign.

The US has agreed to reduce its troops from around 12 thousand to 8,600 in 135 days. If the Taliban follows through on its promises - all troops of America and its allies will leave Afghanistan within fourteen months.

Amid the chaos, the question now is whether Donald Trump will prioritise the withdrawal of American troops before everything else.&nbsp; 
 
An exit without a deal could lead to an escalation in fighting - some experts even claim that it will lead to a new civil war.

The Taliban reportedly controls well over 50 per cent of Afghanistan and they could potentially seize control of Afghanistan if America just walks away.

Any potential peace deal would include a comprehensive ceasefire without it, the fighting will spiral out of control. The Trump administration should resist the urge for an urgent withdrawal.

Otherwise, its historic peace deal with the Taliban will fail to end the war in Afghanistan. 
 
(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

The US-Taliban peace deal is on a fragile footing. Violence, differences between the parties and the divisions between politicians could make the deal worthless.

The US-Taliban peace deal is on a fragile footing. Violence, differences between the parties and the divisions between politicians could make the deal worthless. Earlier this week, when the reports of the violence in Helmand trickled in, a spokesperson for the US forces in Afghanistan blamed the Taliban for breaking the promise to maintain peace in Afghanistan. The Taliban ramped up violence against the Afghan Security forces, despite US President Donald Trump's calls for peace. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani stakes claim to the Presidency, but his challenger Abdullah Abdullah has rejected the election results. On the other side, the Taliban doesn't even recognise the legitimacy of the Afghan government. These differences make peace negotiations more tricky. As the events are playing out on the ground, it looks like the US still has a long way to go before it can exit the Afghanistan quagmire. There are many hurdles in this path to peace. The agreement did not include the Afghanistan government led by Ashraf Ghani. At the same time, the United States gave the Taliban an upper hand by conducting a one-way negotiation. The ambiguity in the agreement does not help, if the parties involved want to ensure peace in Afghanistan - a lot of it depends on the difficult negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government. The US-Taliban agreement seems to be clear on one thing - troop withdrawal, a promise that was central to Donald Trump's election campaign. The US has agreed to reduce its troops from around 12 thousand to 8,600 in 135 days. If the Taliban follows through on its promises - all troops of America and its allies will leave Afghanistan within fourteen months. Amid the chaos, the question now is whether Donald Trump will prioritise the withdrawal of American troops before everything else. An exit without a deal could lead to an escalation in fighting - some experts even claim that it will lead to a new civil war. The Taliban reportedly controls well over 50 per cent of Afghanistan and they could potentially seize control of Afghanistan if America just walks away. Any potential peace deal would include a comprehensive ceasefire without it, the fighting will spiral out of control. The Trump administration should resist the urge for an urgent withdrawal. Otherwise, its historic peace deal with the Taliban will fail to end the war in Afghanistan. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: Is the US-Taliban peace deal on fragile footing?

Commerce minister of Afghanistan Ajmal Ahmadi who is currently on a visit to India spoke exclusively to our diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal. During the conversation, Ajmal said his country sees India as a strategic partner and plans to increase trade with New Delhi to the tune of $5 billion. The commerce minister without naming Pakistan said Afghanistan's neighbours can no longer inhibit access to international markets.

<img alt="Afghanistan" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a29fc2aa-495b-4208-ada9-f5fa280bfc09" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Sidhant111main1.jpg" />

WION: How do You see India as a partner in investment &amp; trade for your country?

Ajmal Ahmadi: We see India as a strategic partner. India is Afghanistan's one of the largest trading partner. Bilaterally, trade stands at $900 million. When President Ghani met PM Modi a few years ago, they both agreed on reaching the goal of increasing trade at $5 billion over the next few years.&nbsp;

What we have done is, we have created a number of programmes over the past few years to make that a reality. First of all, we created an air corridor programme which was announced by both PM Modi and President Ghani a few years ago and it has seen strong success and that is why we have seen an increase in bilateral trade in past few years. We have also moved forward on Chabahar project which is a joint project and we have beginning to see fruits of that decision as well. We have set high objectives and we have created some specific projects to meet that goal and we are moving well along that way.

WION: One of the projects in Afghanistan is the India Air corridor, can you give an update on how the project is doing?

Ajmal Ahmadi: The programme was inaugurated in June 2017. Since that time, we have exported approximately 12000 MT of goods to India. That been through 1100 flights and that has generated revenue for Afghan traders worth $275 million. So you can see just in the span of two and a half years it's grown from a single flight that we had now to the programme of daily flights coming back and forth. I think that's the impact the programme has had.&nbsp;

WION: Afghanistan is being termed as land-linked country, rather than a land-locked country. Can you elaborate...

Ajmal Ahmadi: It has been President Ghani's main objective. We want to change focus. If you look at Afghanistan, its a problem to be in the region, we see it as an opportunity. We are linked to one of the largest markets in the world including India, China, Central Aisa and Middle-East and that provides an opportunity.&nbsp;

So how have we changed this perception? Well first, we have created a number of new programmes. An example is the air corridor programme, which countries, our neighbours can no longer inhibit access to international markets and so we have access to international markets.&nbsp;

We have diversified our ports, so previously we have had our goods through Karachi port, now we have started work on Chabahar port and I think Indian companies are coming and investing. Third, we have multiple rail links. Five years ago, we have one rail link, and we did not export. We now have four rail links, two with Turkmenistan, one with Uzbekistan and another with Iran.&nbsp;

Each rail link provides opportunities to export from regional markets. So we have numbered these programmes. We have Lapis lazuli programme which allow us to export from on ground from Turkmenistan all the way to Turkey and Europe. What that has allowed us to do is diversify our export market and we are not depended on one export transit market.

WION: How do you see the Chabahar project given the US-Iran tensions...

Ajmal Ahmadi: We see Chabahar as a strategic objective, both the Indian and Iranian governments sees it like that as well. There have been issues in&nbsp;implementation&nbsp;but the important thing to notice is that&nbsp;strategic objective has been achieved.&nbsp;

We have established the Chabahar port. The second thing to take into account is that despite tensions between US and Iran, the one exemption they gave for Iran was to allow an exemption for Chabahar.&nbsp;

We have now worked with US and Indian government officials to ensure that this explanation is clarified on written notifications and the US treasury has recently made that official and what that has done is that&nbsp;it has allowed Indian companies to come back and invest. We expect&nbsp;that this is going to be a long term process but again we see it strategically, so if it takes a little bit longer that is part of the process but in long term, we all have the same goals.

