<p>Islamic State <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/gunmen-storm-kabul-tv-station-in-ongoing-attack-employee-23653">has claimed has responsibility for the attack </a>on the TV station in Afghanistan&#39;s capital Kabul.</p>

<p>At least one person <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/suicide-bombers-gunmen-attack-afghan-police-training-centre-officials-22527">was killed in the attack after gunmen stormed </a>the station. The terrorists had fired rocket-propelled grenades at the guards, AFP reported.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The terrorist organization&#39;s news agency Amaq said it was behind the attack.</p>

<p>&quot;I saw three attackers on security cameras entering the TV station building. They first shot the guard and then entered the building. They started throwing grenades and firing,&quot; Shamshad TV reporter Faisal Zaland, who escaped through a back door, told AFP.</p>

<p>&quot;Many of my colleagues are still in the building,&quot; he added.</p>

<p>Interior ministry spokesman Najib Danish had said as many as three attackers were involved in the assault.</p>

<p>Taliban had denied involvement in the attack on Twitter.</p>

<p>The attack came to an end after Afghan security forces rescued the staff inside.</p>


At least one person was killed in the attack after gunmen stormed the TV station in Kabul

Islamic State has claimed has responsibility for the attack on the TV station in Afghanistan's capital Kabul. At least one person was killed in the attack after gunmen stormed the station. The terrorists had fired rocket-propelled grenades at the guards, AFP reported. The terrorist organization's news agency Amaq said it was behind the attack. "I saw three attackers on security cameras entering the TV station building. They first shot the guard and then entered the building. They started throwing grenades and firing," Shamshad TV reporter Faisal Zaland, who escaped through a back door, told AFP. "Many of my colleagues are still in the building," he added. Interior ministry spokesman Najib Danish had said as many as three attackers were involved in the assault. Taliban had denied involvement in the attack on Twitter. The attack came to an end after Afghan security forces rescued the staff inside.

Kabul: Islamic State claims responsibility for attack on TV station

<p>Pakistan foreign <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/tillerson-too-many-terror-groups-finding-safe-haven-in-pak-threatening-stability-of-govt-22888">minister Khawaja Asif said today that the United States </a>should &quot;mediate in easing tensions with India&quot;, Pakistan media reported.</p>

<p>Speaking at a strategic affairs conference, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-relationship-with-pakistan-will-be-conditions-based-says-rex-tillerson-22785">the Pakistan foreign minister said the US had assured him that India&#39;s</a> role in Afghanistan would be limited to providing economic assistance, the Dawn quoted Radio Pakistan.</p>

<p>Pakistan has been concerned over India&#39;s influence in Afghanistan, especially after President Trump openly requested India&#39;s help while unveiling his Afghan policy in August.</p>

<p>During his visit to India last month US secretary of state Rex Tillerson had said India was crucial to the US strategy in Afghanistan and that his country &quot;backed India as a leader in the region&quot;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While meeting Tillerson, India&#39;s external minister Sushma Swaraj had said President Trump&#39;s policy on terrorism can only succeed when Pakistan takes action against terror groups.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Expanding on India, Asif told the conference that Pakistan &quot;always preferred comprehensive dialogue with India&quot; that could contribute to peace in the region, the Dawn report said.</p>

<p>Tillerson had met had Pakistan PM Abbasi last month in Islamabad with the US secretary of state talking tough with Pak over its alleged safe havens to terrorist organizations in the country.</p>

<p>In fact, Tillerson paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan before landing in Pakistan with the US administration increasingly worried over spurt in terrorist activities in Kabul.</p>

<p>Tillerson had earlier met Khawaja Muhammad Asif Washington to put pressure on Pakistan to control militant groups in its area.</p>

<p>During the meeting, the Pakistan foreign minister had reassured the US secretary of state that his country was pursuing &quot;zero-tolerance and indiscriminate approach&quot; in its campaign against &quot;all terrorist and militant groups&quot;.</p>


Pakistan has been concerned over India's influence in Afghanistan especially after President Trump unveiled his Afghan strategy

Pakistan foreign minister Khawaja Asif said today that the United States should "mediate in easing tensions with India", Pakistan media reported. Speaking at a strategic affairs conference, the Pakistan foreign minister said the US had assured him that India's role in Afghanistan would be limited to providing economic assistance, the Dawn quoted Radio Pakistan. Pakistan has been concerned over India's influence in Afghanistan, especially after President Trump openly requested India's help while unveiling his Afghan policy in August. During his visit to India last month US secretary of state Rex Tillerson had said India was crucial to the US strategy in Afghanistan and that his country "backed India as a leader in the region". While meeting Tillerson, India's external minister Sushma Swaraj had said President Trump's policy on terrorism can only succeed when Pakistan takes action against terror groups. Expanding on India, Asif told the conference that Pakistan "always preferred comprehensive dialogue with India" that could contribute to peace in the region, the Dawn report said. Tillerson had met had Pakistan PM Abbasi last month in Islamabad with the US secretary of state talking tough with Pak over its alleged safe havens to terrorist organizations in the country. In fact, Tillerson paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan before landing in Pakistan with the US administration increasingly worried over spurt in terrorist activities in Kabul. Tillerson had earlier met Khawaja Muhammad Asif Washington to put pressure on Pakistan to control militant groups in its area. During the meeting, the Pakistan foreign minister had reassured the US secretary of state that his country was pursuing "zero-tolerance and indiscriminate approach" in its campaign against "all terrorist and militant groups".

US should mediate in easing tensions with India, says Pak foreign minister Khawaja Asif

<p>Afghanistan`s telecoms regulator wrote to internet service providers this week ordering them to block the messaging services WhatsApp and Telegram but it was not immediately clear whether they had complied.</p>

<p>Use of social media and mobile instant messaging services has exploded in Afghanistan over recent years. Social media users and civil rights groups reacted with outrage to initial reports of the move and the letter sent by telecoms regulator ATRA was widely shared on social media.</p>

<p>&nbsp;Some media reports, citing unidentified sources, said the move had been ordered by the National Directorate for Security to thwart the use of the encrypted messaging services by the Taliban and other insurgent groups.</p>

<p>It was not immediately possible to confirm the reports.</p>

<p>The acting minister for telecommunications, Shahzad Aryobee, posted a message on Facebook saying that the telecoms regulator had been ordered to put a gradual block on the services to improve their functioning after complaints had been received.</p>

<p>&quot;The government is committed to freedom of speech and knows that it is a basic civil right for our people,&quot; he wrote.</p>

<p>The letter by telecoms regulator ATRA, dated Nov. 1 and signed by an official of the regulator, directed internet companies to block Telegram and Facebook Inc`s WhatsApp services &quot;without delay&quot; for a period of 20 days.</p>

<p>However, the service worked normally this week and still appeared to be working normally on Saturday on both state-owned operator Salaam and private service providers.</p>

<p>On Friday, there were reports of interruptions but it was not clear whether they were caused by a deliberate shutdown or by the unrelated issues with WhatsApp services that were experienced in several countries.</p>

<p>Mobile phone services have been one of the big success stories in Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted from power by a U.S.-led campaign in 2001, but there are also frequent complaints from users about quality and coverage.</p>

<p>WhatsApp and similar services, including Facebook Messenger and Viber, are widely used by Afghan politicians and members of the government as well as by the Taliban, which has a sophisticated social media operation of its own.</p>

<p>The movement`s main spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, wrote to reporters this week giving his Viber number &quot;in case WhatsApp is not working&quot;.</p>


Afghanistan`s telecoms regulator wrote to internet service providers this week ordering them to block the messaging services WhatsApp and Telegram but it was not immediately clear whether they had complied.

Afghanistan`s telecoms regulator wrote to internet service providers this week ordering them to block the messaging services WhatsApp and Telegram but it was not immediately clear whether they had complied. Use of social media and mobile instant messaging services has exploded in Afghanistan over recent years. Social media users and civil rights groups reacted with outrage to initial reports of the move and the letter sent by telecoms regulator ATRA was widely shared on social media. Some media reports, citing unidentified sources, said the move had been ordered by the National Directorate for Security to thwart the use of the encrypted messaging services by the Taliban and other insurgent groups. It was not immediately possible to confirm the reports. The acting minister for telecommunications, Shahzad Aryobee, posted a message on Facebook saying that the telecoms regulator had been ordered to put a gradual block on the services to improve their functioning after complaints had been received. "The government is committed to freedom of speech and knows that it is a basic civil right for our people," he wrote. The letter by telecoms regulator ATRA, dated Nov. 1 and signed by an official of the regulator, directed internet companies to block Telegram and Facebook Inc`s WhatsApp services "without delay" for a period of 20 days. However, the service worked normally this week and still appeared to be working normally on Saturday on both state-owned operator Salaam and private service providers. On Friday, there were reports of interruptions but it was not clear whether they were caused by a deliberate shutdown or by the unrelated issues with WhatsApp services that were experienced in several countries. Mobile phone services have been one of the big success stories in Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted from power by a U.S.-led campaign in 2001, but there are also frequent complaints from users about quality and coverage. WhatsApp and similar services, including Facebook Messenger and Viber, are widely used by Afghan politicians and members of the government as well as by the Taliban, which has a sophisticated social media operation of its own. The movement`s main spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, wrote to reporters this week giving his Viber number "in case WhatsApp is not working".

Afghanistan moves to block WhatsApp, Telegram messaging services

<p>India-Afghanistan relations have come a long way in a short span of time. Arguably, no two other South Asian countries have a comparable strong bonding as these two. Not only is Afghanistan today seeking greater engagement with New Delhi, something which Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani re-emphasised during his recent visit to India but even the US is calling upon India to play a larger role there (as is evident in Washington DC&rsquo;s recently unveiled Afghanistan and India policies).</p>

<p>Given that India&rsquo;s contribution so far has been largely in the areas of developmental work and somewhat limited in defence matters, it is evident that both the Trump administration and Kabul are expecting New Delhi to ramp up Indo-Afghan defence cooperation even if it leaves Pakistan rattled. India is unlikely to put its military boots on the ground there, but short of that, the sky appears to be the limit.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Afghanistan had opposed the entry of Pakistan into the United Nations, and also that Kabul had not officially recognised the Durand Line which divides Afghanistan from Pakistan and serves as the de facto border.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Afghanistan had opposed the entry of Pakistan into the United Nations, and also that Kabul had not officially recognised the Durand Line which divides Afghanistan from Pakistan and serves as the de facto border." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Such is the current euphoria, admittedly justifiable, that few would remember or want to remember that the two nations had not seen eye to eye on many issues critical to New Delhi in the recent past. This, despite the emotional Kabuliwala, connect, the fact that Afghanistan had opposed the entry of Pakistan into the United Nations, and also that Kabul had not (it still has not) officially recognised the Durand Line which divides Afghanistan from Pakistan and serves as the de facto border.</p>

<p>The first real indication came during the 1965 India-Pakistan war. New Delhi had then raised the pitch to counter Pakistan&rsquo;s call for people&rsquo;s right to self-determination in Jammu &amp; Kashmir and even Nagaland. It said that Pakistan must then agree to self-determination in East Pakistan, Balochistan and &#39;Pakhtoonistan&rsquo;. Kabul ought to have been happy with that remark given that it believes that the Pakhtun-dominated regions had wrongly gone to Pakistan as a result of the Durand divide. Yet, Afghanistan did not back India during the war.</p>

<p>In fact, Kabul had registered an official protest against the Indian forces for targeting Peshawar and Kohat. This may be explained away on the pretext that Afghanistan considered the two as being its part. But then it had until then done nothing to forcefully present its case before the international community.</p>

<p>More importantly, Afghanistan had not criticised Pakistan&rsquo;s aggression which were codenamed Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam and whose aim was to secede Kashmir from India. Some media reports of the day had quoted Afghan king Zahir Shah (in Foreign Affairs Records) as placating Pakistan&rsquo;s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: &ldquo;I as a king, give you assurance, I as a Muslim give you assurance, I as an Afghan give you assurance, that we are with you and we will never betray you.&rdquo; Kabul later denied the statement, but the damage had been done.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Pakistan&rsquo;s penchant to damage India&rsquo;s relations with Afghanistan and play mischief to achieve that end, something that it continues to indulge in even today.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Pakistan?s penchant to damage India?s relations with Afghanistan and play mischief to achieve that end, something that it continues to indulge in even today." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In an interview, senior Indian diplomat Chinmaya Gharekhan had said that Afghanistan &ldquo;never sided with India in India&rsquo;s disputes with Pakistan&hellip; on issues like Kashmir, we have not had any support from Afghanistan&rdquo;.</p>

<p>It must be said here that given Pakistan&rsquo;s penchant to damage India&rsquo;s relations with Afghanistan and play mischief to achieve that end - something that it continues to indulge in even today -&nbsp;it may have &lsquo;manufactured&rsquo; the statement purportedly given by the king. Yet, it&rsquo;s a fact that Kabul was less than favourable to New Delhi on the latter&rsquo;s position on Kashmir.</p>

<p>It is possible that the Indian dismay would have been addressed had the then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri made his scheduled visit to Afghanistan after the Tashkent meet which brought about an end to the 1965 war. Unfortunately, that was not to be as he died soon after the Tashkent Declaration.</p>

<p>In those days, 1965 was the only &lsquo;bright&rsquo; spot in Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, because soon after, especially from the early 1970s, the Afghans began to be increasingly alarmed by Pakistan&rsquo;s high-handedness in East Pakistan and even the Baloch region. Although Kabul officially maintained silence over the Pakistani Army&rsquo;s atrocities in what later became Bangladesh, the ruling dispensation recognised the general Afghan anger over the developments.</p>

<p>What was worse from Afghanistan&rsquo;s viewpoint was the heavy-handedness which Pakistan displayed against the Baloch population. Kabul and New Delhi, although not the greatest of friends then, nevertheless began coming closer through, the increased Soviet influence in Afghanistan. Ironically, it was that very influence, to counter which the US entered the scene and made Pakistan a key counter-balance to the Soviet-backed regimes, which led to complications in the bilateral. Towards the end of 1980s and the early 1990s with the Soviets out and the Taliban gaining ground, India-Afghanistan ties hit a new low, only to recover years later.</p>

<p>Afghanistan soon realised to its dismay that the ouster of the Taliban regime had brought more problems than it had solved, in the form of militancy. The Mujahideen were out of work and had turned against their patrons - the US - but continued to be backed by Islamabad. The militant&#39;s groups, now carrying various names, began to target not just Afghanistan but also India and others in South Asia. India-Afghanistan ties should have taken off after this realisation had dawned on Kabul, but did not.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Hamid Karzai consistently attacked Pakistan for patronising terror elements that hit his country and India too.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Hamid Karzai consistently attacked Pakistan for patronising terror elements that hit his country and India too." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>This was primarily because of two reasons. The first is that the US continued to generously support Pakistan, and Afghanistan had to humour Pakistan because it heavily depended on the US for all kinds of aid. The second is that the new regime in Kabul fell for Pakistan&rsquo;s assurance of being a true friend. In 2011, then President Hamid Karzai had called Pakistan a &ldquo;twin brother&rdquo; and claimed that it had suffered from terrorism &ldquo;more than us&rdquo; and that India suffered from terrorist attacks &ldquo;only occasionally&rdquo;.</p>

<p>The fact that Karzai called India a &ldquo;great friend&rdquo; did nothing to please New Delhi after his pro-Pakistan remarks. It didn&rsquo;t take him a lifetime to revise his opinion. By 2014, when he was no longer President, he was consistently attacking Pakistan for patronising terror elements that hit his country and India too. This was then the beginning of Kabul getting real close to India. To be fair to Karzai, towards the last months in office, he had begun to speak out openly against Pakistan-sponsored terror in the region.</p>

<p>Like his predecessor, President Ghani began his tenure with overtures to Islamabad, worrying New Delhi which had begun to see light at the end of the India-Afghanistan bilateral tunnel. He went to Pakistan, received a 21-gun salute at the airport, and visited the Pakistani military headquarters - a gesture that was seen as bending-over-backwards to the powerful army there and thus roundly criticised. But he too was soon to be disabused of his optimism. In subsequent months, he realised Pakistan&rsquo;s games, and turned into Islamabad&rsquo;s trenchant critic and forged what is now termed as a historic relationship with India.</p>

<p>Given this short history, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the robust India-Afghanistan bilateral has much to thank Pakistan for its duplicity in combating terrorism in the South Asian region. But the relationship cannot rest on the negativity over Islamabad; it needs fresh positive doses to prevent any more disruptions.</p>


The India-Afghanistan relationship cannot rest on the negativity over Islamabad; it needs fresh positive doses to prevent any more disruptions