WION: How do you see Indian companies investing in your country?

Ajmal Ahmadi: India is Afghanistan's largest trading partner. We have bilateral trade of $900 million and we expect it reach $5 billion in the next few years. Secondly, we have a number of Indian companies investing in Afghanistan, in mining and agriculture as consultants. What we are doing is to provide the right framework to make sure it happens.

Commerce minister of Afghanistan Ajmal Ahmadi who is currently on a visit to India spoke exclusively to our diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal. During the conversation, Ajmal said his country sees India as a strategic partner and plans to increase trade with New Delhi to the tune of $5 billion.

Commerce minister of Afghanistan Ajmal Ahmadi who is currently on a visit to India spoke exclusively to our diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal. During the conversation, Ajmal said his country sees India as a strategic partner and plans to increase trade with New Delhi to the tune of $5 billion. The commerce minister without naming Pakistan said Afghanistan's neighbours can no longer inhibit access to international markets. WION: How do You see India as a partner in investment & trade for your country? Ajmal Ahmadi: We see India as a strategic partner. India is Afghanistan's one of the largest trading partner. Bilaterally, trade stands at $900 million. When President Ghani met PM Modi a few years ago, they both agreed on reaching the goal of increasing trade at $5 billion over the next few years. What we have done is, we have created a number of programmes over the past few years to make that a reality. First of all, we created an air corridor programme which was announced by both PM Modi and President Ghani a few years ago and it has seen strong success and that is why we have seen an increase in bilateral trade in past few years. We have also moved forward on Chabahar project which is a joint project and we have beginning to see fruits of that decision as well. We have set high objectives and we have created some specific projects to meet that goal and we are moving well along that way. WION: One of the projects in Afghanistan is the India Air corridor, can you give an update on how the project is doing? Ajmal Ahmadi: The programme was inaugurated in June 2017. Since that time, we have exported approximately 12000 MT of goods to India. That been through 1100 flights and that has generated revenue for Afghan traders worth $275 million. So you can see just in the span of two and a half years it's grown from a single flight that we had now to the programme of daily flights coming back and forth. I think that's the impact the programme has had. WION: Afghanistan is being termed as land-linked country, rather than a land-locked country. Can you elaborate... Ajmal Ahmadi: It has been President Ghani's main objective. We want to change focus. If you look at Afghanistan, its a problem to be in the region, we see it as an opportunity. We are linked to one of the largest markets in the world including India, China, Central Aisa and Middle-East and that provides an opportunity. So how have we changed this perception? Well first, we have created a number of new programmes. An example is the air corridor programme, which countries, our neighbours can no longer inhibit access to international markets and so we have access to international markets. We have diversified our ports, so previously we have had our goods through Karachi port, now we have started work on Chabahar port and I think Indian companies are coming and investing. Third, we have multiple rail links. Five years ago, we have one rail link, and we did not export. We now have four rail links, two with Turkmenistan, one with Uzbekistan and another with Iran. Each rail link provides opportunities to export from regional markets. So we have numbered these programmes. We have Lapis lazuli programme which allow us to export from on ground from Turkmenistan all the way to Turkey and Europe. What that has allowed us to do is diversify our export market and we are not depended on one export transit market. WION: How do you see the Chabahar project given the US-Iran tensions... Ajmal Ahmadi: We see Chabahar as a strategic objective, both the Indian and Iranian governments sees it like that as well. There have been issues in implementation but the important thing to notice is that strategic objective has been achieved. We have established the Chabahar port. The second thing to take into account is that despite tensions between US and Iran, the one exemption they gave for Iran was to allow an exemption for Chabahar. We have now worked with US and Indian government officials to ensure that this explanation is clarified on written notifications and the US treasury has recently made that official and what that has done is that it has allowed Indian companies to come back and invest. We expect that this is going to be a long term process but again we see it strategically, so if it takes a little bit longer that is part of the process but in long term, we all have the same goals. WION: How do you see Indian companies investing in your country? Ajmal Ahmadi: India is Afghanistan's largest trading partner. We have bilateral trade of $900 million and we expect it reach $5 billion in the next few years. Secondly, we have a number of Indian companies investing in Afghanistan, in mining and agriculture as consultants. What we are doing is to provide the right framework to make sure it happens.

Strategic objective on Chabahar port has been achieved: Afghanistan commerce minister

International war crimes judges will rule on Thursday whether a probe into wartime abuses in Afghanistan will go ahead, including possible atrocities committed by US forces.

The International Criminal Court last year rejected a demand by its chief prosecutor to look into crimes committed in the war-torn nation an investigation also bitterly opposed by Washington.

The court's judges in The Hague are now set to decide on an appeal by prosecutors against the initial decision.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-victims-ask-icc-to-open-afghan-war-crimes-investigation-on-appeal-266243">Afghan victims ask ICC to open Afghan war crimes investigation on appeal</a>

In 2006, the ICC's prosecutors opened a preliminary probe into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the central Asian nation since 2003.

In 2017, chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda asked judges to allow a full-blown probe, not only into Taliban and Afghan government personnel but also international forces, US troops and members of the Central Intelligence Agency.

But pre-trial judges said it "would not serve the interests of justice" and that the court should focus on cases with a better chance of success.

While US officials hailed the decision, human rights groups said it was a blow to thousands of the victims and ICC prosecutors appealed.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/icc-judges-turn-down-request-for-afghanistan-war-crimes-probe-209863">ICC judges turn down request for Afghanistan war crimes probe</a>

Should Bensouda lose, she is allowed to ask again for an investigation if "new facts or evidence regarding the same situation" emerge, according to the ICC's statute.

Bensouda's move also unleashed a backlash from Washington, which in April last year revoked the Gambian-born chief prosecutor's visa as part of broader restrictions on ICC staff probing American or allied personnel.

Former national security advisor John Bolton warned in 2018 that the US would arrest ICC judges if the court pursued an Afghan probe.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/us-taliban-peace-deal-what-does-it-mean-for-afghanistan-and-other-stakeholders-283743">US-Taliban peace deal: What does it mean for Afghanistan and other stakeholders</a>

The US has never joined the ICC and does not recognise its authority over American citizens, saying it poses a threat to national sovereignty.

Washington argues that it has its own procedures in place to deal with US troops who engage in misconduct.

Afghanistan also opposes the inquiry, saying the country itself had "responsibility to bring justice for our nation and for our people".

The ICC's ruling comes days after Taliban militants killed at least 20 Afghan soldiers and policemen in a string of overnight attacks, throwing the country's nascent peace process into grave doubt.

Under the terms of a recent US-Taliban agreement, foreign forces will quit Afghanistan within 14 months, subject to Taliban security guarantees and a pledge by the insurgents to hold talks with Kabul.

A US-led force invaded Afghanistan in 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, targeting Al-Qaeda in the sanctuaries provided by the Taliban government.

Fighting has continued ever since last year more than 3,400 civilians were killed and almost 7,000 injured, according to data provided by UN agencies.

International war crimes judges will rule on Thursday whether a probe into wartime abuses in Afghanistan will go ahead, including possible atrocities committed by US forces.

International war crimes judges will rule on Thursday whether a probe into wartime abuses in Afghanistan will go ahead, including possible atrocities committed by US forces. The International Criminal Court last year rejected a demand by its chief prosecutor to look into crimes committed in the war-torn nation an investigation also bitterly opposed by Washington. The court's judges in The Hague are now set to decide on an appeal by prosecutors against the initial decision. Also read: Afghan victims ask ICC to open Afghan war crimes investigation on appeal In 2006, the ICC's prosecutors opened a preliminary probe into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the central Asian nation since 2003. In 2017, chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda asked judges to allow a full-blown probe, not only into Taliban and Afghan government personnel but also international forces, US troops and members of the Central Intelligence Agency. But pre-trial judges said it "would not serve the interests of justice" and that the court should focus on cases with a better chance of success. While US officials hailed the decision, human rights groups said it was a blow to thousands of the victims and ICC prosecutors appealed. Also read: ICC judges turn down request for Afghanistan war crimes probe Should Bensouda lose, she is allowed to ask again for an investigation if "new facts or evidence regarding the same situation" emerge, according to the ICC's statute. Bensouda's move also unleashed a backlash from Washington, which in April last year revoked the Gambian-born chief prosecutor's visa as part of broader restrictions on ICC staff probing American or allied personnel. Former national security advisor John Bolton warned in 2018 that the US would arrest ICC judges if the court pursued an Afghan probe. Also read: US-Taliban peace deal: What does it mean for Afghanistan and other stakeholders The US has never joined the ICC and does not recognise its authority over American citizens, saying it poses a threat to national sovereignty. Washington argues that it has its own procedures in place to deal with US troops who engage in misconduct. Afghanistan also opposes the inquiry, saying the country itself had "responsibility to bring justice for our nation and for our people". The ICC's ruling comes days after Taliban militants killed at least 20 Afghan soldiers and policemen in a string of overnight attacks, throwing the country's nascent peace process into grave doubt. Under the terms of a recent US-Taliban agreement, foreign forces will quit Afghanistan within 14 months, subject to Taliban security guarantees and a pledge by the insurgents to hold talks with Kabul. A US-led force invaded Afghanistan in 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks in the US, targeting Al-Qaeda in the sanctuaries provided by the Taliban government. Fighting has continued ever since last year more than 3,400 civilians were killed and almost 7,000 injured, according to data provided by UN agencies.

War crimes judges to rule on International Criminal Court probe in Afghanistan

Just hours after the judges at the International Criminal Court(ICC) ruled that the prosecution&nbsp;can open an investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan, US secretary of state Mike Pompeo said the investigation with respect to US personnel is "illegitimate and unjustified".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/probe-into-afghan-war-crime-abuses-must-go-ahead-international-criminal-court-284558">Also Read:&nbsp;Probe into Afghan war crime abuses must go ahead: International Criminal Court</a>

"The United States will take the necessary steps to protect its sovereignty and to protect our people," Pompeo asserted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
An <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ICC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ICC</a> investigation with respect to U.S. personnel is illegitimate and unjustified. The United States will take the necessary steps to protect its sovereignty and to protect our people.
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1235589111198765057?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The International Criminal Court judge asserted today that possible atrocities committed by US forces should also be investigated. The probe which began in 2006 included alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan since 2003.

Three years ago, chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda had asked judges for a full probe which included not just the Taliban and Afghanistan government personnel but also by US troops and the CIA.

The US authorities, however, had resisted moves by the ICC with US ex-national security advisor John Bolton warning two years ago that US would arrest ICC judges if the court pursued the probe.

The US hasn't joined the investigation and does not recognise its authority.

"This is a truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable political institution masquerading as a legal body," Pompeo told a news conference after the ICC verdict.

"All the more reckless for this ruling to come just days after the United States signed a historic peace deal on Afghanistan, which is the best chance for peace in a generation," he said.

"We're going to take all the appropriate actions to ensure that American citizens are not hauled before this political body to settle a political vendetta," Pompeo added.

ICC prosecutors had said earlier their investigation would include alleged war crimes by the CIA at detention facilities, referred to as "black sites" in ICC member countries like Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

At least 24 suspects were allegedly subjected to torture at the secret prisons between 2003-2004, the prosecutors claimed.

Just hours after the judges at the International Criminal Court(ICC) ruled that the prosecution can open an investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan, US secretary of state Mike Pompeo said the investigation with respect to US personnel is "illegitimate and unjustified".