India-Afghanistan relations have come a long way in a short span of time. Arguably, no two other South Asian countries have a comparable strong bonding as these two. Not only is Afghanistan today seeking greater engagement with New Delhi, something which Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani re-emphasised during his recent visit to India but even the US is calling upon India to play a larger role there (as is evident in Washington DC’s recently unveiled Afghanistan and India policies). Given that India’s contribution so far has been largely in the areas of developmental work and somewhat limited in defence matters, it is evident that both the Trump administration and Kabul are expecting New Delhi to ramp up Indo-Afghan defence cooperation even if it leaves Pakistan rattled. India is unlikely to put its military boots on the ground there, but short of that, the sky appears to be the limit. Afghanistan had opposed the entry of Pakistan into the United Nations, and also that Kabul had not officially recognised the Durand Line which divides Afghanistan from Pakistan and serves as the de facto border. × Such is the current euphoria, admittedly justifiable, that few would remember or want to remember that the two nations had not seen eye to eye on many issues critical to New Delhi in the recent past. This, despite the emotional Kabuliwala, connect, the fact that Afghanistan had opposed the entry of Pakistan into the United Nations, and also that Kabul had not (it still has not) officially recognised the Durand Line which divides Afghanistan from Pakistan and serves as the de facto border. The first real indication came during the 1965 India-Pakistan war. New Delhi had then raised the pitch to counter Pakistan’s call for people’s right to self-determination in Jammu & Kashmir and even Nagaland. It said that Pakistan must then agree to self-determination in East Pakistan, Balochistan and 'Pakhtoonistan’. Kabul ought to have been happy with that remark given that it believes that the Pakhtun-dominated regions had wrongly gone to Pakistan as a result of the Durand divide. Yet, Afghanistan did not back India during the war. In fact, Kabul had registered an official protest against the Indian forces for targeting Peshawar and Kohat. This may be explained away on the pretext that Afghanistan considered the two as being its part. But then it had until then done nothing to forcefully present its case before the international community. More importantly, Afghanistan had not criticised Pakistan’s aggression which were codenamed Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam and whose aim was to secede Kashmir from India. Some media reports of the day had quoted Afghan king Zahir Shah (in Foreign Affairs Records) as placating Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: “I as a king, give you assurance, I as a Muslim give you assurance, I as an Afghan give you assurance, that we are with you and we will never betray you.” Kabul later denied the statement, but the damage had been done. Pakistan’s penchant to damage India’s relations with Afghanistan and play mischief to achieve that end, something that it continues to indulge in even today. × In an interview, senior Indian diplomat Chinmaya Gharekhan had said that Afghanistan “never sided with India in India’s disputes with Pakistan… on issues like Kashmir, we have not had any support from Afghanistan”. It must be said here that given Pakistan’s penchant to damage India’s relations with Afghanistan and play mischief to achieve that end - something that it continues to indulge in even today - it may have ‘manufactured’ the statement purportedly given by the king. Yet, it’s a fact that Kabul was less than favourable to New Delhi on the latter’s position on Kashmir. It is possible that the Indian dismay would have been addressed had the then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri made his scheduled visit to Afghanistan after the Tashkent meet which brought about an end to the 1965 war. Unfortunately, that was not to be as he died soon after the Tashkent Declaration. In those days, 1965 was the only ‘bright’ spot in Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, because soon after, especially from the early 1970s, the Afghans began to be increasingly alarmed by Pakistan’s high-handedness in East Pakistan and even the Baloch region. Although Kabul officially maintained silence over the Pakistani Army’s atrocities in what later became Bangladesh, the ruling dispensation recognised the general Afghan anger over the developments. What was worse from Afghanistan’s viewpoint was the heavy-handedness which Pakistan displayed against the Baloch population. Kabul and New Delhi, although not the greatest of friends then, nevertheless began coming closer through, the increased Soviet influence in Afghanistan. Ironically, it was that very influence, to counter which the US entered the scene and made Pakistan a key counter-balance to the Soviet-backed regimes, which led to complications in the bilateral. Towards the end of 1980s and the early 1990s with the Soviets out and the Taliban gaining ground, India-Afghanistan ties hit a new low, only to recover years later. Afghanistan soon realised to its dismay that the ouster of the Taliban regime had brought more problems than it had solved, in the form of militancy. The Mujahideen were out of work and had turned against their patrons - the US - but continued to be backed by Islamabad. The militant's groups, now carrying various names, began to target not just Afghanistan but also India and others in South Asia. India-Afghanistan ties should have taken off after this realisation had dawned on Kabul, but did not. Hamid Karzai consistently attacked Pakistan for patronising terror elements that hit his country and India too. × This was primarily because of two reasons. The first is that the US continued to generously support Pakistan, and Afghanistan had to humour Pakistan because it heavily depended on the US for all kinds of aid. The second is that the new regime in Kabul fell for Pakistan’s assurance of being a true friend. In 2011, then President Hamid Karzai had called Pakistan a “twin brother” and claimed that it had suffered from terrorism “more than us” and that India suffered from terrorist attacks “only occasionally”. The fact that Karzai called India a “great friend” did nothing to please New Delhi after his pro-Pakistan remarks. It didn’t take him a lifetime to revise his opinion. By 2014, when he was no longer President, he was consistently attacking Pakistan for patronising terror elements that hit his country and India too. This was then the beginning of Kabul getting real close to India. To be fair to Karzai, towards the last months in office, he had begun to speak out openly against Pakistan-sponsored terror in the region. Like his predecessor, President Ghani began his tenure with overtures to Islamabad, worrying New Delhi which had begun to see light at the end of the India-Afghanistan bilateral tunnel. He went to Pakistan, received a 21-gun salute at the airport, and visited the Pakistani military headquarters - a gesture that was seen as bending-over-backwards to the powerful army there and thus roundly criticised. But he too was soon to be disabused of his optimism. In subsequent months, he realised Pakistan’s games, and turned into Islamabad’s trenchant critic and forged what is now termed as a historic relationship with India. Given this short history, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the robust India-Afghanistan bilateral has much to thank Pakistan for its duplicity in combating terrorism in the South Asian region. But the relationship cannot rest on the negativity over Islamabad; it needs fresh positive doses to prevent any more disruptions.

India-Afghanistan relationship seeks to prosper through all ups and downs

<p>US secretary of state <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rex-tillerson-arrives-in-india-set-to-meet-sushma-swaraj-pm-modi-today-22856">Rex Tillerson met India&#39;s external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj </a>today ahead of his meeting with PM Modi later in the day.</p>

<p>Tillerson had arrived in India late <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rex-tillerson-arrives-in-india-set-to-meet-sushma-swaraj-pm-modi-today-22856">last night on a three-day visit to strengthen India-US</a> ties. Tillerson is expected to meet senior Indian leaders with the US increasingly concerned over events in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>The US secretary had met Pakistan PM Shahid Khaqan Abbasi ahead of India visit today, with the Pak PM asserting that his country had &quot;produced results&quot; fighting terrorists in the region.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Tillerson had pushed for a more vigorous role for India during his talk at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington last week.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Tillerson had said India must &quot;take leadership role in regional security&quot;, a move which was later welcomed by India&#39;s ministry of external affairs.</p>

<p>Pakistan and US have been at odds with each other over terrorist activities in the Pakistan-Afganistan region ever since President Trump laid out t his new&nbsp;Afganistan strategy.</p>

<p>Tillerson had said India must &quot;take leadership role in regional security&quot;, a move which was later welcomed by India&#39;s ministry of external affairs.</p>

<p>US President Trump had accused Islamabad of harbouring &quot;agents of chaos&quot; during his speech in August while unveiling his Afghan strategy and had said he could no longer be &quot;silent about Pakistan&#39;s safe havens for terrorist organizations&quot;.</p>

<p>The US president had called on India to play a greater role in Afghanistan which did not go down well with Pakistan officials.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a>:US Secretary of State <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RexTillerson?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RexTillerson</a> meets EAM Sushma Swaraj in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a> <a href="https://t.co/HU6P4EB3AZ">pic.twitter.com/HU6P4EB3AZ</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/923076772551311361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Tillerson is expected to meet senior Indian leaders with the US increasingly concerned over events in Afghanistan.

US secretary of state Rex Tillerson met India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj today ahead of his meeting with PM Modi later in the day. Tillerson had arrived in India late last night on a three-day visit to strengthen India-US ties. Tillerson is expected to meet senior Indian leaders with the US increasingly concerned over events in Afghanistan. The US secretary had met Pakistan PM Shahid Khaqan Abbasi ahead of India visit today, with the Pak PM asserting that his country had "produced results" fighting terrorists in the region. Tillerson had pushed for a more vigorous role for India during his talk at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington last week. Tillerson had said India must "take leadership role in regional security", a move which was later welcomed by India's ministry of external affairs. Pakistan and US have been at odds with each other over terrorist activities in the Pakistan-Afganistan region ever since President Trump laid out t his new Afganistan strategy. Tillerson had said India must "take leadership role in regional security", a move which was later welcomed by India's ministry of external affairs. US President Trump had accused Islamabad of harbouring "agents of chaos" during his speech in August while unveiling his Afghan strategy and had said he could no longer be "silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organizations". The US president had called on India to play a greater role in Afghanistan which did not go down well with Pakistan officials. #WATCH:US Secretary of State #RexTillerson meets EAM Sushma Swaraj in #Delhi pic.twitter.com/HU6P4EB3AZ — ANI (@ANI) October 25, 2017 ×

US secretary of state Tillerson meets Sushma Swaraj

<p>Prime Minister Narendra Modi today noted the commonality in the objectives of India and the US to eradicate terrorism, terrorist infrastructure, safe havens and support, while bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan.</p>

<p>He noted this in the context of US President Donald Trump&#39;s new South Asia policy, according to a PMO statement.</p>

<p>The prime minister&#39;s observations came when US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called on him here this afternoon, the statement said.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/tillerson-too-many-terror-groups-finding-safe-haven-in-pak-threatening-stability-of-govt-22888" target="_blank">Also read: Too many terror groups finding safe haven in Pak -- that threatens stability of govt, says Tillerson</a></p>

<p>Tillerson exchanged with Modi views on his recent travels in the region.</p>

<p>&quot;They further discussed stepping up effective cooperation to combat terrorism in all its forms and promoting regional stability and security,&quot; the PMO statement said.</p>

<p>Welcoming Tillerson on his maiden visit to India in his current capacity, Modi noted with appreciation the &quot;firm upward trajectory&quot; in the bilateral strategic partnership following the &quot;positive and far-reaching&quot; talks with Trump in June this year, the statement said.</p>

<p>The prime minister shared the resolve expressed by Tillerson on taking further steps in the direction of accelerating and strengthening the content, pace and scope of the bilateral engagement, it said.</p>

<p>Modi and Tillerson affirmed that a strengthened India-US partnership is not just of mutual benefit to both countries, but has significant positive impact on the prospects for regional and global stability and prosperity.</p>

<p>Earlier in the day, Tillerson held detailed discussions with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval.&nbsp;</p>


Another shared goal, said Modi, was bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today noted the commonality in the objectives of India and the US to eradicate terrorism, terrorist infrastructure, safe havens and support, while bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan. He noted this in the context of US President Donald Trump's new South Asia policy, according to a PMO statement. The prime minister's observations came when US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called on him here this afternoon, the statement said. Also read: Too many terror groups finding safe haven in Pak -- that threatens stability of govt, says Tillerson Tillerson exchanged with Modi views on his recent travels in the region. "They further discussed stepping up effective cooperation to combat terrorism in all its forms and promoting regional stability and security," the PMO statement said. Welcoming Tillerson on his maiden visit to India in his current capacity, Modi noted with appreciation the "firm upward trajectory" in the bilateral strategic partnership following the "positive and far-reaching" talks with Trump in June this year, the statement said. The prime minister shared the resolve expressed by Tillerson on taking further steps in the direction of accelerating and strengthening the content, pace and scope of the bilateral engagement, it said. Modi and Tillerson affirmed that a strengthened India-US partnership is not just of mutual benefit to both countries, but has significant positive impact on the prospects for regional and global stability and prosperity. Earlier in the day, Tillerson held detailed discussions with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval.

Modi meets Tillerson, says India & US share objective of eradicating terror

<p>Nupur and Rajesh Talwar&nbsp;are owed Rs 49,500 by Ghaziabad&#39;s Dasna Jail, but they&#39;re telling the jail to keep it.</p>

<p>The Talwars, who&nbsp;are both dentists, had helped revive the jail&#39;s near-defunct dental department.&nbsp;</p>

<p>They are owed the money for their services.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Talwars gave medical service for free,refused remuneration.If they would&#39;ve taken it, amount would&#39;ve been appx Rs 49,500: Jailor,Dasna Jail <a href="https://t.co/rRAfn8PQfc">pic.twitter.com/rRAfn8PQfc</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/919782525160996864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Not only were the Talwars&nbsp;treating inmates but also jail staff and their children.&nbsp;</p>

<p>And they will continue to&nbsp;visit the jail every fortnight&nbsp;to continue treating inmates.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Talwars&#39; conviction for the murder of their&nbsp;daughter Aarushi and&nbsp;help&nbsp;Hemraj was overturned by the Allahabad High Court last Thursday.&nbsp;</p>

<p>News reports said&nbsp;after their acquittal, a number of inmates and jail staff&nbsp;and dependants&nbsp;with dental problems had&nbsp;queued up to visit the&nbsp;Talwars.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aarushis-parents-will-return-to-jail-every-15-days-to-treat-inmates-22463" target="_blank">Also read:&nbsp;Aarushi&#39;s parents will return to jail every 15 days -- to treat inmates</a></p>

<p>Aarushi and Hemraj were murdered in 2008. The Talwars were convicted by a special CBI court in 2013.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Ever since then they have been lodged at Dasna Jail.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">I think any time after 3 pm they (Rajesh &amp; Nupur Talwar) should be walking out of the jail: Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Talwars&#39; lawyer <a href="https://t.co/ZsmEyC1fQx">pic.twitter.com/ZsmEyC1fQx</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/919789799501787136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>They will be released today.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajesh-and-nupur-talwar-to-be-freed-today-at-last-22469" target="_blank">Also read:&nbsp;Rajesh and Nupur Talwar to be freed today, at long last</a></p>


Tillerson paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Monday to discuss President Trump's US strategy with President Ashraf Ghani

Nupur and Rajesh Talwar are owed Rs 49,500 by Ghaziabad's Dasna Jail, but they're telling the jail to keep it. The Talwars, who are both dentists, had helped revive the jail's near-defunct dental department. They are owed the money for their services. Talwars gave medical service for free,refused remuneration.If they would've taken it, amount would've been appx Rs 49,500: Jailor,Dasna Jail pic.twitter.com/rRAfn8PQfc — ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2017 × Not only were the Talwars treating inmates but also jail staff and their children. And they will continue to visit the jail every fortnight to continue treating inmates. The Talwars' conviction for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and help Hemraj was overturned by the Allahabad High Court last Thursday. News reports said after their acquittal, a number of inmates and jail staff and dependants with dental problems had queued up to visit the Talwars. Also read: Aarushi's parents will return to jail every 15 days -- to treat inmates Aarushi and Hemraj were murdered in 2008. The Talwars were convicted by a special CBI court in 2013. Ever since then they have been lodged at Dasna Jail. I think any time after 3 pm they (Rajesh & Nupur Talwar) should be walking out of the jail: Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Talwars' lawyer pic.twitter.com/ZsmEyC1fQx — ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2017 × They will be released today. Also read: Rajesh and Nupur Talwar to be freed today, at long last

Tillerson talks tough on Pak's 'safe haven to terrorists'

<p>Omar Khalid Khorasani, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/top-pakistan-taliban-leader-killed-in-afghanistan-6787">leader of Khorasani&#39;s Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, the </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/top-pakistan-taliban-leader-killed-in-afghanistan-6787">breakway</a> group of &nbsp;Pakistan Taliban was killed in a drone strike on Thursday with reports suggesting senior militant commander Asad Afridi emerging as a new leader of the terrorist faction.</p>

<p>Khorasani died<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-suicide-attack-in-kandahar-military-base-at-least-40-soldiers-killed-22617"> of injuries suffered after a US drone strike</a> in Afghanistan&#39;s Paktia province.</p>

<p>&ldquo;Chief of our Jamaat-ul-Ahrar Umar Khalid Khorasani, who sustained serious injuries in a recent US drone strike in Afghanistan&#39;s Paktia province, succumbed to his injuries Wednesday evening,&rdquo; JuA spokesman Asad Mansoor told AFP by telephone from an undisclosed location.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&ldquo;At least nine close associates of Khorasani were also killed in the strike,&rdquo; the spokesman said.</p>

<p>A former journalist, Khorasani was born Abdul Wali in a village called Lakaro in the northwestern Mohmand tribal region in Pakistan.</p>

<p>Khorasani started his operations by targeting Kashmir before joining the Pakistan Taliban in 2007 but left it seven years later after a quarrel to form his own outfit Jamaat-ul-Ahrar.</p>

<p>Later, his group turned&nbsp;to the Pakistan Taliban once again about two years ago.</p>

<p>JuA was responsible for the deadly attack at Wagah in 2014 which targeted Pakistan soldiers, at least 60 people were killed in the attack including three Pakistan soldiers.</p>

<p>Jamaat-ul-Ahrar was&nbsp;allegedly responsible for suicide bombings which&nbsp;killed more than 250 people, with the group claiming eight major attacks in the last two years. The US had designated JuA as a terrorist organization last year.</p>

<p>Khorasani is believed to have had links to al Qaida and its chief, Ayman Al-Zawahiri.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The killing of JuA chief Omar Khalid Khorasani is being seen as a major boost for Pakistan which is keen to restore ties with the US, especially since secretary of state Rex Tillerson is set to visit the region next week.</p>


Khorasani died of injuries suffered after a US drone strike in Afghanistan's Paktia province.

Omar Khalid Khorasani, leader of Khorasani's Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, the breakway group of Pakistan Taliban was killed in a drone strike on Thursday with reports suggesting senior militant commander Asad Afridi emerging as a new leader of the terrorist faction. Khorasani died of injuries suffered after a US drone strike in Afghanistan's Paktia province. “Chief of our Jamaat-ul-Ahrar Umar Khalid Khorasani, who sustained serious injuries in a recent US drone strike in Afghanistan's Paktia province, succumbed to his injuries Wednesday evening,” JuA spokesman Asad Mansoor told AFP by telephone from an undisclosed location. “At least nine close associates of Khorasani were also killed in the strike,” the spokesman said. A former journalist, Khorasani was born Abdul Wali in a village called Lakaro in the northwestern Mohmand tribal region in Pakistan. Khorasani started his operations by targeting Kashmir before joining the Pakistan Taliban in 2007 but left it seven years later after a quarrel to form his own outfit Jamaat-ul-Ahrar. Later, his group turned to the Pakistan Taliban once again about two years ago. JuA was responsible for the deadly attack at Wagah in 2014 which targeted Pakistan soldiers, at least 60 people were killed in the attack including three Pakistan soldiers. Jamaat-ul-Ahrar was allegedly responsible for suicide bombings which killed more than 250 people, with the group claiming eight major attacks in the last two years. The US had designated JuA as a terrorist organization last year. Khorasani is believed to have had links to al Qaida and its chief, Ayman Al-Zawahiri. The killing of JuA chief Omar Khalid Khorasani is being seen as a major boost for Pakistan which is keen to restore ties with the US, especially since secretary of state Rex Tillerson is set to visit the region next week.

Omar Khalid Khorasani, anti-India terrorist, former Pak Taliban operative killed in US drone strike

<p>Afghanistan&nbsp;was struck by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/suicide-bombers-gunmen-attack-afghan-police-training-centre-officials-22527">terror attacks at two places as suicide bombers</a>&nbsp;targeted&nbsp;mosques in Kabul and Ghor.</p>

<p>At least 50 people were killed in the two attacks.&nbsp;There was no immediate claim of responsibility for either attack.</p>

<p>In the first attack, on a Shia mosque in the Afghan capital Kabul, at least 32 people including women and children were killed and 41 others wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up as worshippers gathered for evening prayer.</p>

<p>&quot;Unfortunately this evening a suicide bomber detonated himself among the worshippers inside a mosque in Dasht-e-Barchi neighbourhood of Kabul city,&quot; Kabul police spokesman Abdul Basir Mujahid told AFP.</p>

<p>A senior security official told Reuters that security forces at the scene had removed at least 30 dead bodies in Kabul, but that the exact number of casualties was unknown.</p>

<p>In the second attack, a suicide bomber detonated himself in a Sunni mosque in the central province of Ghor.</p>

<p>Iqbal Nezami, a spokesman for the Ghor provincial police, told Reuters the bombing appeared to target a local political leader of the Jamiat political party who was also killed along with several other worshippers.</p>

<p>On Thursday, two suicide bombers on Humvees had targeted a military base in Kandahar in Afghanistan. The attack had occurred in Maiwand district of Kandahar.</p>

<p>The attack carried out by the Taliban killed at least 43 Afghan troops after the bombers stormed the military base in southern Afghanistan.</p>


On Thursday, two suicide bombers on Humvees had targeted a military base in Kandahar in Afghanistan

Afghanistan was struck by terror attacks at two places as suicide bombers targeted mosques in Kabul and Ghor. At least 50 people were killed in the two attacks. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for either attack. In the first attack, on a Shia mosque in the Afghan capital Kabul, at least 32 people including women and children were killed and 41 others wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up as worshippers gathered for evening prayer. "Unfortunately this evening a suicide bomber detonated himself among the worshippers inside a mosque in Dasht-e-Barchi neighbourhood of Kabul city," Kabul police spokesman Abdul Basir Mujahid told AFP. A senior security official told Reuters that security forces at the scene had removed at least 30 dead bodies in Kabul, but that the exact number of casualties was unknown. In the second attack, a suicide bomber detonated himself in a Sunni mosque in the central province of Ghor. Iqbal Nezami, a spokesman for the Ghor provincial police, told Reuters the bombing appeared to target a local political leader of the Jamiat political party who was also killed along with several other worshippers. On Thursday, two suicide bombers on Humvees had targeted a military base in Kandahar in Afghanistan. The attack had occurred in Maiwand district of Kandahar. The attack carried out by the Taliban killed at least 43 Afghan troops after the bombers stormed the military base in southern Afghanistan.