Just hours after the judges at the International Criminal Court(ICC) ruled that the prosecution can open an investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan, US secretary of state Mike Pompeo said the investigation with respect to US personnel is "illegitimate and unjustified". Also Read: Probe into Afghan war crime abuses must go ahead: International Criminal Court "The United States will take the necessary steps to protect its sovereignty and to protect our people," Pompeo asserted. An #ICC investigation with respect to U.S. personnel is illegitimate and unjustified. The United States will take the necessary steps to protect its sovereignty and to protect our people. — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) March 5, 2020 × The International Criminal Court judge asserted today that possible atrocities committed by US forces should also be investigated. The probe which began in 2006 included alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan since 2003. Three years ago, chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda had asked judges for a full probe which included not just the Taliban and Afghanistan government personnel but also by US troops and the CIA. The US authorities, however, had resisted moves by the ICC with US ex-national security advisor John Bolton warning two years ago that US would arrest ICC judges if the court pursued the probe. The US hasn't joined the investigation and does not recognise its authority. "This is a truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable political institution masquerading as a legal body," Pompeo told a news conference after the ICC verdict. "All the more reckless for this ruling to come just days after the United States signed a historic peace deal on Afghanistan, which is the best chance for peace in a generation," he said. "We're going to take all the appropriate actions to ensure that American citizens are not hauled before this political body to settle a political vendetta," Pompeo added. ICC prosecutors had said earlier their investigation would include alleged war crimes by the CIA at detention facilities, referred to as "black sites" in ICC member countries like Lithuania, Poland and Romania. At least 24 suspects were allegedly subjected to torture at the secret prisons between 2003-2004, the prosecutors claimed.

International Criminal Court's decision on US troops illegitimate and unjustified: Pompeo

The Pentagon has downplayed the latest Taliban attacks in Afghanistan even after the United States carried out airstrikes against the group, making it the first US attack against Taliban after Washington signed a peace deal with the group just last week.

US downplays new Taliban attack, Pentagon rejects doubts over peace deal

The United States on Wednesday (March 4) conducted an airstrike against Taliban. It is the first such attack since the troop withdrawal agreement was signed.

WION Dispatch: How long peace will last in Afghanistan?

First US airstrike against Taliban since peace deal

US State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus on Tuesday said India has been a crucial partner for US in Afghanistan for 20 years, we know that we will be partners for decades to come.&nbsp;

Ortagus made the comments while speaking about India's role in Afghanistan. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> Morgan Ortagus, Spokesperson for US State Department: There will be no peace in Afghanistan or South-East Asia without Pakistan ensuring that terrorism does not transpire from their premises or from Afghanistan. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WashingtonDC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WashingtonDC</a> <a href="https://t.co/9p9k40AYYp">pic.twitter.com/9p9k40AYYp</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1234898925775151117?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 3, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

She further said that there will be no peace in Afghanistan or South-East Asia without Pakistan ensuring that terrorism does not transpire from their premises or from Afghanistan.

On being asked if the US has conveyed to Pakistan to stop supporting terror, Ortagus said ''Yes, we have a complicated relationship with Pakistan as evidenced by the fact that President Trump decided to stop all military aid to them early in his administration''.

US recently inked a historic peace deal with Taliban which will enable US to pull out its troops from war-torn Afghanistan. India was one of the countries invited to witness the signing of the deal.&nbsp;

US State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus on Tuesday said India has been a crucial partner for US in Afghanistan for 20 years, we know that we will be partners for decades to come.

US State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus on Tuesday said India has been a crucial partner for US in Afghanistan for 20 years, we know that we will be partners for decades to come. Ortagus made the comments while speaking about India's role in Afghanistan. #WATCH Morgan Ortagus, Spokesperson for US State Department: There will be no peace in Afghanistan or South-East Asia without Pakistan ensuring that terrorism does not transpire from their premises or from Afghanistan. #WashingtonDC pic.twitter.com/9p9k40AYYp — ANI (@ANI) March 3, 2020 × She further said that there will be no peace in Afghanistan or South-East Asia without Pakistan ensuring that terrorism does not transpire from their premises or from Afghanistan. On being asked if the US has conveyed to Pakistan to stop supporting terror, Ortagus said ''Yes, we have a complicated relationship with Pakistan as evidenced by the fact that President Trump decided to stop all military aid to them early in his administration''. US recently inked a historic peace deal with Taliban which will enable US to pull out its troops from war-torn Afghanistan. India was one of the countries invited to witness the signing of the deal.

India has been a crucial partner for us in Afghanistan for 20 years: US 

The Afghan government has taken a strong exception to comments made by Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the backdrop of US-Taliban peace deal, calling it interference by Islamabad.

The Afghan government has taken a strong exception to comments made by Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the backdrop of US-Taliban peace deal, calling it interference by Islamabad. Lodging a formal protest at the Pakistani embassy in Kabul, the Afghan foreign ministry in a statement said, "The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan strongly condemned the recent remarks made by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, on the domestic affairs of Afghanistan." Asking Islamabad to take "practical steps" towards enhancing bilateral ties, Kabul asked Pakistan to refrain from making such ''irresponsible'' statements regarding the internal affairs of Afghanistan. Pakistani FM in a statement asked Afghanistan to release 5000 Taliban prisoners, riling up Afghan government. Afghan President Ghani has made it clear to the Taliban that no prisoner will be released till Intra-Afghan talks. Meanwhile, the Afghan government also summoned the Pakistani envoy to Afghanistan over misconduct by ISI officials towards Afghan envoy in Islamabad. The Afghan foreign ministry in another statement said, "this action in clear contradiction with diplomatic norms and principles...The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, once again calls on the Pakistani Government to align its diplomatic relations with Afghanistan in compliance with international conventions and accepted diplomatic norms." The tiff between Ghani and Pakistan comes in the backdrop of US Taliban deal in Doha over the weekend, with Islamabad buoyed with prospects of Taliban, long considered Pakistan's proxies in Kabul. Meanwhile, the Afghanistan government has made it clear till the time Taliban complies with Intra Afghan talks, the 5000 prisoners won't be released. "Our position on prisoners are very clear. The release will be discussed when negotiations begin between the Taliban and the Afghan government", Sediq Sediqqi, Afghanistan spokesperson told WION. An initial contact group of Afghan govt, at the request of the Taliban, is in Qatar to initiate talks with the latter but it won't discuss the release of prisoners.

Afghanistan raps Pakistan FM Qureshi for comments on its internal affairs 

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Sunday publicly contradicted the U.S. on a landmark deal between United States and Taliban forces, repudiating a provision that would release 5,000 Taliban prisoners.

Afghan president rejects Taliban's demand for prisoner release

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected a Taliban demand for the release of 5,000 prisoners as a condition for talks with the Afghan government and civilians, included in a deal between the United States and the Taliban group.

His remarks come against the backdrop of the difficulties US negotiators face in shepherding the Afghan government and Taliban towards intra-Afghan negotiations, according to Western diplomats.

"The government of Afghanistan has made no commitment to free 5,000 Taliban prisoners," Ashraf Ghani told reporters in Kabul, a day after the deal was signed in Qatar to start a political settlement aimed at ending the United States' longest war.

The accord said the United States and the Taliban were committed to working expeditiously to release combat and political prisoners as a confidence-building measure, with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides.

It said that up to 5,000 jailed Taliban would be released in exchange for up to 1,000 Afghan government captives by March 10.

However, on the issue of the prisoner swap, he said, "It is not in the authority of the United States to decide, they are only a facilitator."

Saturday's accord was signed by US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, witnessed by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

After the ceremony, the Taliban political chief met foreign ministers from Norway, Turkey and Uzbekistan in Doha along with diplomats from Russia, Indonesia and neighbouring nations, the Taliban said, a move that signalled the group's determination to secure international legitimacy.

"The dignitaries who met Mullah Baradar expressed their commitments towards Afghanistan's reconstruction and development... the US-Taliban agreement is historical," said Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid.

US President Donald Trump rejected criticism around the deal and said he would meet Taliban leaders in the near future.

Ashraf Ghani's aides said Donald Trump's decision to meet the Taliban could pose a challenge to the government at a time when the US troop withdrawal becomes imminent.

Under the agreement, Washington is committed to reducing the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 from 13,000 within 135 days of signing.

It will also work with allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces in Afghanistan over that period if the Taliban adhere to their security guarantees and ceasefire.

A full withdrawal of all US and coalition forces would occur within 14 months, the joint statement said.

The withdrawal, however, depends on security guarantees by the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 and imposed many restrictions on women and activities it deemed "un-Islamic".

After being ousted from power in 2001, the Taliban have led a violent insurgency.

The Afghan war has been a stalemate for over 18 years, with the Taliban increasingly controlling or contesting more territory, yet unable to capture and hold major urban centres.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected a Taliban demand for the release of 5,000 prisoners as a condition for talks with the Afghan government and civilians, included in a deal between the United States and the Taliban group.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected a Taliban demand for the release of 5,000 prisoners as a condition for talks with the Afghan government and civilians, included in a deal between the United States and the Taliban group. His remarks come against the backdrop of the difficulties US negotiators face in shepherding the Afghan government and Taliban towards intra-Afghan negotiations, according to Western diplomats. "The government of Afghanistan has made no commitment to free 5,000 Taliban prisoners," Ashraf Ghani told reporters in Kabul, a day after the deal was signed in Qatar to start a political settlement aimed at ending the United States' longest war. The accord said the United States and the Taliban were committed to working expeditiously to release combat and political prisoners as a confidence-building measure, with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides. It said that up to 5,000 jailed Taliban would be released in exchange for up to 1,000 Afghan government captives by March 10. However, on the issue of the prisoner swap, he said, "It is not in the authority of the United States to decide, they are only a facilitator." Saturday's accord was signed by US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, witnessed by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. After the ceremony, the Taliban political chief met foreign ministers from Norway, Turkey and Uzbekistan in Doha along with diplomats from Russia, Indonesia and neighbouring nations, the Taliban said, a move that signalled the group's determination to secure international legitimacy. "The dignitaries who met Mullah Baradar expressed their commitments towards Afghanistan's reconstruction and development... the US-Taliban agreement is historical," said Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid. US President Donald Trump rejected criticism around the deal and said he would meet Taliban leaders in the near future. Ashraf Ghani's aides said Donald Trump's decision to meet the Taliban could pose a challenge to the government at a time when the US troop withdrawal becomes imminent. Under the agreement, Washington is committed to reducing the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 from 13,000 within 135 days of signing. It will also work with allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces in Afghanistan over that period if the Taliban adhere to their security guarantees and ceasefire. A full withdrawal of all US and coalition forces would occur within 14 months, the joint statement said. The withdrawal, however, depends on security guarantees by the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 and imposed many restrictions on women and activities it deemed "un-Islamic". After being ousted from power in 2001, the Taliban have led a violent insurgency. The Afghan war has been a stalemate for over 18 years, with the Taliban increasingly controlling or contesting more territory, yet unable to capture and hold major urban centres.

Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani rejects Taliban demand to free 5,000 prisoners

The blast happened near a football field in Nadir Shah Kot district, according to local officials. At least three civilians were killed and seven others wounded in an explosion near a football field in Nadir Shah Kot district in Khost province on Monday afternoon, Afghanistan based Tolo News reported quoting the provincial governor’s spokesman Talib Khan Mangal.

The blast happened near a football field in Nadir Shah Kot district, according to local officials. At least three civilians were killed and seven others wounded in an explosion near a football field in Nadir Shah Kot district in Khost province on Monday afternoon, Afghanistan based Tolo News reported quoting the provincial governor’s spokesman Talib Khan Mangal. The explosives were placed on a motorbike that was stopped near the football field, the report added quoting the spokesman. No group has claimed responsibility for the blast so far. This comes two days after the US-Taliban signed the historic peace deal in Doha and the weeklong reduction in violence was observed.

Blast in Afghanistan football field kills three civilians

Pakistan is closing one of its two border crossings with Afghanistan for a week to prevent the spread of coronavirus, officials said Sunday.

The announcement comes a day after Pakistan detected two new cases of the virus bringing the total number of infected patients to four.

Officials said the Chaman/Spinboldak crossing point would close from Monday, but a second point at Torkhum in the northwest would remain open.

Pakistan is sandwiched between China and Iran -- which are both fighting major outbreaks -- sparking fears about the country's ability to cope with an epidemic of its own.

The country has suspended all flights to Iran and closed land borders.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are divided by the "Durand Line", a 2,400-kilometre (1,500-mile) frontier with Villages straddling the border and mosques and houses having one door in Pakistan and another in Afghanistan.