Afghanistan: Suicide bombers target two mosques, at least 50 dead

<p>Two suicide bombers <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/taliban-attacks-the-hamid-karzai-international-airport-in-kabul-20750">on Humvees targeted a military base in</a>&nbsp;Kandahar in Afghanistan, reports said.</p>

<p>The attack occurred in&nbsp;Maiwand district of&nbsp;Kandahar, Tolo news reported.</p>

<p>Afghanistan&#39;s Defense ministry said Taliban militants killed at least 43 Afghan troops&nbsp;when they stormed the&nbsp;military base in southern Afghanistan, Reuters reported.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The ministry said 60 soldiers were manning the base in the southern province out of which 43 were killed, nine were wounded and six were missing after Taliban militants stormed the base in the middle of the night, the Defense ministry said in a statement.</p>

<p>At least nine Taliban were also reported killed.</p>

<p>Defense ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri told AFP the attackers detonated at least one explosive-packed Humvee vehicle and razed the compound in the early morning assault.</p>

<p>&quot;We have sent a delegation to assess the situation. The base is under ANA (Afghan National Army) control,&quot; Waziri told AFP.</p>

<p>It was the third suicide and gun attack on a security installation this week and takes the total death toll to more than 100, including soldiers, police and civilians.</p>


The attack occurred in?Maiwand district of?Kandahar

Two suicide bombers on Humvees targeted a military base in Kandahar in Afghanistan, reports said. The attack occurred in Maiwand district of Kandahar, Tolo news reported. Afghanistan's Defense ministry said Taliban militants killed at least 43 Afghan troops when they stormed the military base in southern Afghanistan, Reuters reported. The ministry said 60 soldiers were manning the base in the southern province out of which 43 were killed, nine were wounded and six were missing after Taliban militants stormed the base in the middle of the night, the Defense ministry said in a statement. At least nine Taliban were also reported killed. Defense ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri told AFP the attackers detonated at least one explosive-packed Humvee vehicle and razed the compound in the early morning assault. "We have sent a delegation to assess the situation. The base is under ANA (Afghan National Army) control," Waziri told AFP. It was the third suicide and gun attack on a security installation this week and takes the total death toll to more than 100, including soldiers, police and civilians.

Afghanistan: Taliban attack Kandahar military base, at least 43 soldiers killed

<p>Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and US officials met on Monday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-set-to-restart-afghan-peace-process-without-india-21220">behind closed door to restart the Quadrilateral Coordination Group</a>(QCG) talks on kick-starting the Afganistan peace process in Muscat with the Taliban boycotting the meeting altogether.</p>

<p>The meeting was led by Pakistan&#39;s foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua, US assistant secretary of state Alice Wells and Afghan deputy foreign minister Hekmat Khalil Karzai.</p>

<p>The QCG is a four-nation group comprising of Afganistan, Pakistan, China and the US tasked to restart the peace process in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>Pakistan&#39;s foreign minister Khawaja Asif had told Washington last week that Pakistan is ready to bring the Taliban and Afghan government to the negotiating table through the quadrilateral peace process.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Pakistan foreign minister Asif was in the US to assure Trump government officials about his country&#39;s intent in Afganistan.</p>

<p>Pakistan has big stakes in Afganistan which seems to be slipping from its hand after President Trump emphatically laid down his strategy accusing the country of offering a safe haven to &quot;agents of chaos&quot;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Trump openly called for more troop deployment in Afghanistan and spoke about India&#39;s role in the country.</p>

<p>In a statement, Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah said that the quadrilateral meeting would improve Kabul and Islamabad&rsquo;s relationship.</p>

<p>&ldquo;Afghanistan-Pakistan relations will be discussed at the meeting and the results will be released,&rdquo; Afghanistan&#39;s Tolo News quoted him as saying.</p>

<p>The latest peace moves in Afganistan comes with the US exerting pressure on Pakistan to do more.</p>

<p>Just last week Pakistan commandos helped free an American family from the clutches of the Taliban which was praised by President Trump.</p>

<p>Pakistani officials, however, told Reuters that talks had resumed due to their initiative.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The group did not release any official statement and none of the players divulged any detail of the meeting.<br />
&nbsp;</p>


The QCG is a four-nation group comprising of Afganistan, Pakistan, China and the US tasked to restart the peace process in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and US officials met on Monday behind closed door to restart the Quadrilateral Coordination Group(QCG) talks on kick-starting the Afganistan peace process in Muscat with the Taliban boycotting the meeting altogether. The meeting was led by Pakistan's foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua, US assistant secretary of state Alice Wells and Afghan deputy foreign minister Hekmat Khalil Karzai. The QCG is a four-nation group comprising of Afganistan, Pakistan, China and the US tasked to restart the peace process in Afghanistan. Pakistan's foreign minister Khawaja Asif had told Washington last week that Pakistan is ready to bring the Taliban and Afghan government to the negotiating table through the quadrilateral peace process. Pakistan foreign minister Asif was in the US to assure Trump government officials about his country's intent in Afganistan. Pakistan has big stakes in Afganistan which seems to be slipping from its hand after President Trump emphatically laid down his strategy accusing the country of offering a safe haven to "agents of chaos". Trump openly called for more troop deployment in Afghanistan and spoke about India's role in the country. In a statement, Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah said that the quadrilateral meeting would improve Kabul and Islamabad’s relationship. “Afghanistan-Pakistan relations will be discussed at the meeting and the results will be released,” Afghanistan's Tolo News quoted him as saying. The latest peace moves in Afganistan comes with the US exerting pressure on Pakistan to do more. Just last week Pakistan commandos helped free an American family from the clutches of the Taliban which was praised by President Trump. Pakistani officials, however, told Reuters that talks had resumed due to their initiative. The group did not release any official statement and none of the players divulged any detail of the meeting.

Pakistan, China, US meet on Afghanistan, without Taliban

<p>Last weekend was Vladimir Putin&#39;s 65th birthday. Now it&#39;s not germane to this piece whether he cut a cake, danced or made history by drinking vodka (Putin is a teetotaller). The news genre requires a peg to hang a story on and the reference to his birthday gives us the peg to take this forward, into the realm of India and Russia.</p>

<p>Recall the day India and China agreed to end the standoff on the Doklam Plateau in Bhutan. A day earlier, Russia&#39;s ambassador in Beijing Andrei Denisov said in public, that his country would not take sides in the standoff between India and China.</p>

<p>Denisov&#39;s comments appeared careful and calibrated. He said: &quot;The situation on the India-Chinese border is something we all regret. We think our Chinese and Indian friends can resolve the problem by themselves. We don&#39;t think they need any mediators who can influence their respective positions on the issue.&quot;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Russia is not in Beijing&#39;s pockets, at least not yet.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Russia is not in Beijing's pockets, at least not yet. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>There may have been some disappointment in India over that studied enunciation of neutrality after all Delhi and Moscow go back a long way. But to be fair to Russia, it&#39;s unusual for any ambassador to be neutral about the country he is serving in. Ambassador Denisov&#39;s remarks are all the more interesting given the pressure he may have been under from his host government, to back them up on Doklam.</p>

<p>The credit here goes not to Denisov but Putin. That statement was interpreted correctly in Delhi&#39;s South Block and provided proof, if any was required, that Russia is not in Beijing&#39;s pockets, at least not yet. Russia watchers in India say Putin has always been bullish about this country, seeing a valued diplomatic and strategic partnership.</p>

<p>The Modi-Putin meeting in St Petersburg four months ago saw agreement on Russia building two more nuclear power reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu. At the Xiamen BRICS summit, Russia reportedly played a key role in facilitating the naming of terrorist groups in the final declaration.</p>

<p>The doomsayers may warn that the Delhi-Moscow bilateral is running out of steam but the ground reality doesn&#39;t convey that impression.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The doomsayers may warn that the Delhi-Moscow bilateral is running out of steam but the ground reality doesn&#39;t convey that impression.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The doomsayers may warn that the Delhi-Moscow bilateral is running out of steam but the ground reality doesn't convey that impression." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>India&#39;s indigenous nuclear submarine programme has developed in large part to technology and expertise from Russia; the Akula class attack submarine Chakra is another with one more on the way; earlier there was the Brahmos cruise missile project; plans to acquire the Russian S-400 ballistic missile defence system is moving forward. Russia is well aware that for India, these projects have one enemy in mind, China.</p>

<p>Indian diplomats who have served in Moscow say the problems may lie in the shape Russia&#39;s foreign policy is taking, perhaps due to organisational deficiencies. Putin&#39;s strategic vision seems to lack sufficient back up in terms of human and diplomatic resources, so somewhere down the line things go cold.</p>

<p>Increasingly, the tactical and short-term approach appears to be overtaking the long-term and strategic in Russian foreign policy. Perhaps there&#39;s a reason for this: Russia&#39;s re-emergence in the Arab world on the back of a very successful policy in Syria. This may have even influenced some in Moscow to believe they are now America&#39;s equal. Such thinking could be self-delusion and therefore dangerous.</p>

<p>Russia&#39;s policy in Afghanistan is also strange. There&#39;s every reason why Russia and the US can find common ground there. Both are concerned about radical Islam, drug trafficking and Pakistan&#39;s destabilising role. There&#39;s also no doubt that the US expenditure in men and money helps Russia and India. Yet we find the two superpowers on opposite sides with Russia rubbing shoulders with the Taliban and arming Pakistan. Again, it would seem, the short-term and tactical taking precedence over the strategic and long-term.</p>

<p>But international relations is always dynamic, with Putin in charge, there could be a course correction in time. At this point, it&#39;s not clear if Putin plans to stand for another term during elections early next year. At 65 he shows no signs of slowing down or incapacity.&nbsp;He should be good for another 10 years, good for India too.</p>


Though tactical and short-term approach has marked Russia's foreign policy, President Putin is good for India's interest.

Last weekend was Vladimir Putin's 65th birthday. Now it's not germane to this piece whether he cut a cake, danced or made history by drinking vodka (Putin is a teetotaller). The news genre requires a peg to hang a story on and the reference to his birthday gives us the peg to take this forward, into the realm of India and Russia. Recall the day India and China agreed to end the standoff on the Doklam Plateau in Bhutan. A day earlier, Russia's ambassador in Beijing Andrei Denisov said in public, that his country would not take sides in the standoff between India and China. Denisov's comments appeared careful and calibrated. He said: "The situation on the India-Chinese border is something we all regret. We think our Chinese and Indian friends can resolve the problem by themselves. We don't think they need any mediators who can influence their respective positions on the issue." Russia is not in Beijing's pockets, at least not yet. × There may have been some disappointment in India over that studied enunciation of neutrality after all Delhi and Moscow go back a long way. But to be fair to Russia, it's unusual for any ambassador to be neutral about the country he is serving in. Ambassador Denisov's remarks are all the more interesting given the pressure he may have been under from his host government, to back them up on Doklam. The credit here goes not to Denisov but Putin. That statement was interpreted correctly in Delhi's South Block and provided proof, if any was required, that Russia is not in Beijing's pockets, at least not yet. Russia watchers in India say Putin has always been bullish about this country, seeing a valued diplomatic and strategic partnership. The Modi-Putin meeting in St Petersburg four months ago saw agreement on Russia building two more nuclear power reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu. At the Xiamen BRICS summit, Russia reportedly played a key role in facilitating the naming of terrorist groups in the final declaration. The doomsayers may warn that the Delhi-Moscow bilateral is running out of steam but the ground reality doesn't convey that impression. The doomsayers may warn that the Delhi-Moscow bilateral is running out of steam but the ground reality doesn't convey that impression. × India's indigenous nuclear submarine programme has developed in large part to technology and expertise from Russia; the Akula class attack submarine Chakra is another with one more on the way; earlier there was the Brahmos cruise missile project; plans to acquire the Russian S-400 ballistic missile defence system is moving forward. Russia is well aware that for India, these projects have one enemy in mind, China. Indian diplomats who have served in Moscow say the problems may lie in the shape Russia's foreign policy is taking, perhaps due to organisational deficiencies. Putin's strategic vision seems to lack sufficient back up in terms of human and diplomatic resources, so somewhere down the line things go cold. Increasingly, the tactical and short-term approach appears to be overtaking the long-term and strategic in Russian foreign policy. Perhaps there's a reason for this: Russia's re-emergence in the Arab world on the back of a very successful policy in Syria. This may have even influenced some in Moscow to believe they are now America's equal. Such thinking could be self-delusion and therefore dangerous. Russia's policy in Afghanistan is also strange. There's every reason why Russia and the US can find common ground there. Both are concerned about radical Islam, drug trafficking and Pakistan's destabilising role. There's also no doubt that the US expenditure in men and money helps Russia and India. Yet we find the two superpowers on opposite sides with Russia rubbing shoulders with the Taliban and arming Pakistan. Again, it would seem, the short-term and tactical taking precedence over the strategic and long-term. But international relations is always dynamic, with Putin in charge, there could be a course correction in time. At this point, it's not clear if Putin plans to stand for another term during elections early next year. At 65 he shows no signs of slowing down or incapacity. He should be good for another 10 years, good for India too.

With Putin in power, India-Russia relations will prosper

<p>A&nbsp;suicide&nbsp;bomber&nbsp;posing as a shepherd blew himself&nbsp;up&nbsp;near&nbsp;a&nbsp;Shiite&nbsp;mosque&nbsp;in&nbsp;Kabul&nbsp;on Friday killing six people and injuring 16 others,&nbsp;police&nbsp;said, as Muslims prepare to celebrate one of the holiest events in the Islamic calendar.</p>

<p>The attack in the north of the Afghan capital happened as worshippers were gathered inside Hussainia&nbsp;mosque, one of the biggest&nbsp;Shiite&nbsp;centres in the city, for Friday prayers.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;A&nbsp;suicide&nbsp;bomber&nbsp;who was grazing sheep has detonated himself outside&quot; the&nbsp;mosque, General Salim Almas, criminal investigative director of&nbsp;Kabul&nbsp;city, told AFP.</p>

<p>Kabul&#39;s Emergency hospital tweeted that it had received 19 wounded including four children.</p>

<p>A photo posted on Twitter has purportedly taken at the scene of the attack shows a man lying on the ground, covered in blood. A severed leg belonging to someone else is beside him.</p>

<p>There was no immediate claim of responsibility but Taliban and Islamic State jihadists, who belong to the rival Sunni branch of Islam, have repeatedly targeted the minority&nbsp;Shiite&nbsp;community in recent years.</p>

<p>A shopkeeper told AFP that the&nbsp;suicide&nbsp;bomber&nbsp;blew himself to bits after he was identified by suspicious civilian guards who had set&nbsp;up&nbsp;a checkpoint about 200 metres from the&nbsp;mosque.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Afghanistan has trained and armed more than 400 civilians to help protect&nbsp;Shiite mosques during the holy month of Muharram.</p>

<p>The attacker had apparently wanted to reach the&nbsp;mosque&nbsp;while worshippers were still inside the prayer hall.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Salim Shaheen, who had been inside the&nbsp;mosque&nbsp;at the time of the blast told AFP there were multiple casualties.</p>

<p>&quot;We were busy offering our Friday prayers when a big bang happened and we stopped prayers and rushed out,&quot; Shaheen told AFP.</p>

<p>Shaheen said, &quot;several people were killed and wounded&quot;. He and other bystanders took 15 people including six children to the hospital.</p>

<p>There had been fears insurgents would strike again as Shiites prepare to commemorate Ashura which falls this weekend and is the most important&nbsp;Shiite observance.</p>

<p>It falls on the 10th day of Muharram, which is the mourning period for the seventh-century killing of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed.</p>

<p>The faithful gather to beat their chests and hit their backs with chains until they bleed in commemoration of Hussein&#39;s death.</p>

<p>But in recent years the sacred day has been marred by deadly violence.</p>


A suicide bomber posing as a shepherd blew himself up near a Shiite mosque in Kabul on Friday killing six people and injuring 16 others, police said, as Muslims prepare to celebrate one of the holiest events in the Islamic calendar. The attack in the north of the Afghan capital happened as worshippers were gathered inside Hussainia mosque, one of the biggest Shiite centres in the city, for Friday prayers. "A suicide bomber who was grazing sheep has detonated himself outside" the mosque, General Salim Almas, criminal investigative director of Kabul city, told AFP. Kabul's Emergency hospital tweeted that it had received 19 wounded including four children. A photo posted on Twitter has purportedly taken at the scene of the attack shows a man lying on the ground, covered in blood. A severed leg belonging to someone else is beside him. There was no immediate claim of responsibility but Taliban and Islamic State jihadists, who belong to the rival Sunni branch of Islam, have repeatedly targeted the minority Shiite community in recent years. A shopkeeper told AFP that the suicide bomber blew himself to bits after he was identified by suspicious civilian guards who had set up a checkpoint about 200 metres from the mosque. Afghanistan has trained and armed more than 400 civilians to help protect Shiite mosques during the holy month of Muharram. The attacker had apparently wanted to reach the mosque while worshippers were still inside the prayer hall. Salim Shaheen, who had been inside the mosque at the time of the blast told AFP there were multiple casualties. "We were busy offering our Friday prayers when a big bang happened and we stopped prayers and rushed out," Shaheen told AFP. Shaheen said, "several people were killed and wounded". He and other bystanders took 15 people including six children to the hospital. There had been fears insurgents would strike again as Shiites prepare to commemorate Ashura which falls this weekend and is the most important Shiite observance. It falls on the 10th day of Muharram, which is the mourning period for the seventh-century killing of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed. The faithful gather to beat their chests and hit their backs with chains until they bleed in commemoration of Hussein's death. But in recent years the sacred day has been marred by deadly violence.