The virus has now killed more than 2,900 people and infected over 83,000 worldwide, with an increasing number of new cases being reported each day.

Pakistan is closing one of its two border crossings with Afghanistan for a week to prevent the spread of coronavirus, officials said Sunday. The announcement comes a day after Pakistan detected two new cases of the virus bringing the total number of infected patients to four.

Pakistan is closing one of its two border crossings with Afghanistan for a week to prevent the spread of coronavirus, officials said Sunday. The announcement comes a day after Pakistan detected two new cases of the virus bringing the total number of infected patients to four. Officials said the Chaman/Spinboldak crossing point would close from Monday, but a second point at Torkhum in the northwest would remain open. Pakistan is sandwiched between China and Iran -- which are both fighting major outbreaks -- sparking fears about the country's ability to cope with an epidemic of its own. The country has suspended all flights to Iran and closed land borders. Pakistan and Afghanistan are divided by the "Durand Line", a 2,400-kilometre (1,500-mile) frontier with Villages straddling the border and mosques and houses having one door in Pakistan and another in Afghanistan. The virus has now killed more than 2,900 people and infected over 83,000 worldwide, with an increasing number of new cases being reported each day.

Pakistan closes Afghan border crossing over virus fears

Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani said Sunday that a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-begins-diplomatic-outreach-following-peace-deal-with-us-283536">seven-day partial truce would continue</a>, but he rejected a key component of a new US-Taliban deal that calls for the release of thousands of insurgent prisoners.

The so-called "reduction in violence" period ran for the week preceding the signing of a historic accord between the US and the Taliban in Doha on Saturday.

The agreement spells out a withdrawal timeline of 14 months for all foreign forces, provided the Taliban honour several pledges and enter talks with Kabul for a more comprehensive peace deal.

"The reduction in violence will continue with a goal to reach a full ceasefire," Ghani told a press conference.&nbsp;

"General (Scott) Miller has told <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/no-commitment-to-release-5000-taliban-prisoners-afghan-president-ghani-283550">Taliban to do so</a>. It is expected (to continue)," he added, referring to the US commander in charge of foreign forces in Afghanistan.

But, in a sign of a bumpy road ahead, Ghani pushed back against a clause in the deal that calls for the Taliban to release up to 1,000 prisoners and for the Afghan government to release up to 5,000 prisoners.

"There is no commitment to releasing 5,000 prisoners," Ghani said.

"This is the right and the self-will of the people of Afghanistan. It could be included in the agenda of the intra-Afghan talks, but cannot be a prerequisite for talks."

He added that any prisoner release was "not in the authority of the US, it is in the authority of the Afghan government."

The president, who is mired in a political crisis following fraud allegations in his re-election, was referring to upcoming talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government that were agreed to as part of the deal.

The Taliban had until now refused to negotiate with Ghani's administration, which they considered a US puppet regime, but the withdrawal agreement hinges on Kabul and the insurgents reaching a separate peace deal through "intra-Afghan" negotiations.&nbsp;

Ghani's questioning of the prisoner release points to tough negotiations ahead in a country where leaders seem incapable of coalescing around important issues.

Washington has pointedly not yet acknowledged Ghani's win, announced last week after months of delays. 
&nbsp;

Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani said Sunday that a seven-day partial truce would continue, but he rejected a key component of a new US-Taliban deal that calls for the release of thousands of insurgent prisoners.

Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani said Sunday that a seven-day partial truce would continue, but he rejected a key component of a new US-Taliban deal that calls for the release of thousands of insurgent prisoners. The so-called "reduction in violence" period ran for the week preceding the signing of a historic accord between the US and the Taliban in Doha on Saturday. The agreement spells out a withdrawal timeline of 14 months for all foreign forces, provided the Taliban honour several pledges and enter talks with Kabul for a more comprehensive peace deal. "The reduction in violence will continue with a goal to reach a full ceasefire," Ghani told a press conference. "General (Scott) Miller has told Taliban to do so. It is expected (to continue)," he added, referring to the US commander in charge of foreign forces in Afghanistan. But, in a sign of a bumpy road ahead, Ghani pushed back against a clause in the deal that calls for the Taliban to release up to 1,000 prisoners and for the Afghan government to release up to 5,000 prisoners. "There is no commitment to releasing 5,000 prisoners," Ghani said. "This is the right and the self-will of the people of Afghanistan. It could be included in the agenda of the intra-Afghan talks, but cannot be a prerequisite for talks." He added that any prisoner release was "not in the authority of the US, it is in the authority of the Afghan government." The president, who is mired in a political crisis following fraud allegations in his re-election, was referring to upcoming talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government that were agreed to as part of the deal. The Taliban had until now refused to negotiate with Ghani's administration, which they considered a US puppet regime, but the withdrawal agreement hinges on Kabul and the insurgents reaching a separate peace deal through "intra-Afghan" negotiations. Ghani's questioning of the prisoner release points to tough negotiations ahead in a country where leaders seem incapable of coalescing around important issues. Washington has pointedly not yet acknowledged Ghani's win, announced last week after months of delays.

Afghanistan's partial truce will continue, 'with goal' for full ceasefire: Ashraf Ghani

Representatives from the Taliban and United States officials have signed an agreement in the Qatari capital, Doha, following 18 months of talks in a bid to end Washington's longest war.

US, Taliban signs historic peace accord at month's end ! What does it mean?

The United States signed a deal with Taliban insurgents on February 29 which will lead to the full withdrawal of foreign soldiers from Afghanistan over the next 14 months. The U. President Donald Trump on February 29 said he would be personally meeting leaders of the Taliban in the near future.

8,600 US troops in Afghanistan to be withdrawn in 14 months | Afghan Peace Deal

Donald Trump: I'll be meeting personally with Taliban leaders

Nilofar Bayat the captain of Afghanistan's national women's wheelchair basketball team and one of the thousands of Afghans who were badly injured during years of conflict. Speaking to Reuters, Bayat said she hopes for peace so that her team can continue competing in international games, but fears a return to power by the Taliban could quash her dreams.

The downside of US-Taliban peace deal

A major deal will be signed in Doha. The representatives from United States and Afghanistan will sign the peace deal today.