Kabul: 6 dead after suicide bomber blows himself up near Shia mosque

<p>Syed Akbaruddin, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/india-afghanistan-raise-terrorist-safe-havens-at-un-security-council-meet-20653">India&#39;s Permanent Representative to the UN, has raised the issue of terrorism in the UN Security Council in Afghanistan</a>.&nbsp;</p>

<p>He appealed to the UN Security Council to ensure that the forces of terrorism and extremism do not proliferate.</p>

<p>Stating that the first and the foremost duty of the international community is to make sure that terrorism does not expand, he said the world should not differentiate between good or bad terrorism.</p>

<p>Citing Taliban, Haqqani Network, Al-Qaeda, Daesh, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, he said that these terror organisations are also prohibited by law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>He said &quot;The international community cannot remain silent. It is the international community&#39;s first and foremost duty to ensure that the forces of terrorism and extremism do not find sanctuaries and safe havens anywhere and at any level,&quot; he said in an apparent dig at Pakistan.&quot;</p>

<p>The council majorly took into account the worsening situation in Afghanistan and called the continuous attack on Afghanistan as a matter of serious concern.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;The multiple crises that have been inflicted on Afghanistan have made Afghan territory attractive for criminal and terrorist groups, who are well connected to international terror and crime networks.&quot;These groups are stealing the resources of Afghanistan which ought to belong to the people of the country,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani also joined Akbaruddin in highlighting upon the terrorist safe havens across the border.</p>

<p>He said that the present situation in Afghanistan is the result of the long-standing policy of the neighbouring state which aims to keep the country unstable.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Scourge of terrorism affecting Afghanistan is product of long-standing policy by a neighboring State to keep Afghanistan unstable:S Rabbani</p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/912502153746432000">September 26, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>He also added that the terrorism perpetrated by the neighbouring countries have devastated Afghanistan for years now&nbsp;hoping that the new strategy of the United States for South Asia has generated new hope among people in the country.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Joanne Adamson, who was representing the European Union, stressed the importance of strong commitment by the international community in accompanying Afganistan&#39;s fight for long-term peace, security, and stability.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani also joined Akbaruddin in United Nations Security Council for highlighting the terrorist safe havens across the border

Syed Akbaruddin, India's Permanent Representative to the UN, has raised the issue of terrorism in the UN Security Council in Afghanistan. He appealed to the UN Security Council to ensure that the forces of terrorism and extremism do not proliferate. Stating that the first and the foremost duty of the international community is to make sure that terrorism does not expand, he said the world should not differentiate between good or bad terrorism. Citing Taliban, Haqqani Network, Al-Qaeda, Daesh, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, he said that these terror organisations are also prohibited by law. He said "The international community cannot remain silent. It is the international community's first and foremost duty to ensure that the forces of terrorism and extremism do not find sanctuaries and safe havens anywhere and at any level," he said in an apparent dig at Pakistan." The council majorly took into account the worsening situation in Afghanistan and called the continuous attack on Afghanistan as a matter of serious concern. "The multiple crises that have been inflicted on Afghanistan have made Afghan territory attractive for criminal and terrorist groups, who are well connected to international terror and crime networks."These groups are stealing the resources of Afghanistan which ought to belong to the people of the country," he said. Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani also joined Akbaruddin in highlighting upon the terrorist safe havens across the border. He said that the present situation in Afghanistan is the result of the long-standing policy of the neighbouring state which aims to keep the country unstable. Scourge of terrorism affecting Afghanistan is product of long-standing policy by a neighboring State to keep Afghanistan unstable:S Rabbani — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2017 × He also added that the terrorism perpetrated by the neighbouring countries have devastated Afghanistan for years now hoping that the new strategy of the United States for South Asia has generated new hope among people in the country. Joanne Adamson, who was representing the European Union, stressed the importance of strong commitment by the international community in accompanying Afganistan's fight for long-term peace, security, and stability.

Afghanistan hopes for countering terrorism through the new US strategy for South Asia

<p>India has urged the UN Security Council to ensure that the first and foremost duty of international community is to ensure&nbsp;that the forces of terrorism and extremism do not find sanctuaries and safe havens anywhere and at any level.</p>

<p>&quot;We must not differentiate between good and bad terrorists, or play one group against the other. The Taliban, Haqqani Network, AI-Qaeda, Daesh,&nbsp;Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and others of their like are all terror organisations, many of them proscribed by the UN,&quot; said Syed Akbaruddin&nbsp;yesterday, India&#39;s Permanent Representative to the UN.</p>

<p>&quot;The international community cannot remain silent. It is the international community&#39;s first and foremost duty to ensure that the forces of terrorism and&nbsp;extremism do not find sanctuaries and safe havens anywhere and at any level,&quot; he said in an apparent dig at Pakistan.</p>

<p>Participating in an open debate of the UN Security Council on Afghanistan, Akbaruddin said that these terrorist groups should be treated like terrorist&nbsp;organisations with no justifications offered for their activities.</p>

<p>Noting that the situation in Afghanistan has remained particularly painful and disturbing with security worsening and visible signs of withering away of the&nbsp;gains by the international community and Afghan people, the top Indian envoy said that the incessant attacks on hospitals, schools, funerals, or&nbsp;international development agencies, diplomatic missions are a matter of serious concern.</p>

<p>&quot;The multiple crises that have been inflicted on Afghanistan have made Afghan territory attractive for criminal and terrorist groups, who are well&nbsp;connected to international terror and crime networks.&quot;These groups are stealing the resources of Afghanistan which ought to belong to the people of the country,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani joined Akbaruddin in identifying terrorist safe havens across the border.</p>

<p>&quot;The scourge of terrorism and violent extremism affecting Afghanistan is the product of a long-standing policy by a neighbouring State to keep&nbsp;Afghanistan unstable,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>&quot;It has menaced Afghanistan for several decades now, with its roots located in terrorist sanctuaries and safe havens outside of my country,&quot; Rabbani&nbsp;said, adding that the new strategy of the United States for South Asia has generated new hope among people across the country.</p>

<p>Afghans from all walks of life are looking to the future with renewed optimism that finally the threats of terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan and the&nbsp;wider region will be tackled appropriately.</p>

<p>&quot;In this connection, we welcome the fact that the new strategy recognises the critical need to address the lingering problem of terrorist safe-havens and&nbsp;sanctuaries in our region; and for more determined efforts to end political, logistical and financial support enjoyed by terrorist groups,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>&quot;Furthermore, the strategy&#39;s conditions-based approach has addressed some uncertainties by reinforcing the right message that the international&nbsp;community&#39;s engagement will endure until Afghanistan becomes stable and secure,&quot; Rabbani said.</p>

<p>Representing the European Union, Joanne Adamson, stressed that it is important that the international community remains strongly committed to&nbsp;accompany Afghanistan towards long-term peace, security, and stability.</p>

<p>Eshagh AI-Habib from Iran ruled that more than a decade after its invasion, Afghanistan, the region and the world is not any safer.</p>

<p>&quot;I need to reiterate, once again that deteriorating security in Afghanistan has its deeper roots and cannot be addressed solely through military buildup as&nbsp;some suggest,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>Taliban and self-proclaimed Islamic State Khorasan Province or ISIL-KP continue their heinous attacks against the civilian population.</p>

<p>They are reinforcing and recruiting and undertaking complex attacks such as the attack on a Shia mosque in Herat on the first and 25 August that killed&nbsp;over 90 and 28 people respectively or August attack in Sar-e Pul province during which at least 36 people were killed, as in Herat, the majority of the&nbsp;documented casualties were Shia, he said.</p>

<p>&quot;The proliferation of terrorist groups in the Afghan territory necessitates concerted international effort on counter-terrorism.</p>

<p>&quot;The world needs to deal with this increasing threat in a comprehensive manner,&quot; the Iranian diplomat said.</p>

<p>The Turkish representative expressed concern over the deteriorating security situation and the presence of Daesh in the country.</p>

<p>&quot;Increased cooperation among the countries of the region is imperative for the success of Afghanistan,&quot; he said.</p>


India has urged the UN Security Council to ensure that the first and foremost duty of international community is to ensure?that the forces of terrorism and extremism do not find sanctuaries and safe havens anywhere and at any level

India has urged the UN Security Council to ensure that the first and foremost duty of international community is to ensure that the forces of terrorism and extremism do not find sanctuaries and safe havens anywhere and at any level. "We must not differentiate between good and bad terrorists, or play one group against the other. The Taliban, Haqqani Network, AI-Qaeda, Daesh, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and others of their like are all terror organisations, many of them proscribed by the UN," said Syed Akbaruddin yesterday, India's Permanent Representative to the UN. "The international community cannot remain silent. It is the international community's first and foremost duty to ensure that the forces of terrorism and extremism do not find sanctuaries and safe havens anywhere and at any level," he said in an apparent dig at Pakistan. Participating in an open debate of the UN Security Council on Afghanistan, Akbaruddin said that these terrorist groups should be treated like terrorist organisations with no justifications offered for their activities. Noting that the situation in Afghanistan has remained particularly painful and disturbing with security worsening and visible signs of withering away of the gains by the international community and Afghan people, the top Indian envoy said that the incessant attacks on hospitals, schools, funerals, or international development agencies, diplomatic missions are a matter of serious concern. "The multiple crises that have been inflicted on Afghanistan have made Afghan territory attractive for criminal and terrorist groups, who are well connected to international terror and crime networks."These groups are stealing the resources of Afghanistan which ought to belong to the people of the country," he said. Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani joined Akbaruddin in identifying terrorist safe havens across the border. "The scourge of terrorism and violent extremism affecting Afghanistan is the product of a long-standing policy by a neighbouring State to keep Afghanistan unstable," he said. "It has menaced Afghanistan for several decades now, with its roots located in terrorist sanctuaries and safe havens outside of my country," Rabbani said, adding that the new strategy of the United States for South Asia has generated new hope among people across the country. Afghans from all walks of life are looking to the future with renewed optimism that finally the threats of terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan and the wider region will be tackled appropriately. "In this connection, we welcome the fact that the new strategy recognises the critical need to address the lingering problem of terrorist safe-havens and sanctuaries in our region; and for more determined efforts to end political, logistical and financial support enjoyed by terrorist groups," he said. "Furthermore, the strategy's conditions-based approach has addressed some uncertainties by reinforcing the right message that the international community's engagement will endure until Afghanistan becomes stable and secure," Rabbani said. Representing the European Union, Joanne Adamson, stressed that it is important that the international community remains strongly committed to accompany Afghanistan towards long-term peace, security, and stability. Eshagh AI-Habib from Iran ruled that more than a decade after its invasion, Afghanistan, the region and the world is not any safer. "I need to reiterate, once again that deteriorating security in Afghanistan has its deeper roots and cannot be addressed solely through military buildup as some suggest," he said. Taliban and self-proclaimed Islamic State Khorasan Province or ISIL-KP continue their heinous attacks against the civilian population. They are reinforcing and recruiting and undertaking complex attacks such as the attack on a Shia mosque in Herat on the first and 25 August that killed over 90 and 28 people respectively or August attack in Sar-e Pul province during which at least 36 people were killed, as in Herat, the majority of the documented casualties were Shia, he said. "The proliferation of terrorist groups in the Afghan territory necessitates concerted international effort on counter-terrorism. "The world needs to deal with this increasing threat in a comprehensive manner," the Iranian diplomat said. The Turkish representative expressed concern over the deteriorating security situation and the presence of Daesh in the country. "Increased cooperation among the countries of the region is imperative for the success of Afghanistan," he said.

India, Afghanistan raise terrorist safe havens at UN Security Council meet

<p>Sixteen years ago, on September 11, 2001, al-Qaida conducted the most destructive terrorist attack in history.</p>

<figure>
<p>An unprecedented onslaught from the U.S. followed. <a href="https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/20177.pdf" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">One-third of al-Qaida&rsquo;s leadership</a> was killed or captured in the following year. The group lost its safe haven in <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/369161-2001-03-27-afghanistan-an-incubator-for.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Afghanistan</a>, including its extensive <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/369179-2003-06-20-afghanistan-camps-central-to-11.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">training</a> infrastructure there. Its surviving members were on the run or in hiding. Though it took nearly 10 years, the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">U.S. succeeded in killing</a> al-Qaida&rsquo;s founding leader, Osama bin Laden. Since 2014, al-Qaida has been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/world/meast/isis-overshadows-al-qaeda/index.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">overshadowed</a> by its former ally al-Qaida in Iraq, now calling itself the Islamic State.</p>

<p>In other words, al-Qaida should not have survived the 16 years since 9/11.</p>
</figure>

<p>So why has it?</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/185373/area14mp/file-20170910-32284-1inb4i7.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/185373/width754/file-20170910-32284-1inb4i7.jpg" /></a>

<figcaption>
<p><span class="caption">A fighter from the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front holds his group flag in front of the governor building in Idlib province, north Syria.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Mideast-Syria-Rebel-Stronghold/a0a4575fd95745aaa885d982face6f7c/2/0">Twitter/via AP</a></span></p>
</figcaption>
</figure>

<p><strong>The ties that bind</strong></p>

<p>Much of the credit goes to al-Qaida&rsquo;s extraordinary ability to both form alliances and sustain them over time and under pressure.</p>

<p>In my forthcoming book &ldquo;Alliances for Terror,&rdquo; I examine why a small number of groups, such as al-Qaida and IS, emerge as desirable partners and succeed at developing alliance networks.</p>

<p>Understanding terrorist alliances are critical because terrorist organisations with allies are <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228192307_Allying_to_Kill">more lethal</a>, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/isq/article-abstract/58/2/336/2963248/Terrorist-Group-Cooperation-and-Longevity1?redirectedFrom=fulltext">survive longer</a> and are more apt to seek <a href="http://www.start.umd.edu/publication/connections-can-be-toxic-terrorist-organizational-factors-and-pursuit-cbrn-weapons">weapons of mass destruction</a>. Though terrorist partnerships face numerous <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546553.2014.993466">hurdles</a> and severing al-Qaida&rsquo;s alliances has been a U.S. objective for <a href="https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/Counter_Terrorism_Strategy.pdf">over a decade</a>, the fact is that these counterterrorism efforts have failed.</p>

<p>It was allied that enabled al-Qaida to survive the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The Afghan Taliban stood by al-Qaida after the attack, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-wont-turn-over-bin-laden/">refusing to surrender bin Laden</a> and thereby precipitating the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Fleeing, al-Qaida was able to turn to allies in Pakistan to hide its operatives and punish the Pakistani government for capitulating to U.S. pressure to crack down on the group.</p>

<p>It was alliances that helped al-Qaida continue to terrorise. In October 2002, for example, al-Qaida&rsquo;s ally in Southeast Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah, struck a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19881138">bar and a nightclub in Bali</a>, killing more than 200 and injuring more than 200 more, to brutally commemorate the first anniversary of 9/11.</p>

<p>And it was alliances that allowed al-Qaida to project viability. With the &ldquo;prestige&rdquo; that came with conducting 9/11, al-Qaida was able to forge more of them and indeed create affiliate alliances in which partners adopted its name and pledged allegiance to bin Laden.</p>

<p>Al-Qaida&rsquo;s first and most notorious affiliate alliance, <a href="https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/31694.htm">al-Qaida in Iraq,</a> was formed in 2004 with Jordanian jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Using the standing he accrued through his role in the insurgency in Iraq, Zarqawi then helped al-Qaida acquire its second affiliate in 2006, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/world/africa/01transcript-droukdal.html?mcubz=0">al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb</a>. Then, in 2009, al-Qaida designated its branch in Yemen and Saudi Arabia <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11483095">as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula</a>. Its alliances spanned the Middle East and helped it to project power, despite the U.S. war on terrorism.</p>

<p><strong>A lower profile</strong></p>

<p>While al-Qaida still sought affiliates, by 2010, it modified how its alliances work.</p>

<p>Al-Qaida forged an alliance with al-Shabaab in Somalia, but did not publicly announce it or ask al-Shabaab to change its name. Bin Laden <a href="https://ctc.usma.edu/posts/letter-from-usama-bin-laden-to-mukhtar-abu-al-zubayr-original-language-2">justified</a> to Al-Shabaab&#39;s leader the shift to a less visible form of alliance as a way to prevent an increase in counterterrorism pressure or a loss of funds from the Arabian Peninsula. He privately expressed <a href="http://www.jihadica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SOCOM-2012-0000009-Trans.pdf">concerns</a> that al-Qaida&rsquo;s name &ldquo;reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them, and allows the enemies to claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam.&rdquo; Bin Laden&rsquo;s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, saw the move as bin Laden capitulating to members of al-Qaida who worried about &ldquo;<a href="https://ctc.usma.edu/posts/letter-to-azmarai-english-translation-2">inflating the size and the growth of al-Qaida</a>.&rdquo; After bin Laden&rsquo;s death, Zawahiri <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-allied-somali-terror-group-al-shabaab/story?id=15548647">publicly announced</a> al-Qaida&rsquo;s alliance with al-Shabaab, though al-Shabaab still did not adopt al-Qaida&rsquo;s name.</p>

<p>Though al-Qaida&rsquo;s alliance arrangements have varied, these relationships have helped it to survive the loss of its founding leader in 2011 and the ascent of a far less capable leader. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/09/16/the-man-behind-bin-laden">Zawahiri&rsquo;s</a> rise to the helm of the group was the consequence of an alliance, specifically between his original Egyptian group, al-Jihad, and al-Qaida. The alliance culminated in a merger in 2001, with Zawahiri becoming bin Laden&rsquo;s deputy and successor.</p>

<p>However, Zawahiri lacks bin Laden&rsquo;s cachet or diplomatic savvy. He is a better deputy than a leader. His <a href="https://archive.org/stream/710588-translation-of-ayman-al-zawahiris-letter/710588-translation-of-ayman-al-zawahiris-letter_djvu.txt">poor handling</a> of the strife between jihadist group al-Nusra in Syria and its parent organisation, the Islamic State in Iraq (previously al-Qaida in Iraq and now IS), led to the alliance <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2017.1373895">rupture</a> between al-Qaida and its affiliate in Iraq.</p>

<p>Though al-Qaida had an acrimonious break with IS, it gained al-Nusra as an affiliate in the central conflict in the Sunni jihadist movement: Syria. As was the case with al-Shabaab, this alliance with al-Nusra did not include a rebranding and was initially kept secret. In addition, al-Nusra subsequently changed its name, an effort to gain <a href="https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/03/al-qaeda-in-syria-can-change-its-name-but-not-its-stripes.html">more legitimacy within the conflict in Syria by publicly distancing</a> itself from al-Qaida, though seemingly with al-Qaida&rsquo;s <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2016-08-28/rebranding-terror">consent</a>.</p>

<p>Al-Qaida has not acquired another affiliate since the alliance rupture and rise of IS as a rival in 2014. It organised existing members into a new branch, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29056668">al-Qaida in the Indian subcontinent</a>, that year. The branch in South Asia reflected al-Qaida&rsquo;s success at expanding beyond its predominantly Arab base, particularly in <a href="http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/10/22/going-native-pakistanization-of-al-qaeda-pub-53382">Pakistan</a>.</p>

<p>Critically, with the exception of IS, al-Qaida&rsquo;s alliances have been resilient over time. This is true despite ample reasons for its partners to abandon ties, such as the heightened counterterrorism pressure that comes with affiliation to al-Qaida; the death of its charismatic leader; and the Islamic State&rsquo;s efforts to <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/03/isil-eyes-east-africa-foments-division-150322130940108.html">court</a> al-Qaida allies. Even the Afghan Taliban remains unwilling to sever ties, even though doing so would eliminate one of the major reasons that the United States will not withdraw from the &ldquo;forever war&rdquo; in Afghanistan.</p>

<p><img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/83403/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />There is a window now for the U.S. to damage al-Qaida&rsquo;s alliances: It has a weak leader and major rival. But that window may be closing as the Islamic State&rsquo;s so-called caliphate <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/europe/isis-2-0/index.html">crumbles</a> and al-Qaida grooms <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bin-ladens-son-steps-into-fathers-shoes-as-al-qaeda-attempts-a-comeback/2017/05/27/0c89ffc0-4198-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html">bin Laden&rsquo;s son</a> as its future leader.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-al-qaida-is-still-strong-16-years-after-9-11-83403">original article</a>.</p>


Al-Qaida developed strong alliances among terrorist organisations which helped it to survive the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Sixteen years ago, on September 11, 2001, al-Qaida conducted the most destructive terrorist attack in history. An unprecedented onslaught from the U.S. followed. One-third of al-Qaida’s leadership was killed or captured in the following year. The group lost its safe haven in Afghanistan, including its extensive training infrastructure there. Its surviving members were on the run or in hiding. Though it took nearly 10 years, the U.S. succeeded in killing al-Qaida’s founding leader, Osama bin Laden. Since 2014, al-Qaida has been overshadowed by its former ally al-Qaida in Iraq, now calling itself the Islamic State. In other words, al-Qaida should not have survived the 16 years since 9/11. So why has it? A fighter from the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front holds his group flag in front of the governor building in Idlib province, north Syria. Twitter/via AP The ties that bind Much of the credit goes to al-Qaida’s extraordinary ability to both form alliances and sustain them over time and under pressure. In my forthcoming book “Alliances for Terror,” I examine why a small number of groups, such as al-Qaida and IS, emerge as desirable partners and succeed at developing alliance networks. Understanding terrorist alliances are critical because terrorist organisations with allies are more lethal, survive longer and are more apt to seek weapons of mass destruction. Though terrorist partnerships face numerous hurdles and severing al-Qaida’s alliances has been a U.S. objective for over a decade, the fact is that these counterterrorism efforts have failed. It was allied that enabled al-Qaida to survive the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The Afghan Taliban stood by al-Qaida after the attack, refusing to surrender bin Laden and thereby precipitating the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Fleeing, al-Qaida was able to turn to allies in Pakistan to hide its operatives and punish the Pakistani government for capitulating to U.S. pressure to crack down on the group. It was alliances that helped al-Qaida continue to terrorise. In October 2002, for example, al-Qaida’s ally in Southeast Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah, struck a bar and a nightclub in Bali, killing more than 200 and injuring more than 200 more, to brutally commemorate the first anniversary of 9/11. And it was alliances that allowed al-Qaida to project viability. With the “prestige” that came with conducting 9/11, al-Qaida was able to forge more of them and indeed create affiliate alliances in which partners adopted its name and pledged allegiance to bin Laden. Al-Qaida’s first and most notorious affiliate alliance, al-Qaida in Iraq, was formed in 2004 with Jordanian jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Using the standing he accrued through his role in the insurgency in Iraq, Zarqawi then helped al-Qaida acquire its second affiliate in 2006, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Then, in 2009, al-Qaida designated its branch in Yemen and Saudi Arabia as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Its alliances spanned the Middle East and helped it to project power, despite the U.S. war on terrorism. A lower profile While al-Qaida still sought affiliates, by 2010, it modified how its alliances work. Al-Qaida forged an alliance with al-Shabaab in Somalia, but did not publicly announce it or ask al-Shabaab to change its name. Bin Laden justified to Al-Shabaab's leader the shift to a less visible form of alliance as a way to prevent an increase in counterterrorism pressure or a loss of funds from the Arabian Peninsula. He privately expressed concerns that al-Qaida’s name “reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them, and allows the enemies to claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam.” Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, saw the move as bin Laden capitulating to members of al-Qaida who worried about “inflating the size and the growth of al-Qaida.” After bin Laden’s death, Zawahiri publicly announced al-Qaida’s alliance with al-Shabaab, though al-Shabaab still did not adopt al-Qaida’s name. Though al-Qaida’s alliance arrangements have varied, these relationships have helped it to survive the loss of its founding leader in 2011 and the ascent of a far less capable leader. Zawahiri’s rise to the helm of the group was the consequence of an alliance, specifically between his original Egyptian group, al-Jihad, and al-Qaida. The alliance culminated in a merger in 2001, with Zawahiri becoming bin Laden’s deputy and successor. However, Zawahiri lacks bin Laden’s cachet or diplomatic savvy. He is a better deputy than a leader. His poor handling of the strife between jihadist group al-Nusra in Syria and its parent organisation, the Islamic State in Iraq (previously al-Qaida in Iraq and now IS), led to the alliance rupture between al-Qaida and its affiliate in Iraq. Though al-Qaida had an acrimonious break with IS, it gained al-Nusra as an affiliate in the central conflict in the Sunni jihadist movement: Syria. As was the case with al-Shabaab, this alliance with al-Nusra did not include a rebranding and was initially kept secret. In addition, al-Nusra subsequently changed its name, an effort to gain more legitimacy within the conflict in Syria by publicly distancing itself from al-Qaida, though seemingly with al-Qaida’s consent. Al-Qaida has not acquired another affiliate since the alliance rupture and rise of IS as a rival in 2014. It organised existing members into a new branch, al-Qaida in the Indian subcontinent, that year. The branch in South Asia reflected al-Qaida’s success at expanding beyond its predominantly Arab base, particularly in Pakistan. Critically, with the exception of IS, al-Qaida’s alliances have been resilient over time. This is true despite ample reasons for its partners to abandon ties, such as the heightened counterterrorism pressure that comes with affiliation to al-Qaida; the death of its charismatic leader; and the Islamic State’s efforts to court al-Qaida allies. Even the Afghan Taliban remains unwilling to sever ties, even though doing so would eliminate one of the major reasons that the United States will not withdraw from the “forever war” in Afghanistan. There is a window now for the U.S. to damage al-Qaida’s alliances: It has a weak leader and major rival. But that window may be closing as the Islamic State’s so-called caliphate crumbles and al-Qaida grooms bin Laden’s son as its future leader. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Why al-Qaida is still strong 16 years after 9/11

<p><strong>By:&nbsp;Tridivesh Singh Maini &amp; Sandeep Sachdeva*</strong></p>

<p>New Delhi,&nbsp;while consistently expanding strategic and economic ties with the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) and Israel, has also sought to strengthen ties with Tehran, which has tense relations with both. The Nuclear Deal of 2015, signed between Iran and<strong> </strong>(P5+1) countries opened new vistas for India in Iran, which is strategically located and is India&rsquo;s potential gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia.&nbsp;</p>

<p>During his visit to Iran in 2016, PM Modi signed an agreement, not just committing financial assistance&nbsp;to the tune of 500 Million USD for phase 1 of the development of the Chabahar Project, but also a three nation agreement with Iran and Afghanistan&nbsp;for establishing a land, transit and trade corridor. India will build a <a href="http://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/tridivesh-en/33618/">500-km rail line</a> from Chabahar port from the southern coast of Iran to Zahedan, close to the Afghan border, at a cost of $1.6 billion as part of the transit corridor to Afghanistan. &quot;It will open new routes for India, Iran, and Afghanistan to connect among themselves,&quot; said PM Modi with regard to the corridor.</p>

<p>India&rsquo;s main aim was to get access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Pakistan has continuously opposed India&rsquo;s entry into the <a href="http://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/tridivesh-en/33618/">APTTA</a>&nbsp;(Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement), even though Afghanistan has been in favour of India joining the agreement. APTTA is a transit trade agreement as it is quite evident from its name. Currently, Afghan goods can come into India, but trucks stop at Wagah (Pakistani side of the border). India, however, has been deprived of land access to Afghanistan and Central Asia.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Given India&rsquo;s increasingly close ties with the US, and importance of Iran in the context of connectivity with Afghanistan and Central Asia, striking a balance may be a challenge given Trump&rsquo;s unpredictability.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Given India?s increasingly close ties with the US, and importance of Iran in the context of connectivity with Afghanistan and Central Asia, striking a balance may be a challenge given Trump?s unpredictability." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>There have been some hitches with regard to the Chabahar project kicking off by 2018. The <a href="https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.firstpost.com/india/chabahar-port-why-future-of-india-iran-project-hinges-on-outcome-of-narendra-modi-donald-trump-meet-3722647.html/amp">companies which are to develop customised equipment jetties and container terminals</a> were not willing to take part in the bidding process. The banks were not ready to facilitate the financial transactions involving Iran due to the uncertain policies of Trump administration towards&nbsp;Iran. Apart from this, there was a delay in <a href="http://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/iran-india-trade-charges-on-delay-of-chabahar-port/articleshow/56990454.cms">loan disbursement of $ 150 million</a>&nbsp;with India and Iran blaming each other for the delay. Transport minister, Nitin Gadkari who attended Iranian President Rouhani&rsquo;s swearing in on August 5, 2017, categorically stated:</p>

<p>&quot;India and Iran have been historically sharing special ties. We are keen on developing Chabahar Port and are hopeful of starting operations in 12 to 18 months.&quot;</p>

<p><strong>US-Iran ties</strong></p>

<p>India, however, needs to carefully observe Trump&rsquo;s warnings to Iran on the nuclear deal. Iran has categorically stated, that it will quit the Nuclear Deal if more sanctions are imposed. Rouhani&#39;s exact words were:&nbsp;&quot;Iran could quit the nuclear deal within hours if the US imposes more sanctions.&quot;</p>

<p>Even though Iran has followed the conditions of the deal, Trump has threatened about imposing sanctions. The Secretary of State Rex Tillerson,&nbsp;however, has made it clear on umpteen occasions, that the US will not scrap the deal. Interestingly, Tillerson has also stated, that he and the US President have differences over the deal. Whereas President Trump is in favour of calling off the deal and imposing new sanctions, secretary of state <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tillerson-iran-idUSKBN1AH5E7">Tillerson </a>subscribes to the view, that America should not strike the deal rather engage with Iran to bring stability in the neighbourhood, especially in Iraq and Syria by holding it accountable.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Given India&rsquo;s increasingly close ties with the US, and importance of Iran in the context of connectivity with Afghanistan and Central Asia, striking a balance may be a challenge given Trump&rsquo;s unpredictability.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<strong>Iran-Pakistan ties&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>New Delhi should also observe carefully Iran&rsquo;s support for Pakistan, particularly after Trump&rsquo;s speech on August 21 where he warned Pakistan to take more concrete action against terror groups operating on Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Iran came to the defence of Pakistan, with foreign ministry spokesman, Bahram Ghasemi saying:</p>

<p>&quot;What presently the US is highlighting to condemn other countries with is the result of years of wrong and inappropriate policies of Americans in the countries of the region, especially Afghanistan.&rdquo;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Iran already has strong economic ties with China, moving closer to Pakistan would not be good news for India.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Iran already has strong economic ties with China, moving closer to Pakistan would not be good news for India." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Iran already has strong economic ties with China, and it moving closer to Pakistan would not be good news for India. New Delhi has been trying to jointly work with both Afghanistan and Iran much to the chagrin of the Pakistan army.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Significantly, in May 2017, Iran had taken a tough stance against certain terror groups operating from Pakistan, warning that it would hit the bases of Sunni militant groups operating in Pakistan. In April 2017, Ten Iranian border guards had been killed by militants and Iran blamed Sunni groups operating from Pakistan. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-pakistan-security-idUSKBN1840SY">Major General Mohammad Baqeri</a>, head of the Iranian armed forces had said, &ldquo;If the terrorist attacks continue, we will hit their safe havens and cells, wherever they are.&rdquo;&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<strong>Middle East</strong></p>

<p>New Delhi should also be watching the gradual softening of Iran towards Saudi Arabia and Turkey. On the sidelines of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meeting in Istanbul earlier this month, the <a href="#vgi=11831571547160704589&amp;amp=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.al-monitor.com%252Fpulse%252Fen%252Foriginals%252F2017%252F08%252Firan-zarif-jubeir-saudi-fm-handshake-istanbul-shamkhani-deal.amp.html&amp;ampidx=0&amp;ampct=1504066232985">foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia</a> met and exchanged greetings. Earlier this month Iranian chief of staff of the armed forces, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-iran-military-idUSKCN1AW1PT">Major-General Mohammad Baqeri</a> paid a visit to Turkey to explore possible synergies in counter-terrorism and the Syrian conflict. This is a clear indication of a significant improvement in bilateral ties. It has also been reported, that their high-level officials are likely to meet again.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While New Delhi has strong ties with both, and this has been a challenge in the past, the tensions were also to the benefit of India. Due to tensions between Iran and GCC countries, especially Saudi Arabia, New Delhi could also pressurise both sides to urge Pakistan to take action against terror groups. Apart from strengthening of India-US ties, Saudi Arabia has been apprehensive about India getting too close to Iran. This has resulted in Riyadh not just adopting a more nuanced stand on terrorism emanating from Pakistan and extraditing terrorists, but also strengthening security cooperation with India.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While currently, India is bogged down with numerous domestic challenges, and other foreign policy priorities, especially with China,&nbsp;a close watch should be kept on Iran&rsquo;s next moves not just in the context of its deal with the US, but also on&nbsp;its ties with Pakistan and GCC countries.&nbsp;</p>

<p>*Sandeep Sachdeva is an Independent Policy Analyst associated with The Jindal School of International Affairs, Sonipat.</p>


Iran already has strong economic ties with China, and it moving closer to Pakistan would not be good news for India.

By: Tridivesh Singh Maini & Sandeep Sachdeva* New Delhi, while consistently expanding strategic and economic ties with the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) and Israel, has also sought to strengthen ties with Tehran, which has tense relations with both. The Nuclear Deal of 2015, signed between Iran and (P5+1) countries opened new vistas for India in Iran, which is strategically located and is India’s potential gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. During his visit to Iran in 2016, PM Modi signed an agreement, not just committing financial assistance to the tune of 500 Million USD for phase 1 of the development of the Chabahar Project, but also a three nation agreement with Iran and Afghanistan for establishing a land, transit and trade corridor. India will build a 500-km rail line from Chabahar port from the southern coast of Iran to Zahedan, close to the Afghan border, at a cost of $1.6 billion as part of the transit corridor to Afghanistan. "It will open new routes for India, Iran, and Afghanistan to connect among themselves," said PM Modi with regard to the corridor. India’s main aim was to get access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Pakistan has continuously opposed India’s entry into the APTTA (Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement), even though Afghanistan has been in favour of India joining the agreement. APTTA is a transit trade agreement as it is quite evident from its name. Currently, Afghan goods can come into India, but trucks stop at Wagah (Pakistani side of the border). India, however, has been deprived of land access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Given India’s increasingly close ties with the US, and importance of Iran in the context of connectivity with Afghanistan and Central Asia, striking a balance may be a challenge given Trump’s unpredictability. × There have been some hitches with regard to the Chabahar project kicking off by 2018. The companies which are to develop customised equipment jetties and container terminals were not willing to take part in the bidding process. The banks were not ready to facilitate the financial transactions involving Iran due to the uncertain policies of Trump administration towards Iran. Apart from this, there was a delay in loan disbursement of $ 150 million with India and Iran blaming each other for the delay. Transport minister, Nitin Gadkari who attended Iranian President Rouhani’s swearing in on August 5, 2017, categorically stated: "India and Iran have been historically sharing special ties. We are keen on developing Chabahar Port and are hopeful of starting operations in 12 to 18 months." US-Iran ties India, however, needs to carefully observe Trump’s warnings to Iran on the nuclear deal. Iran has categorically stated, that it will quit the Nuclear Deal if more sanctions are imposed. Rouhani's exact words were: "Iran could quit the nuclear deal within hours if the US imposes more sanctions." Even though Iran has followed the conditions of the deal, Trump has threatened about imposing sanctions. The Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, however, has made it clear on umpteen occasions, that the US will not scrap the deal. Interestingly, Tillerson has also stated, that he and the US President have differences over the deal. Whereas President Trump is in favour of calling off the deal and imposing new sanctions, secretary of state Tillerson subscribes to the view, that America should not strike the deal rather engage with Iran to bring stability in the neighbourhood, especially in Iraq and Syria by holding it accountable. Given India’s increasingly close ties with the US, and importance of Iran in the context of connectivity with Afghanistan and Central Asia, striking a balance may be a challenge given Trump’s unpredictability. Iran-Pakistan ties New Delhi should also observe carefully Iran’s support for Pakistan, particularly after Trump’s speech on August 21 where he warned Pakistan to take more concrete action against terror groups operating on Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Iran came to the defence of Pakistan, with foreign ministry spokesman, Bahram Ghasemi saying: "What presently the US is highlighting to condemn other countries with is the result of years of wrong and inappropriate policies of Americans in the countries of the region, especially Afghanistan.” Iran already has strong economic ties with China, moving closer to Pakistan would not be good news for India. × Iran already has strong economic ties with China, and it moving closer to Pakistan would not be good news for India. New Delhi has been trying to jointly work with both Afghanistan and Iran much to the chagrin of the Pakistan army. Significantly, in May 2017, Iran had taken a tough stance against certain terror groups operating from Pakistan, warning that it would hit the bases of Sunni militant groups operating in Pakistan. In April 2017, Ten Iranian border guards had been killed by militants and Iran blamed Sunni groups operating from Pakistan. Major General Mohammad Baqeri, head of the Iranian armed forces had said, “If the terrorist attacks continue, we will hit their safe havens and cells, wherever they are.” Middle East New Delhi should also be watching the gradual softening of Iran towards Saudi Arabia and Turkey. On the sidelines of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meeting in Istanbul earlier this month, the foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia met and exchanged greetings. Earlier this month Iranian chief of staff of the armed forces, Major-General Mohammad Baqeri paid a visit to Turkey to explore possible synergies in counter-terrorism and the Syrian conflict. This is a clear indication of a significant improvement in bilateral ties. It has also been reported, that their high-level officials are likely to meet again. While New Delhi has strong ties with both, and this has been a challenge in the past, the tensions were also to the benefit of India. Due to tensions between Iran and GCC countries, especially Saudi Arabia, New Delhi could also pressurise both sides to urge Pakistan to take action against terror groups. Apart from strengthening of India-US ties, Saudi Arabia has been apprehensive about India getting too close to Iran. This has resulted in Riyadh not just adopting a more nuanced stand on terrorism emanating from Pakistan and extraditing terrorists, but also strengthening security cooperation with India. While currently, India is bogged down with numerous domestic challenges, and other foreign policy priorities, especially with China, a close watch should be kept on Iran’s next moves not just in the context of its deal with the US, but also on its ties with Pakistan and GCC countries. *Sandeep Sachdeva is an Independent Policy Analyst associated with The Jindal School of International Affairs, Sonipat.