India to attend US-Taliban Afghan peace deal ceremony

A major deal will be signed in Doha. The representatives from the United States and Afghanistan will sign the peace deal today. The peace agreement will pave the way for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. American soldiers have been in the country fighting against the Taliban for the last 18 years.

Watch: WION's ground report from Qatar on Afghan peace deal

The representatives from the United States and Afghanistan will sign the peace deal today. The peace agreement will pave the way for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. American soldiers have been in the country fighting against the Taliban for the last 18 years. India has also been invited by the Qatar government to the peace deal ceremony.

Taliban's Suhail Shaheen Exclusively speaks to WION

Afghan Peace Deal: 'Will ensure Afghanistan is never used as terror base' says Mike Pompeo

Civilisationalism’s train may well have left the station. That may also be true for a fundamental redefinition of US foreign policy.

To what degree, civilisationalism continues its march and how US foreign policy will be re-defined is likely to be determined by who wins this year’s US presidential election.

With Donald J. Trump the undisputed Republican candidate and Bernie Sanders the Democratic frontrunner, the fight for the highest office in the land could be one between two very different but no less radical visions of America’s role in the world.

For civilisationalist illiberals, authoritarians and autocrats in the Middle East and North Africa and beyond, the stakes could not be higher.

In The Economist’s words, a race between Trump and Sanders would be between, "a corrupt, divisive right-wing populist" with an empathy for autocrats, like his favourite, Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and "a sanctimonious left-wing populist, " who, despite emphasizing human rights, democracy, diplomacy and re-committing the United States to the trans-Atlantic alliance, “has a dangerous tendency to put ends before means” and “displays the intolerance of a Righteous Man.”

The obvious differences notwithstanding, Trump and Sanders share scepticism about America wielding power overseas and a reluctance to use military force.

On the surface of it, Sanders would likely agree that Trump wasn’t wrong when he took aim at a post-Cold War US foreign policy that had primarily produced disastrous failures since the demise of Communism by declaring “our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.”

&nbsp;Trump was referring to what political scientist Stephen M Walt described as an era in which the United States as the world’s only superpower could rule supreme but had no need to do so.

“Instead of building an ever-expanding zone of peace united by a shared commitment to liberal ideas, America’s pursuit of liberal hegemony poisoned relations with Russia, led to costly quagmires in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other countries, squandered trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and encouraged both states and non-state actors to resist American efforts or to exploit them for their own benefit,” Walt argued.

From a civilisationalist’s point of view, Trump was the right person at the right time.

He promised a radical departure from the United States’ internationalist agenda and dumped the concept of American exceptionalism that positioned the United States as the linchpin of a liberal world order, the indispensable policeman that would keep the world from falling apart. Foreign policy would no longer be informed by a longer-term overarching worldview.

Instead, it would be driven by short-term transactions that served immediate goals, struck advantageous deals and shifted burdens to others.

Ironically, Trump’s chaotic and impulsive policymaking and management style, narcissism, and ineptitude allowed civilisationalists with whom he instinctively empathized take centre stage while the United States continued to fight wars in distant lands and shoulder much of the burden of policing global security.

Rather than “bringing America’s commitments and capabilities into better balance, Trump has undermined the latter without decreasing the former,” Walt concluded.

Trump’s approach bolstered Russian president Vladimir Putin’s declaration three years into the real-estate mogul-turned president’s administration that liberalism had “outlived its purpose.”

Writing in The New York Times, Max Frankel, the paper’s former executive editor, argued last year that civilisationalist leaders didn’t need to formalize a tacit meeting of the minds on the principles of governance that should underwrite a new world order.

Against the backdrop of unproven allegations of illicit cooperation between Russia and the 2016 Trump electoral campaign, Frankel suggested that “there was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin's oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy.”

Igor Yurgens, president of the Institute of Contemporary Development, and a former advisor to erstwhile Russian president Dmitry Medvedev expressed a similar sentiment.

Trump is “our wrecking ball. He shares our ideology and has shown as much sympathy to Russia as was humanly possible,” Yurgens said.

Yurgens assertion is seemingly mirrored in Trump’s empathy for Putin and autocrats like Al-Sisi and Emirati and Saudi crown princes, Mohammed bin Zayed and Mohammed bin Salman as well as his anti-immigration policies that favour Europeans and discriminate against Africans, Asians and Latin Americans and his repeated refusal to convincingly condemn racist and neo-Nazi groups.

Trump’s ambiguity towards far-right thinking neatly aligns itself with Russian support for racist and neo-Nazi groups in the United States and across Europe that is designed to fuel civilisationalist attitudes, bolster opposition to European Union sanctions imposed after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and drive a wedge in the trans-Atlantic alliance that Trump has repeatedly questioned.

By contrast, Sanders, a self-styled democratic socialist, would likely bring a different, more civil tone to the presidency, but no less of a redirection of US foreign policy.

If Trump attempted to reduce foreign policy to business-like transactions, Sanders would transform policy into what scholars Ben Judah and David Adler have termed ‘foreign politics.’

“He is targeting the global architecture of kleptocracy in which many U.S. firms and passport holders are complicit and building ties with social movements around the world that can serve as allies in the fight against state corruption,” Judah and Adler argued in The Guardian.

In doing so, Judah and Adler suggest, Sanders as president would, unlike his predecessors, target three pillars of Putin’s disruptive policies, oil and gas revenues, a kleptocratic power base, and information warfare.

Sander’s tools shy away from the centrality of military power. Instead, they include the promotion of renewable energy that would reduce European reliance on Russian fossil fuels, the dismantling of offshore tax havens and corporate shells that facilitate Putin’s kleptocracy, and US reengagement in the battle of ideas by promoting human rights and other democratic values.

From a foreign policy perspective, the problem with Sanders is not the loftiness of his goals and principled positions or the practicality of his domestic policy proposals. It is that, given deep polarisation in the United States, he could prove to be as divisive as his nemesis, Trump.