India should be careful about Iran's softening of stance towards Pakistan and China

<p>MP Zahir Qadir house in Afghanistan&#39;s eastern city of Jalalabad was hit by a blast today.</p>

<p>Afghanistan&#39;s Tolo news reported two bodyguards of &nbsp;Zahir Qadir were shot before the blast.</p>

<p>Tolo&nbsp;news said Nangarhar governor has confirmed the blast at Qadir&#39;s house.</p>


Afghanistan's Tolo news reported two bodyguards of Zahir Qadir were shot before the blast

MP Zahir Qadir house in Afghanistan's eastern city of Jalalabad was hit by a blast today. Afghanistan's Tolo news reported two bodyguards of Zahir Qadir were shot before the blast. Tolo news said Nangarhar governor has confirmed the blast at Qadir's house.

Blast in MP Zahir Qadir's house in Afghanistan's Jalalabad: Report

<p>An explosion hit a bank in Afghanistan&#39;s capital Kabul on Tuesday close to the US&nbsp;embassy.</p>

<p>Interior ministry spokesman Najib Danish told Reuters the blast occurred at the entrance to a Kabul bank branch, not far from the US embassy.</p>

<p>At least four people have been killed and several wounded several, Reuters quoted the Afghanistan&#39;s interior ministry.</p>

<p>The blast occurred as people were busy withdrawing money from the bank ahead of the Eid holiday at the end of the week.</p>

<p>A health ministry official had told Afghanistan&#39;s Tolo&nbsp;news earlier that one person was killed and at least eight were injured in the blast.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There was no immediate claim of responsibility.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Developing</strong></p>


Interior ministry spokesman Najib Danish told Reuters the blast occurred at the entrance to a Kabul Bank branch

An explosion hit a bank in Afghanistan's capital Kabul on Tuesday close to the US embassy. Interior ministry spokesman Najib Danish told Reuters the blast occurred at the entrance to a Kabul bank branch, not far from the US embassy. At least four people have been killed and several wounded several, Reuters quoted the Afghanistan's interior ministry. The blast occurred as people were busy withdrawing money from the bank ahead of the Eid holiday at the end of the week. A health ministry official had told Afghanistan's Tolo news earlier that one person was killed and at least eight were injured in the blast. There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Developing

Blast in Kabul bank close to US embassy,  death toll rises to 4

<p>A car bomb attack in a market in<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/car-bomb-attack-in-afghanistan-at-least-5-killed-19366"> Afghanistan&#39;s southern province of Helmand</a> killed at least 13 people late on Sunday evening.</p>

<p>The attack was targeted at a convoy of Afghan soldiers in the market area in Nawa district of Helmand. The suicide attack led the death of security personnel and civilians.</p>

<p>AFP reported at least fifteen bodies were brought to the hospital with over thirty injured in admitted in various hospitals. &nbsp;</p>

<p>The attack comes just days <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/gunmen-enter-mosque-in-kabul-19503">after a suicide bomber blew himself up at a mosque in Kabul</a>, just days after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/reversing-course-trump-commits-to-open-ended-afghan-war-19303">US President Donald Trump promised</a> to step up military intervention in &nbsp;Afghanistan.</p>

<p>&quot;A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-filled car as the Afghan National Army convoy passed a small market in Nawa District of Helmand,&quot; Omar Zwak, a spokesman for the provincial governor, told AFP.</p>

<p>No one has claimed responsibility for the attack even though news agency AFP reported the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack in a WhatsApp message sent to journalists.</p>


AFP reported at least fifteen bodies were brought to the hospital with over thirty injured in admitted in various hospitals. ?

A car bomb attack in a market in Afghanistan's southern province of Helmand killed at least 13 people late on Sunday evening. The attack was targeted at a convoy of Afghan soldiers in the market area in Nawa district of Helmand. The suicide attack led the death of security personnel and civilians. AFP reported at least fifteen bodies were brought to the hospital with over thirty injured in admitted in various hospitals. The attack comes just days after a suicide bomber blew himself up at a mosque in Kabul, just days after US President Donald Trump promised to step up military intervention in Afghanistan. "A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-filled car as the Afghan National Army convoy passed a small market in Nawa District of Helmand," Omar Zwak, a spokesman for the provincial governor, told AFP. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack even though news agency AFP reported the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack in a WhatsApp message sent to journalists.

At least 13 killed, several injured in suicide attack in Afghanistan's Helmand province

<p>US President Donald Trump has&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41008116" rel="noopener" target="_blank">drawn battle lines</a>&nbsp;in South Asia that are likely to have a ripple effect across Eurasia: a stepped-up war against the Taliban in Afghanistan; a tougher approach toward Pakistan&rsquo;s selective support of militancy; and closer cooperation with India &mdash; moves that are likely to push Islamabad closer to China and Russia.</p>

<p>There is little doubt that Trump had few good choices some 16 years into an Afghanistan War in which the Taliban and other militant groups are holding their ground, if not making advances, buffeted by Pakistani policies that are rooted in the fabric of the country&rsquo;s military and society. Similarly, there is little doubt that Pakistan&rsquo;s convoluted relationship to militancy poses serious challenges to US foreign policy in South Asia, as well as a global effort to contain political violence.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Pakistan&rsquo;s convoluted relationship to militancy poses serious challenges to US foreign policy in South Asia, as well as a global effort to contain political violence.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Pakistan?s convoluted relationship to militancy poses serious challenges to US foreign policy in South Asia, as well as a global effort to contain political violence." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Nonetheless, President Trump could find that his newly announced South Asia policy will fail to achieve his goal of an &ldquo;honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices&rdquo; made by the United States. The silver lining is that Pakistan may temporarily engineer a stay of execution but ultimately will find itself in a cul-de-sac from which there is no escape.</p>

<p>Despite refusing to disclose details of his strategy in Afghanistan, the US president made clear in a&nbsp;<a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/08/21/545038935/watch-live-trump-s-address-on-afghanistan-next-steps-for-u-s-engagement" rel="noopener" target="_blank">speech on August 21 outlining his South Asia policy</a>&nbsp;that he hopes an increased US military presence will force the Taliban to come to the negotiating table. Yet achieving that would require the kind of military and political engagement in Afghanistan that Trump seems unwilling to embrace.</p>

<p>US media reported that Trump envisioned only a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-expected-to-announce-small-troop-increase-in-afghanistan-in-prime-time-address/2017/08/21/eb3a513e-868a-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.5b49c9a86f55" rel="noopener" target="_blank">modest increase of several thousand troops</a>&nbsp;in a country wracked&nbsp;by corruption and whose military is largely incapable of standing its ground on its own.&nbsp;Political and security analysts&nbsp;<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/troop-surge-wont-save-afghanistan_us_59492e26e4b0f7875b83e5f8" rel="noopener" target="_blank">suggest&nbsp;</a>that it would take a far greater commitment to militarily turn the tables on the Taliban in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>Moreover, President Trump&rsquo;s exclusive focus on defeating insurgents militarily or bombing them into submission ignores the broader economic, social and political problems that fuel militancy in Afghanistan and drive Pakistan&rsquo;s support for the Taliban and a selection of other groups. &ldquo;We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists,&rdquo; Trump said.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Announcing a tougher approach toward Pakistan, the president insisted that the South Asian nation&rsquo;s partnership with the US would not survive if it continued to harbor and support groups that target the United States.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Announcing a tougher approach toward Pakistan, the president insisted that the South Asian nation?s partnership with the US would not survive if it continued to harbor and support groups that target the United States." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Announcing a tougher approach toward Pakistan, the president insisted that the South Asian nation&rsquo;s partnership with the US would not survive if it continued to harbor and support groups that target the United States. Adding fuel to the fire, the president emphasised Washington&rsquo;s strategic partnership with India, calling on it to support the administration&rsquo;s policy with increased Indian economic assistance to Afghanistan. In doing so, Trump challenged a pillar of Pakistani policy toward Afghanistan: limiting Indian influence in the country at whatever cost.</p>

<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="417" scrolling="no" src="https://embed.gettyimages.com/embed/472846416?et=pY4s7E5vRhBt7ZbGNg6ApA&amp;tld=com&amp;sig=xRhiWN37SB1iTMNo7vrZi22uHSIrEOURxL_UXpCkJWU=" width="594"></iframe></p>

<p><a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/472846416" target="_blank">Embed from Getty Images</a></p>

<p><strong>CHINESE AND RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY IN SOUTH ASIA</strong></p>

<p>Trump&rsquo;s approach to South Asia puts to the test two assumptions: that Pakistan will want to preserve its partnership with the US at whatever cost and that it has few alternatives. The president could well find that at least in the short term those assumptions are incorrect.</p>

<p>Pakistan&rsquo;s relationship to militancy is engrained in a deeply-rooted, zero-sum-game approach toward India within the military, as well as empathy for Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism that is woven into the fabric of the security forces, parts of the government bureaucracy and significant segments of society.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Pakistan&rsquo;s relationship to militancy is engrained in a deeply-rooted, zero-sum-game approach toward India within the military, as well as empathy for Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Pakistan?s relationship to militancy is engrained in a deeply-rooted, zero-sum-game approach toward India within the military, as well as empathy for Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Islamabad&rsquo;s use of militant groups to counter India in Afghanistan and Kashmir, as well as an antidote to nationalist insurgents in the restive province of Baluchistan, is tacitly endorsed by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/pakistani-news-china-pakistan-india-south-asian-world-news-97581/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">China&rsquo;s repeated vetoing</a>&nbsp;of the designation of Masood Azhar, an anti-Indian militant, former mujahideen fighter in the 1980s, and Islamic scholar who graduated from a Deobandi madrassa &mdash; Darul Uloom Islamia Binori Town in Karachi &mdash; that is the alma mater of numerous Pakistani militants.</p>

<p>With an investment of more than $60 billion in Pakistani infrastructure and energy that would turn the country into a key node &mdash; if not the crown jewel of its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/one-belt-one-road-china-india-trade-news-61521/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">One Belt, One Road initiative</a>&nbsp;&mdash; China is a logical escape for a government and military that lacks the political will to confront its own demons. Similarly, Russia, long eager to gain access to warm water ports and expand its influence in Central and South Asia, is certain to see opportunity in further estrangement between Pakistan and the US.</p>

<p>Closer ties to China and Russia may offer Pakistan a temporary escape from dealing with structural problems. Ultimately, however, Islamabad&rsquo;s relationship to militancy is likely to also complicate its relations with Beijing and Moscow amid escalating violence in Baluchistan and no end in sight to the insurgency in Afghanistan. A series of devastating attacks in Baluchistan over the past year that has targeted Pakistani cadets, decimated the legal profession in the capital Quetta, and targeted Chinese nationals as well kidnappings and drive-by shootings&nbsp;pose a serious obstacle to China&rsquo;s strategic ambition&nbsp;to extend its maritime power across the Indian Ocean and turn the sleepy Baloch fishing port of Gwadar into a gateway to its troubled northwestern province of Xinjiang.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>China has too much at stake for Pakistan&rsquo;s selective support of militancy to ultimately get in the way of achieving its geopolitical goals vested in its One Belt, One Road initiative.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=China has too much at stake for Pakistan?s selective support of militancy to ultimately get in the way of achieving its geopolitical goals vested in its One Belt, One Road initiative." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Pakistan has, moreover, in the past year&nbsp;turned a&nbsp;<a href="https://mideastsoccer.blogspot.sg/search/label/Pakistan?updated-max=2017-06-05T14:37:00%2B08:00&amp;max-results=20&amp;start=10&amp;by-date=false" rel="noopener" target="_blank">blind eye to Saudi funding</a>&nbsp;of anti-Shia, anti-Iranian militants&nbsp;in Baluchistan, including Pakistani cleric Maulana Ali Muhammad Abu Turab, who remains a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology &mdash; a government advisory body tasked with ensuring that legislation does not contradict Islamic law &mdash; despite having been designated a global terrorist by the US Treasury.</p>

<p>China has too much at stake for Pakistan&rsquo;s selective support of militancy to ultimately get in the way of achieving its geopolitical goals vested in its One Belt, One Road initiative. As a result, Pakistan&rsquo;s refusal to confront its demons could, in the final analysis, leave it out in the cold: its relationship with the US severely damaged; India strengthened by closer cooperation with Trump administration; and China and Russia demanding that it do what Washington wanted in the first place.</p>

<p>Pakistan is likely to have fewer options and no escape routes once Beijing and Moscow come to the conclusion President Trump has already articulated.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>The views expressed in this article are the author&rsquo;s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer&rsquo;s editorial policy.</strong></p>

<p>Photo Credit:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/">Jim Mattis</a></p>

<p>This <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/donald-trump-afghanistan-policy-speech-pakistan-india-policy-news-headlines-97120/">article</a> was originally published on&nbsp;<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://www.fairobserver.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1503723352966000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHmFLLQ4MoeLQPQr96cx59taj9n4w" disabled="disabled" href="http://www.fairobserver.com/" target="_blank"><em>Fair Observer</em></a>.&rdquo;</p>


Trump challenged a pillar of Pakistani policy toward Afghanistan: limiting Indian influence in the country at whatever cost.

US President Donald Trump has drawn battle lines in South Asia that are likely to have a ripple effect across Eurasia: a stepped-up war against the Taliban in Afghanistan; a tougher approach toward Pakistan’s selective support of militancy; and closer cooperation with India — moves that are likely to push Islamabad closer to China and Russia. There is little doubt that Trump had few good choices some 16 years into an Afghanistan War in which the Taliban and other militant groups are holding their ground, if not making advances, buffeted by Pakistani policies that are rooted in the fabric of the country’s military and society. Similarly, there is little doubt that Pakistan’s convoluted relationship to militancy poses serious challenges to US foreign policy in South Asia, as well as a global effort to contain political violence. Pakistan’s convoluted relationship to militancy poses serious challenges to US foreign policy in South Asia, as well as a global effort to contain political violence. × Nonetheless, President Trump could find that his newly announced South Asia policy will fail to achieve his goal of an “honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices” made by the United States. The silver lining is that Pakistan may temporarily engineer a stay of execution but ultimately will find itself in a cul-de-sac from which there is no escape. Despite refusing to disclose details of his strategy in Afghanistan, the US president made clear in a speech on August 21 outlining his South Asia policy that he hopes an increased US military presence will force the Taliban to come to the negotiating table. Yet achieving that would require the kind of military and political engagement in Afghanistan that Trump seems unwilling to embrace. US media reported that Trump envisioned only a modest increase of several thousand troops in a country wracked by corruption and whose military is largely incapable of standing its ground on its own. Political and security analysts suggest that it would take a far greater commitment to militarily turn the tables on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, President Trump’s exclusive focus on defeating insurgents militarily or bombing them into submission ignores the broader economic, social and political problems that fuel militancy in Afghanistan and drive Pakistan’s support for the Taliban and a selection of other groups. “We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists,” Trump said. Announcing a tougher approach toward Pakistan, the president insisted that the South Asian nation’s partnership with the US would not survive if it continued to harbor and support groups that target the United States. × Announcing a tougher approach toward Pakistan, the president insisted that the South Asian nation’s partnership with the US would not survive if it continued to harbor and support groups that target the United States. Adding fuel to the fire, the president emphasised Washington’s strategic partnership with India, calling on it to support the administration’s policy with increased Indian economic assistance to Afghanistan. In doing so, Trump challenged a pillar of Pakistani policy toward Afghanistan: limiting Indian influence in the country at whatever cost. Embed from Getty Images CHINESE AND RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY IN SOUTH ASIA Trump’s approach to South Asia puts to the test two assumptions: that Pakistan will want to preserve its partnership with the US at whatever cost and that it has few alternatives. The president could well find that at least in the short term those assumptions are incorrect. Pakistan’s relationship to militancy is engrained in a deeply-rooted, zero-sum-game approach toward India within the military, as well as empathy for Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism that is woven into the fabric of the security forces, parts of the government bureaucracy and significant segments of society. Pakistan’s relationship to militancy is engrained in a deeply-rooted, zero-sum-game approach toward India within the military, as well as empathy for Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism. × Islamabad’s use of militant groups to counter India in Afghanistan and Kashmir, as well as an antidote to nationalist insurgents in the restive province of Baluchistan, is tacitly endorsed by China’s repeated vetoing of the designation of Masood Azhar, an anti-Indian militant, former mujahideen fighter in the 1980s, and Islamic scholar who graduated from a Deobandi madrassa — Darul Uloom Islamia Binori Town in Karachi — that is the alma mater of numerous Pakistani militants. With an investment of more than $60 billion in Pakistani infrastructure and energy that would turn the country into a key node — if not the crown jewel of its One Belt, One Road initiative — China is a logical escape for a government and military that lacks the political will to confront its own demons. Similarly, Russia, long eager to gain access to warm water ports and expand its influence in Central and South Asia, is certain to see opportunity in further estrangement between Pakistan and the US. Closer ties to China and Russia may offer Pakistan a temporary escape from dealing with structural problems. Ultimately, however, Islamabad’s relationship to militancy is likely to also complicate its relations with Beijing and Moscow amid escalating violence in Baluchistan and no end in sight to the insurgency in Afghanistan. A series of devastating attacks in Baluchistan over the past year that has targeted Pakistani cadets, decimated the legal profession in the capital Quetta, and targeted Chinese nationals as well kidnappings and drive-by shootings pose a serious obstacle to China’s strategic ambition to extend its maritime power across the Indian Ocean and turn the sleepy Baloch fishing port of Gwadar into a gateway to its troubled northwestern province of Xinjiang. China has too much at stake for Pakistan’s selective support of militancy to ultimately get in the way of achieving its geopolitical goals vested in its One Belt, One Road initiative. × Pakistan has, moreover, in the past year turned a blind eye to Saudi funding of anti-Shia, anti-Iranian militants in Baluchistan, including Pakistani cleric Maulana Ali Muhammad Abu Turab, who remains a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology — a government advisory body tasked with ensuring that legislation does not contradict Islamic law — despite having been designated a global terrorist by the US Treasury. China has too much at stake for Pakistan’s selective support of militancy to ultimately get in the way of achieving its geopolitical goals vested in its One Belt, One Road initiative. As a result, Pakistan’s refusal to confront its demons could, in the final analysis, leave it out in the cold: its relationship with the US severely damaged; India strengthened by closer cooperation with Trump administration; and China and Russia demanding that it do what Washington wanted in the first place. Pakistan is likely to have fewer options and no escape routes once Beijing and Moscow come to the conclusion President Trump has already articulated. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. Photo Credit: Jim Mattis This article was originally published on Fair Observer.”