Ironically, that is not how many Europeans, including conservatives, see Sanders. Said a senior member of Germany’s ruling centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU): “He may seem radically left-wing in America, but if he were German, he would fit right into the CDU, and probably even the more conservative side of it.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

Civilisationalism’s train may well have left the station. That may also be true for a fundamental redefinition of US foreign policy. To what degree, civilisationalism continues its march and how US foreign policy will be re-defined is likely to be determined by who wins this year’s US presidential election.

Civilisationalism’s train may well have left the station. That may also be true for a fundamental redefinition of US foreign policy. To what degree, civilisationalism continues its march and how US foreign policy will be re-defined is likely to be determined by who wins this year’s US presidential election. With Donald J. Trump the undisputed Republican candidate and Bernie Sanders the Democratic frontrunner, the fight for the highest office in the land could be one between two very different but no less radical visions of America’s role in the world. For civilisationalist illiberals, authoritarians and autocrats in the Middle East and North Africa and beyond, the stakes could not be higher. In The Economist’s words, a race between Trump and Sanders would be between, "a corrupt, divisive right-wing populist" with an empathy for autocrats, like his favourite, Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and "a sanctimonious left-wing populist, " who, despite emphasizing human rights, democracy, diplomacy and re-committing the United States to the trans-Atlantic alliance, “has a dangerous tendency to put ends before means” and “displays the intolerance of a Righteous Man.” The obvious differences notwithstanding, Trump and Sanders share scepticism about America wielding power overseas and a reluctance to use military force. On the surface of it, Sanders would likely agree that Trump wasn’t wrong when he took aim at a post-Cold War US foreign policy that had primarily produced disastrous failures since the demise of Communism by declaring “our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.” Trump was referring to what political scientist Stephen M Walt described as an era in which the United States as the world’s only superpower could rule supreme but had no need to do so. “Instead of building an ever-expanding zone of peace united by a shared commitment to liberal ideas, America’s pursuit of liberal hegemony poisoned relations with Russia, led to costly quagmires in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other countries, squandered trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and encouraged both states and non-state actors to resist American efforts or to exploit them for their own benefit,” Walt argued. From a civilisationalist’s point of view, Trump was the right person at the right time. He promised a radical departure from the United States’ internationalist agenda and dumped the concept of American exceptionalism that positioned the United States as the linchpin of a liberal world order, the indispensable policeman that would keep the world from falling apart. Foreign policy would no longer be informed by a longer-term overarching worldview. Instead, it would be driven by short-term transactions that served immediate goals, struck advantageous deals and shifted burdens to others. Ironically, Trump’s chaotic and impulsive policymaking and management style, narcissism, and ineptitude allowed civilisationalists with whom he instinctively empathized take centre stage while the United States continued to fight wars in distant lands and shoulder much of the burden of policing global security. Rather than “bringing America’s commitments and capabilities into better balance, Trump has undermined the latter without decreasing the former,” Walt concluded. Trump’s approach bolstered Russian president Vladimir Putin’s declaration three years into the real-estate mogul-turned president’s administration that liberalism had “outlived its purpose.” Writing in The New York Times, Max Frankel, the paper’s former executive editor, argued last year that civilisationalist leaders didn’t need to formalize a tacit meeting of the minds on the principles of governance that should underwrite a new world order. Against the backdrop of unproven allegations of illicit cooperation between Russia and the 2016 Trump electoral campaign, Frankel suggested that “there was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin's oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy.” Igor Yurgens, president of the Institute of Contemporary Development, and a former advisor to erstwhile Russian president Dmitry Medvedev expressed a similar sentiment. Trump is “our wrecking ball. He shares our ideology and has shown as much sympathy to Russia as was humanly possible,” Yurgens said. Yurgens assertion is seemingly mirrored in Trump’s empathy for Putin and autocrats like Al-Sisi and Emirati and Saudi crown princes, Mohammed bin Zayed and Mohammed bin Salman as well as his anti-immigration policies that favour Europeans and discriminate against Africans, Asians and Latin Americans and his repeated refusal to convincingly condemn racist and neo-Nazi groups. Trump’s ambiguity towards far-right thinking neatly aligns itself with Russian support for racist and neo-Nazi groups in the United States and across Europe that is designed to fuel civilisationalist attitudes, bolster opposition to European Union sanctions imposed after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and drive a wedge in the trans-Atlantic alliance that Trump has repeatedly questioned. By contrast, Sanders, a self-styled democratic socialist, would likely bring a different, more civil tone to the presidency, but no less of a redirection of US foreign policy. If Trump attempted to reduce foreign policy to business-like transactions, Sanders would transform policy into what scholars Ben Judah and David Adler have termed ‘foreign politics.’ “He is targeting the global architecture of kleptocracy in which many U.S. firms and passport holders are complicit and building ties with social movements around the world that can serve as allies in the fight against state corruption,” Judah and Adler argued in The Guardian. In doing so, Judah and Adler suggest, Sanders as president would, unlike his predecessors, target three pillars of Putin’s disruptive policies, oil and gas revenues, a kleptocratic power base, and information warfare. Sander’s tools shy away from the centrality of military power. Instead, they include the promotion of renewable energy that would reduce European reliance on Russian fossil fuels, the dismantling of offshore tax havens and corporate shells that facilitate Putin’s kleptocracy, and US reengagement in the battle of ideas by promoting human rights and other democratic values. From a foreign policy perspective, the problem with Sanders is not the loftiness of his goals and principled positions or the practicality of his domestic policy proposals. It is that, given deep polarisation in the United States, he could prove to be as divisive as his nemesis, Trump. Ironically, that is not how many Europeans, including conservatives, see Sanders. Said a senior member of Germany’s ruling centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU): “He may seem radically left-wing in America, but if he were German, he would fit right into the CDU, and probably even the more conservative side of it. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Presidential elections will determine how US foreign policy is redefined

The U.S. Secretary of Defence Mark Esper and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issue a joint statement with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on combating terrorism in Afghanistan and supporting the Afghan security and defence forces.

Prez Ashraf Ghani gives US-Afghan joint statement

Afghan peace deal after 18 months of intense negotiations

afghanistan-0

Afghanistan, News on Afghanistan, stories on Afghanistan, articles on Afghanistan, Afghanistan stories at Wion, Afghanistan news, Afghanistan latest news

afghanistan 0