Will Trump's closeness with India push Pakistan towards China and Russia?

<p>The United States must value Pakistan&#39;s role in Afghanistan and respect its security concerns, China&#39;s top diplomat Yang Jiechi told US secretary of state Rex Tillerson in a phone call, according to Chinese state media.</p>

<p>China&#39;s Foreign Ministry defended its ally Pakistan earlier this week after President Donald Trump said the United States could no longer be silent about militants using safe havens on Pakistani soil.</p>

<p>On Monday, Trump committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, signalling he would send more troops to America&#39;s longest war and vowing &quot;a fight to win&quot;.</p>

<p>He insisted that others - the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies - step up their own commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict, but he saved his sharpest words for Pakistan.</p>

<p>Yang, who outranks China&#39;s foreign minister, told Tillerson on Wednesday that China was willing to coordinate with the United States on Afghanistan and make joint efforts to realise peace and stability there and in the region, according to a Chinese statement issued late that night.</p>

<p>&quot;We must value Pakistan&#39;s important role on the Afghanistan issue, and respect Pakistan&#39;s sovereignty and reasonable security concerns,&quot; Yang told Tillerson.</p>

<p>Pakistan has been battling home-grown Islamists for years. It sees Afghanistan as a vital strategic interest and a bulwark against old rival, India. Islamabad denies harbouring militants, who move across the porous border with Afghanistan.&nbsp;</p>

<p>China and Pakistan consider each other &quot;all-weather friends&quot; and have close diplomatic, economic and security ties.</p>

<p>Beijing has its own security concerns in the region, in particular any links between militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Islamist groups China blames for violence in its far western region of Xinjiang.</p>

<p>Foreign minister Wang Yi met Pakistani foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua in Beijing on Tuesday, according to a statement on Thursday.</p>

<p>He praised Pakistan&#39;s efforts to combat extremism and to secure the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a development initiative central to President Xi Jinping&#39;s global Belt and Road development plan.</p>

<p>&quot;Given the current complicated and changing international and regional situation, the strategic significance of China-Pakistan relations is even more prominent,&quot; Wang said.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


China's top diplomat told US?secretary of state Rex Tillerson that the country is willing to coordinate with the US on Afghanistan and make joint efforts to realise peace and stability there and in the region

The United States must value Pakistan's role in Afghanistan and respect its security concerns, China's top diplomat Yang Jiechi told US secretary of state Rex Tillerson in a phone call, according to Chinese state media. China's Foreign Ministry defended its ally Pakistan earlier this week after President Donald Trump said the United States could no longer be silent about militants using safe havens on Pakistani soil. On Monday, Trump committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, signalling he would send more troops to America's longest war and vowing "a fight to win". He insisted that others - the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies - step up their own commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict, but he saved his sharpest words for Pakistan. Yang, who outranks China's foreign minister, told Tillerson on Wednesday that China was willing to coordinate with the United States on Afghanistan and make joint efforts to realise peace and stability there and in the region, according to a Chinese statement issued late that night. "We must value Pakistan's important role on the Afghanistan issue, and respect Pakistan's sovereignty and reasonable security concerns," Yang told Tillerson. Pakistan has been battling home-grown Islamists for years. It sees Afghanistan as a vital strategic interest and a bulwark against old rival, India. Islamabad denies harbouring militants, who move across the porous border with Afghanistan. China and Pakistan consider each other "all-weather friends" and have close diplomatic, economic and security ties. Beijing has its own security concerns in the region, in particular any links between militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Islamist groups China blames for violence in its far western region of Xinjiang. Foreign minister Wang Yi met Pakistani foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua in Beijing on Tuesday, according to a statement on Thursday. He praised Pakistan's efforts to combat extremism and to secure the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a development initiative central to President Xi Jinping's global Belt and Road development plan. "Given the current complicated and changing international and regional situation, the strategic significance of China-Pakistan relations is even more prominent," Wang said.

China asks US to respect Pakistan's security concerns

<p>The top US&nbsp;military commander in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;said on Thursday President Donald Trump&#39;s new strategy is a sign of a long-term commitment to what is already America&#39;s longest war and called on Taliban insurgents to agree to peace talks.</p>

<p>&quot;The Taliban cannot win on the battlefield, it&#39;s time for them to join the peace process,&quot;&nbsp;GeneralJohn Nicholson told reporters in the Afghan capital, Kabul. &quot;We will not fail in&nbsp;Afghanistan, our national security depends on that as well.&quot;</p>

<p>Critics, including Trump himself during the 2016 campaign for the US&nbsp;presidency, have argued that&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;is no closer to peace despite billions of dollars spent on aid and nearly 16 years of the US&nbsp;and allied military operations.</p>

<p>In February, Nicholson told the US Congress he needed &quot;a few thousand&quot; more troops in Afghanistan, mostly to help advise Afghan security forces that are battling Taliban, Islamic State and other Islamist insurgents.</p>

<p>Trump has now approved an extended American presence in&nbsp;Afghanistan, although neither he nor his military leaders have provided any specifics about troop numbers or timelines.</p>

<p>The current US force for the predominantly advise-and-assist mission in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;stands at around 8,400, well down from around 100,000 during the &quot;surge&quot; decided on by Trump&#39;s predecessor, Barack Obama.</p>

<p>Several thousand more troops are often in the country on &quot;temporary&quot; or other uncounted missions.</p>

<p>Nicholson said new advisers from the United States and NATO coalition allies would increase the training missions, including at specialized military schools and expanding the Afghan air force and special forces.</p>

<p>He also praised Trump&#39;s decision not to impose &quot;arbitrary&quot; deadlines on the American mission in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>&quot;This policy announcement ... is proof of our continued commitment,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>The Taliban government was overthrown by the US, backed Afghan forces in late 2001 but US&nbsp;forces have been bogged down there ever since. About 2,400 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>US&nbsp;military and intelligence officials are concerned that a new Taliban victory would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State&rsquo;s regional affiliate to establish bases in&nbsp;Afghanistan.</p>

<p>That could allow them to plot attacks against the United States and its allies, they fear, just as Osama bin Laden had done with the Sept. 11, 2001, strikes that triggered the war in&nbsp;Afghanistan.</p>


The Taliban cannot win on the battlefield, it's time for them to join the peace process," General John Nicholson

The top US military commander in Afghanistan said on Thursday President Donald Trump's new strategy is a sign of a long-term commitment to what is already America's longest war and called on Taliban insurgents to agree to peace talks. "The Taliban cannot win on the battlefield, it's time for them to join the peace process," GeneralJohn Nicholson told reporters in the Afghan capital, Kabul. "We will not fail in Afghanistan, our national security depends on that as well." Critics, including Trump himself during the 2016 campaign for the US presidency, have argued that Afghanistan is no closer to peace despite billions of dollars spent on aid and nearly 16 years of the US and allied military operations. In February, Nicholson told the US Congress he needed "a few thousand" more troops in Afghanistan, mostly to help advise Afghan security forces that are battling Taliban, Islamic State and other Islamist insurgents. Trump has now approved an extended American presence in Afghanistan, although neither he nor his military leaders have provided any specifics about troop numbers or timelines. The current US force for the predominantly advise-and-assist mission in Afghanistan stands at around 8,400, well down from around 100,000 during the "surge" decided on by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama. Several thousand more troops are often in the country on "temporary" or other uncounted missions. Nicholson said new advisers from the United States and NATO coalition allies would increase the training missions, including at specialized military schools and expanding the Afghan air force and special forces. He also praised Trump's decision not to impose "arbitrary" deadlines on the American mission in Afghanistan. "This policy announcement ... is proof of our continued commitment," he said. The Taliban government was overthrown by the US, backed Afghan forces in late 2001 but US forces have been bogged down there ever since. About 2,400 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan. US military and intelligence officials are concerned that a new Taliban victory would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State’s regional affiliate to establish bases in Afghanistan. That could allow them to plot attacks against the United States and its allies, they fear, just as Osama bin Laden had done with the Sept. 11, 2001, strikes that triggered the war in Afghanistan.

Trump's new strategy is long term commitment: US military commander in Afghanistan

<p>At least five people have been killed and over 42 injured after a car bomb detonated near police headquarters in Afghanistan&#39;s Helmand province&nbsp;</p>

<p>Two women and two soldiers including a child have been confirmed dead, Reuters reported.</p>

<p>&quot;A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-filled car in a parking lot near the main police headquarters in Lashkar Gah,&quot; Omar Zhwak, a spokesman for the governor of Helmand province, told AFP.</p>

<p>The attack comes just over 24 hours after<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-clears-way-for-troop-increase-in-afghanistan-19283"> US&nbsp;President Donald Trump promised to increase the number of US troops</a> in Afganistan in an attempt to defeat the Taliban</p>

<p><strong>Developing</strong></p>


The explosion struck a crowd of policemen and soldiers who had gathered to collect their pay in Helmand's capital city, Lashkar Gah

At least five people have been killed and over 42 injured after a car bomb detonated near police headquarters in Afghanistan's Helmand province Two women and two soldiers including a child have been confirmed dead, Reuters reported. "A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-filled car in a parking lot near the main police headquarters in Lashkar Gah," Omar Zhwak, a spokesman for the governor of Helmand province, told AFP. The attack comes just over 24 hours after US President Donald Trump promised to increase the number of US troops in Afganistan in an attempt to defeat the Taliban Developing

Car bomb attack in Afghanistan, at least 5 killed

<p>Rolling back territorial gains by the Taliban and strengthening the Afghanistan army&#39;s ability to fight will be two key objectives of President Donald Trump&#39;s new strategy for the country, a senior administration official said on Tuesday.</p>

<p>Trump, in a televised speech on Monday, promised a stepped-up military campaign against Taliban insurgents who have gained ground against the US-backed Afghan government.</p>

<p>In outlining his strategy to give the US&nbsp;military more authority to make battlefield decisions, Trump did not provide a timetable for determining whether the mission is a success or how commanders would be able to judge progress.</p>

<p>The senior administration official said, however, that one general measure of progress was assessing how much and what territory is controlled by the Afghan government or by the Taliban and other extremist groups such as Islamic State&#39;s Afghan affiliate.</p>

<p>&quot;It&#39;s also the estimated number of fighters, the presence of al Qaeda and ISIS, how strong are they, how many fighters do they have, how are their training camps, what are their finance networks like,&quot; the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.</p>

<p>Also key will be the effectiveness of the Afghan army and whether US-led armed forces can help it seize control of some territory held by the Taliban, the official added.</p>

<p>Trump, who was reluctant to approve a deeper engagement in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, wanted to keep a close eye on whether progress is being made, the official said.</p>

<p>&quot;I think we&rsquo;re going to be taking the temperature continuously,&quot; the official said. &quot;I don&rsquo;t think we expect to see any real gains materialize for at least six months. But from that point on, it&rsquo;s going to be something that we essentially never stop evaluating.&quot;</p>

<p>US.-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban&#39;s hard-line Islamist government in late 2001 because it sheltered al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington that year.</p>

<p>US&nbsp;forces have been bogged down since in a war that has vexed three American presidents. About 2,400 US&nbsp;troops have died there in America&#39;s longest military conflict.</p>

<p><strong>&#39;Progressive process&#39;</strong></p>

<p>Three US&nbsp;officials said on Tuesday the administration had yet to settle on specific metrics to measure progress in Afghanistan and assess the contributions of the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and America&#39;s NATO allies.</p>

<p>One of the officials said there was no point &quot;in setting specific targets, much less making them public because that would risk making our partners think that once they had met those marks, they didn&#39;t have to do more.&quot;</p>

<p>&quot;What we&#39;re after is a progressive process,&quot; the official said, &quot;so, for example, the Afghan security forces keep improving their capabilities until they don&#39;t need us anymore, the government in Kabul keeps improving its record on eliminating corruption and improving local, regional and national governance.&quot;</p>

<p>But Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, struck a critical tone on Tuesday.</p>

<p>&quot;While a &#39;conditions based&#39; approach is appealing to military leaders because it gives the Taliban less certainty about how long it will take to wait us out, it also diminishes pressure on the Afghan government to reform itself and give the Afghan people something worth fighting for, since it indicates a willingness to bail them out indefinitely,&quot; Schiff said in a statement.</p>


The second key objective will be strengthening the Afghanistan army's ability to fight

Rolling back territorial gains by the Taliban and strengthening the Afghanistan army's ability to fight will be two key objectives of President Donald Trump's new strategy for the country, a senior administration official said on Tuesday. Trump, in a televised speech on Monday, promised a stepped-up military campaign against Taliban insurgents who have gained ground against the US-backed Afghan government. In outlining his strategy to give the US military more authority to make battlefield decisions, Trump did not provide a timetable for determining whether the mission is a success or how commanders would be able to judge progress. The senior administration official said, however, that one general measure of progress was assessing how much and what territory is controlled by the Afghan government or by the Taliban and other extremist groups such as Islamic State's Afghan affiliate. "It's also the estimated number of fighters, the presence of al Qaeda and ISIS, how strong are they, how many fighters do they have, how are their training camps, what are their finance networks like," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Also key will be the effectiveness of the Afghan army and whether US-led armed forces can help it seize control of some territory held by the Taliban, the official added. Trump, who was reluctant to approve a deeper engagement in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, wanted to keep a close eye on whether progress is being made, the official said. "I think we’re going to be taking the temperature continuously," the official said. "I don’t think we expect to see any real gains materialize for at least six months. But from that point on, it’s going to be something that we essentially never stop evaluating." US.-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban's hard-line Islamist government in late 2001 because it sheltered al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington that year. US forces have been bogged down since in a war that has vexed three American presidents. About 2,400 US troops have died there in America's longest military conflict. 'Progressive process' Three US officials said on Tuesday the administration had yet to settle on specific metrics to measure progress in Afghanistan and assess the contributions of the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and America's NATO allies. One of the officials said there was no point "in setting specific targets, much less making them public because that would risk making our partners think that once they had met those marks, they didn't have to do more." "What we're after is a progressive process," the official said, "so, for example, the Afghan security forces keep improving their capabilities until they don't need us anymore, the government in Kabul keeps improving its record on eliminating corruption and improving local, regional and national governance." But Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, struck a critical tone on Tuesday. "While a 'conditions based' approach is appealing to military leaders because it gives the Taliban less certainty about how long it will take to wait us out, it also diminishes pressure on the Afghan government to reform itself and give the Afghan people something worth fighting for, since it indicates a willingness to bail them out indefinitely," Schiff said in a statement.

Taking back territory held by Taliban key aim of Trump's new Afghan strategy: Official

<p>NATO&nbsp;Secretary&nbsp;General&nbsp;Jens Stoltenberg on Tuesday welcomed President Donald Trump&#39;s decision to dispatch <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-clears-way-for-troop-increase-in-afghanistan-19283">more troops to&nbsp;Afghanistan</a>.</p>

<p>&quot;NATO&nbsp;remains fully committed to&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;and I am looking forward to discussing the way ahead with (Defense)&nbsp;Secretary&nbsp;(James) Mattis and our Allies and international partners,&quot; Stoltenberg said in a statement.&nbsp;</p>

<p>NATO&nbsp;has 12,000 troops in&nbsp;Afghanistan, and 15 countries have pledged more, Stoltenberg said.</p>


NATO?has 12,000 troops in?Afghanistan, and 15 countries have pledged more, NATO?Secretary?General?Jens Stoltenberg said

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Tuesday welcomed President Donald Trump's decision to dispatch more troops to Afghanistan. "NATO remains fully committed to Afghanistan and I am looking forward to discussing the way ahead with (Defense) Secretary (James) Mattis and our Allies and international partners," Stoltenberg said in a statement. NATO has 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, and 15 countries have pledged more, Stoltenberg said.

NATO Secretary General welcomes new US approach on Afghanistan

<p>Afghanistan&nbsp;on Tuesday&nbsp;welcomed a decision by US President Donald Trump to renew America&#39;s engagement in the war-torn country and allow for the deployment of more troops.&nbsp;</p>

<p>President Ashraf Ghani said in a statement that the announcement showed the &quot;enduring commitment by Afghanistan&#39;s foundational partner in this global conflict&quot;.</p>


President Ashraf Ghani said "enduring commitment by Afghanistan's foundational partner in this global conflict", after Trump's statement.

Afghanistan on Tuesday welcomed a decision by US President Donald Trump to renew America's engagement in the war-torn country and allow for the deployment of more troops. President Ashraf Ghani said in a statement that the announcement showed the "enduring commitment by Afghanistan's foundational partner in this global conflict".

Trump's "enduring commitment" towards Afghan welcomed by the President Ashraf Ghani.

<p>Reversing course from his campaign pledges, President Donald Trump&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;night committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, signaling he would dispatch more troops to America&#39;s longest war and vowing &quot;a fight to win.&quot;</p>

<p>In a speech offering few specifics, Trump promised a stepped-up military campaign against Taliban insurgents who have gained ground against the US backed Afghan government and he singled out Pakistan for harboring militants.</p>

<p>&quot;We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,&quot; he said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington.</p>

<p>Trump ran for the US&nbsp;presidency calling for a swift US&nbsp;withdrawal from Afghanistan, and he acknowledged&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;that he was going against his instincts in approving the new campaign plan sought by his military advisers.</p>

<p>&quot;The consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable,&quot; he said. &quot;A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including IS&nbsp;and al Qaeda, would instantly fill.&quot;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,&#39; Trump said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,' Trump said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The Republican president, who has criticised his predecessors for setting deadlines for drawing down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, declined to put a time line on expanded US&nbsp;military operations in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>Trump now inherits the same challenges as predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama, including a stubborn Taliban insurgency and a weak, divided government in Kabul. He is laying the groundwork for greater US&nbsp;involvement without a clear end in sight or providing specific benchmarks for success.</p>

<p>US&nbsp;officials said he had signed off on Defense Secretary James Mattis&#39; plans to send about 4,000 more troops to add to the roughly 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>Mattis said he had directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry out the strategy and that he would be consulting with NATO and US&nbsp;allies, several of which had also committed to increasing troops.</p>

<p><strong>&nbsp;&#39;Not a Blank Check&#39;</strong></p>

<p>Trump warned that US support &quot;is not a blank check,&quot; and insisted he would not engage in &quot;nation-building,&quot; a practice he has accused his predecessors of doing at huge cost.</p>

<p>Through the speech, Trump insisted that others, the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies, step up their own commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict.</p>

<p>Trump saved his sharpest words for Pakistan.</p>

<p>&quot;We can no longer be silent about Pakistan&rsquo;s safe havens,&quot; Trump said. &quot;Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor terrorists.&quot;</p>

<p>Senior US officials warned he could reduce security assistance for Pakistan unless the nuclear-armed nation cooperates more in preventing militants from using safe havens on its soil.</p>

<p>A Pakistani army spokesman said&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;that Pakistan had taken action against all Islamist militants including the Haqqani network, which is allied to Afghan Taliban insurgents.</p>

<p>&quot;There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan. We have operated against all terrorists, including (the) Haqqani network,&quot; spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor told a media briefing in Islamabad.</p>

<p>Obama also took Pakistan to task for supporting militants, and sent Navy SEALs into the country to kill al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. It remains to be seen if Trump&#39;s rhetoric will change Pakistan&#39;s calculations in Afghanistan, which it sees as a vital strategic interest.</p>

<p>Trump expanded the US&nbsp;military&#39;s authority for American armed forces to target militant and criminal networks. He said that US&nbsp;enemies in Afghanistan &quot;need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American arms.&quot;</p>

<p>&quot;Our troops will fight to win,&quot; he added.</p>

<p>A US led coalition invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Islamist Taliban government for harboring al Qaeda militants who plotted the&nbsp;Sept. 11&nbsp;attacks. But US&nbsp;forces have remained bogged down there through the presidencies of Bush, Obama and now Trump. About 2,400 US&nbsp;forces have died in Afghanistan since the invasion.</p>

<p><strong>Past&nbsp;Skeptism &nbsp; &nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>The speech came after a months-long review of US&nbsp;policy in which Trump frequently tangled with his top advisers on the future of US&nbsp;involvement in Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents have been making territorial gains.</p>

<p>US&nbsp;military and intelligence officials are concerned that a Taliban victory over Afghan President Ashraf Ghani&#39;s government would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State&rsquo;s regional affiliate to establish bases in Afghanistan from which to plot attacks against the United States and its allies.</p>

<p>&quot;The unfortunate truth is that this strategy is long overdue and in the interim the Taliban has made dangerous inroads,&quot; said senior Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.</p>

<p>Senator Jack Reed, senior Democrat on the committee, criticised what he called a speech short on details.</p>

<p>&quot;President Trump now recognises the need to stabilise the situation and assist the government of Afghanistan to regain momentum. But he was very vague,&quot; Reed said.</p>

<p>Trump suggested he was hoping for eventual peace talks, and said it might be possible to have a political settlement with elements of the Taliban.</p>

<p>&quot;But nobody knows if or when that will ever happen,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>In a statement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said: &quot;We stand ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without preconditions.&quot;</p>

<p>Trump overcame his own skepticism about the war that began in October 2001. He said repeatedly on the campaign trail last year that the war was too costly in lives and money.</p>

<p>&quot;My original instinct was to pull out,&quot; he said in his speech, but added he was convinced by his national security advisers to strengthen the US ability to prevent the Taliban from ousting the government in Kabul.</p>

<p>Trump&#39;s speech came as the president tries to rebound after he was engulfed in controversy for saying both sides were to blame for violence between white supremacists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month.</p>

<p>In an allusion to the Charlottesville uproar, Trump said: &quot;We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.&quot;</p>

<p>US&nbsp;commanders have long planned for a possible shift in resources from Iraq to Afghanistan as the fight against Islamic State comes off its peak, following gains made in the Iraqi city of Mosul and other areas.</p>

<p>One reason the White House decision took so long, two officials who participated in the discussions said&nbsp;on Sunday, is that it was difficult to get Trump to accept the need for a broader regional strategy that included US&nbsp;policy toward Pakistan.</p>

<p>Trump received a wide range of conflicting options, the officials said.</p>

<p>White House national security adviser HR&nbsp;McMaster and other advisers favored accepting a request for an 4,000 additional US forces.</p>

<p>But recently ousted White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon had argued for the withdrawal of all US&nbsp;forces, saying the war was still not winnable, US&nbsp;officials said. Bannon was fired&nbsp;on Friday&nbsp;by Trump.</p>

<p>Breitbart News, the hard-right news site to which Bannon has returned as executive chairman, said on its home page that Trump &quot;reverses course&quot; and &quot;defends flip-flop in somber speech.&quot;</p>


He signalled he would dispatch more troops to America's longest war

Reversing course from his campaign pledges, President Donald Trump on Monday night committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, signaling he would dispatch more troops to America's longest war and vowing "a fight to win." In a speech offering few specifics, Trump promised a stepped-up military campaign against Taliban insurgents who have gained ground against the US backed Afghan government and he singled out Pakistan for harboring militants. "We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists," he said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington. Trump ran for the US presidency calling for a swift US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and he acknowledged on Monday that he was going against his instincts in approving the new campaign plan sought by his military advisers. "The consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable," he said. "A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including IS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill." We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,' Trump said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington × The Republican president, who has criticised his predecessors for setting deadlines for drawing down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, declined to put a time line on expanded US military operations in Afghanistan. Trump now inherits the same challenges as predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama, including a stubborn Taliban insurgency and a weak, divided government in Kabul. He is laying the groundwork for greater US involvement without a clear end in sight or providing specific benchmarks for success. US officials said he had signed off on Defense Secretary James Mattis' plans to send about 4,000 more troops to add to the roughly 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan. Mattis said he had directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry out the strategy and that he would be consulting with NATO and US allies, several of which had also committed to increasing troops. 'Not a Blank Check' Trump warned that US support "is not a blank check," and insisted he would not engage in "nation-building," a practice he has accused his predecessors of doing at huge cost. Through the speech, Trump insisted that others, the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies, step up their own commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict. Trump saved his sharpest words for Pakistan. "We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens," Trump said. "Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor terrorists." Senior US officials warned he could reduce security assistance for Pakistan unless the nuclear-armed nation cooperates more in preventing militants from using safe havens on its soil. A Pakistani army spokesman said on Monday that Pakistan had taken action against all Islamist militants including the Haqqani network, which is allied to Afghan Taliban insurgents. "There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan. We have operated against all terrorists, including (the) Haqqani network," spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor told a media briefing in Islamabad. Obama also took Pakistan to task for supporting militants, and sent Navy SEALs into the country to kill al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. It remains to be seen if Trump's rhetoric will change Pakistan's calculations in Afghanistan, which it sees as a vital strategic interest. Trump expanded the US military's authority for American armed forces to target militant and criminal networks. He said that US enemies in Afghanistan "need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American arms." "Our troops will fight to win," he added. A US led coalition invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Islamist Taliban government for harboring al Qaeda militants who plotted the Sept. 11 attacks. But US forces have remained bogged down there through the presidencies of Bush, Obama and now Trump. About 2,400 US forces have died in Afghanistan since the invasion. Past Skeptism The speech came after a months-long review of US policy in which Trump frequently tangled with his top advisers on the future of US involvement in Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents have been making territorial gains. US military and intelligence officials are concerned that a Taliban victory over Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State’s regional affiliate to establish bases in Afghanistan from which to plot attacks against the United States and its allies. "The unfortunate truth is that this strategy is long overdue and in the interim the Taliban has made dangerous inroads," said senior Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Jack Reed, senior Democrat on the committee, criticised what he called a speech short on details. "President Trump now recognises the need to stabilise the situation and assist the government of Afghanistan to regain momentum. But he was very vague," Reed said. Trump suggested he was hoping for eventual peace talks, and said it might be possible to have a political settlement with elements of the Taliban. "But nobody knows if or when that will ever happen," he said. In a statement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said: "We stand ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without preconditions." Trump overcame his own skepticism about the war that began in October 2001. He said repeatedly on the campaign trail last year that the war was too costly in lives and money. "My original instinct was to pull out," he said in his speech, but added he was convinced by his national security advisers to strengthen the US ability to prevent the Taliban from ousting the government in Kabul. Trump's speech came as the president tries to rebound after he was engulfed in controversy for saying both sides were to blame for violence between white supremacists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month. In an allusion to the Charlottesville uproar, Trump said: "We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other." US commanders have long planned for a possible shift in resources from Iraq to Afghanistan as the fight against Islamic State comes off its peak, following gains made in the Iraqi city of Mosul and other areas. One reason the White House decision took so long, two officials who participated in the discussions said on Sunday, is that it was difficult to get Trump to accept the need for a broader regional strategy that included US policy toward Pakistan. Trump received a wide range of conflicting options, the officials said. White House national security adviser HR McMaster and other advisers favored accepting a request for an 4,000 additional US forces. But recently ousted White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon had argued for the withdrawal of all US forces, saying the war was still not winnable, US officials said. Bannon was fired on Friday by Trump. Breitbart News, the hard-right news site to which Bannon has returned as executive chairman, said on its home page that Trump "reverses course" and "defends flip-flop in somber speech."

Reversing course, Trump commits to open-ended war in Afghanistan

<p>The US today ruled out a hasty withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan as President Donald Trump warned Pakistan of consequences if it continues to provide safe havens to terror groups and sought an enhanced role for India to bring peace in the war-torn country.</p>

<p>Trump, in a prime-time televised address to the nation, laid out his South Asia policy saying a &quot;critical part&quot; of it was to further develop US&#39; strategic partnership with India.</p>

<p>He said after a &quot;comprehensive review&quot;, it has been decided that the American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically.</p>

<p>&quot;A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I&#39;ve said many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance, the dates we intend to begin, or end, military operations,&quot; Trump said in his address.</p>

<p>&quot;We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities,&quot; Trump said as he announced his South Asia policy in front of about 2,000 people from all five services and top officials of his administration.</p>

<p>Trump slammed Pakistan for its continued support to terrorist groups and warned Islamabad of consequences if it continues to do so.</p>

<p>&quot;We can no longer be silent about Pakistan&#39;s safe havens for terrorist organisations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond,&quot; Trump said.</p>

<p>&quot;Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbour terrorists,&quot; he said, in a apparent warning to Pakistan.</p>

<p>The US President reached out to India seeking an enhanced role for New Delhi, especially in the economic field, to bring peace and stability in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>India, the world&#39;s largest democracy, is a key security and economic partner of the United States, he said.</p>

<p>&quot;We appreciate India&#39;s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development,&quot; Trump said.&nbsp;</p>


Trump said he wanted more Indian help 'especially in the area of economic assistance and development'

The US today ruled out a hasty withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan as President Donald Trump warned Pakistan of consequences if it continues to provide safe havens to terror groups and sought an enhanced role for India to bring peace in the war-torn country. Trump, in a prime-time televised address to the nation, laid out his South Asia policy saying a "critical part" of it was to further develop US' strategic partnership with India. He said after a "comprehensive review", it has been decided that the American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically. "A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I've said many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance, the dates we intend to begin, or end, military operations," Trump said in his address. "We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities," Trump said as he announced his South Asia policy in front of about 2,000 people from all five services and top officials of his administration. Trump slammed Pakistan for its continued support to terrorist groups and warned Islamabad of consequences if it continues to do so. "We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organisations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond," Trump said. "Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbour terrorists," he said, in a apparent warning to Pakistan. The US President reached out to India seeking an enhanced role for New Delhi, especially in the economic field, to bring peace and stability in Afghanistan. India, the world's largest democracy, is a key security and economic partner of the United States, he said. "We appreciate India's important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development," Trump said.

Want India to 'help us more' in Afghanistan: Trump

<p>US President Donald Trump is eyeing Afghanistan&#39;s mineral wealth to help pay for a 16-year war and reconstruction efforts that have already cost $117 billion. Investors who have studied the country, one of the world&#39;s most dangerous, say that is a pipe dream.</p>

<p>Ever since a United States Geological Survey study a decade ago identified deposits later estimated to have a potential value of as much as $1 trillion, both Afghan and foreign officials have trumpeted the reserves as a likely key to economic independence for Afghanistan.</p>

<p>As well as deposits of gold, silver, and platinum, Afghanistan has significant quantities of iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and significant copper, a particular draw given the dearth of rich new copper mines globally.</p>

<p>Afghanistan, some reports say, even has the potential to become &quot;the Saudi Arabia of lithium&quot;, thanks to deposits of the raw material used in phone and electric car batteries.</p>

<p>But a lack of basic logistics, paved roads and rail links needed to export copper concentrate or iron ore, pervasive corruption, a messy bureaucracy and a growing insurgency that has left much of the country beyond the writ of the Kabul government have stifled attempts to build a legitimate mining sector.</p>

<p>Much of the basic data dates back to the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. And the cost of having foreign geologists and engineers visit remote sites to carry out new surveys is prohibitive when nothing is yet being produced to pay for it.</p>

<p>&quot;There is no low-hanging fruit that could trigger rapid growth and foster self-sustaining development,&quot; said the government&#39;s own National Peace and Development Framework document, presented at last year&#39;s donor conference in Brussels.</p>

<p>Major projects such as the Mes Aynak copper mine, being developed by a Chinese consortium, remain at a standstill.</p>

<p>&quot;There is zero active mining and very little exploration, if any,&quot; says Leigh Fogelman, director at merchant bank Hannam &amp; Partners in London. The bank&#39;s founder, former JP Morgan rainmaker Ian Hannam, has been a longtime investor in Afghanistan through the Afghan Gold and Minerals Company (AGMC).</p>

<p>AGMC won the licence for another copper deposit, at Balkhab in northern Afghanistan, in 2012.</p>

<p>For the rest, resources have been prey to what William Byrd, a development economist with the United States Institute of Peace, has dubbed &quot;industrial-scale looting&quot;.</p>

<p>While small and medium-sized mines do exist, many are outside government control, profiting powerful local operators and depriving the treasury of what the government estimates at $300 million in unpaid taxes.</p>

<p>&quot;The big mining&nbsp;opportunities are just languishing and there&#39;s looting of smaller resources&nbsp;everywhere,&quot; Byrd said.</p>

<p><strong>Great Game</strong></p>

<p>As Afghan officials sought to raise interest in Afghanistan with the incoming US administration earlier this year, they pushed the idea of the mineral reserves.</p>

<p>&quot;President Trump is keenly interested in Afghanistan&#39;s economic potential,&quot; Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistan&#39;s ambassador to Washington, told <em>Reuters</em> in June. &quot;Our estimated $1 trillion in copper, iron ore, rare earth elements, aluminium, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium. That&#39;s new.&quot;</p>

<p>US officials have told <em>Reuters</em> that Trump argued at a White House meeting with advisors in July that the United States should demand a share of Afghanistan&#39;s mineral wealth in exchange for its assistance to the Afghan government.</p>

<p>US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that Trump has made a decision on the United States&#39; strategy for Afghanistan after a review with national security advisors, but did not give any details.</p>

<p>It is easy to see why the mining sector has aroused so much interest in Afghanistan, a landlocked country with an economy worth about $20 billion a year, roughly half the size of Wyoming, the least populous US state.</p>

<p>But private investors are wary, says Fogelman, and there is no quick fix.</p>

<p>&quot;In the case of large, public sector investment, the situation would be different, however, there would still be the problem of building up logistics and export links,&quot; he said. &quot;I reckon it would still likely take years to get a meaningful large-scale operation going.&quot;</p>

<p>Even if private armies could be hired to defend the mines against insurgent attack, the cost of moving minerals out would likely be prohibitive until the entire country was secure, which could take many years.</p>

<p>One longtime mining expert formerly based in Kabul recounted his conversation with a top mining firm.</p>

<p>&quot;They said: &#39;Don&#39;t worry, we can bring our own security detail and do the mining operation&#39;. But, they said, &#39;How are we going to get this stuff out of the country?&#39;&quot;</p>

<p>According to a 2014 mining ministry study, some of Afghanistan&#39;s most promising deposits of lithium are in the eastern province of Ghazni and in the far southern region of Gowde Zereh in Helmand province, all areas largely under the control of the Taliban.</p>

<p>&quot;The idea that this will materialise in the near future and pay for the security sector&nbsp;budget is unrealistic,&quot; said Byrd.</p>

<p>Even without the war, mining is tough.</p>

<p>China acquired a 30-year lease on the Mes Aynak copper mine for around $3 billion in 2008 but, although the Taliban has explicitly declared that it will not target it, the project has been plagued by delays due to contractual wrangling.</p>

<p>Under a donor programme agreed in Tokyo in 2012, Afghanistan was supposed to be earning $1 billion a year from mining revenues by 2017 but expectations have been pulled back.</p>

<p>In the first 11 months of the last fiscal year, the government raised just $18 million from mining revenues and the government&#39;s own projections now do not see them exceeding the $1 billion mark before 2029.</p>

<p>That compares with security spending of $4.6 billion this year, equivalent to almost a quarter of the total budget.</p>

<p>&quot;It&#39;s illusory to think that minerals will save Afghanistan in any foreseeable future,&quot; said one senior Western diplomat in Kabul.</p>


As well as deposits of gold, silver, and platinum, Afghanistan has significant quantities of iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and significant copper, a particular draw given the dearth of rich new copper mines globally

US President Donald Trump is eyeing Afghanistan's mineral wealth to help pay for a 16-year war and reconstruction efforts that have already cost $117 billion. Investors who have studied the country, one of the world's most dangerous, say that is a pipe dream. Ever since a United States Geological Survey study a decade ago identified deposits later estimated to have a potential value of as much as $1 trillion, both Afghan and foreign officials have trumpeted the reserves as a likely key to economic independence for Afghanistan. As well as deposits of gold, silver, and platinum, Afghanistan has significant quantities of iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and significant copper, a particular draw given the dearth of rich new copper mines globally. Afghanistan, some reports say, even has the potential to become "the Saudi Arabia of lithium", thanks to deposits of the raw material used in phone and electric car batteries. But a lack of basic logistics, paved roads and rail links needed to export copper concentrate or iron ore, pervasive corruption, a messy bureaucracy and a growing insurgency that has left much of the country beyond the writ of the Kabul government have stifled attempts to build a legitimate mining sector. Much of the basic data dates back to the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. And the cost of having foreign geologists and engineers visit remote sites to carry out new surveys is prohibitive when nothing is yet being produced to pay for it. "There is no low-hanging fruit that could trigger rapid growth and foster self-sustaining development," said the government's own National Peace and Development Framework document, presented at last year's donor conference in Brussels. Major projects such as the Mes Aynak copper mine, being developed by a Chinese consortium, remain at a standstill. "There is zero active mining and very little exploration, if any," says Leigh Fogelman, director at merchant bank Hannam & Partners in London. The bank's founder, former JP Morgan rainmaker Ian Hannam, has been a longtime investor in Afghanistan through the Afghan Gold and Minerals Company (AGMC). AGMC won the licence for another copper deposit, at Balkhab in northern Afghanistan, in 2012. For the rest, resources have been prey to what William Byrd, a development economist with the United States Institute of Peace, has dubbed "industrial-scale looting". While small and medium-sized mines do exist, many are outside government control, profiting powerful local operators and depriving the treasury of what the government estimates at $300 million in unpaid taxes. "The big mining opportunities are just languishing and there's looting of smaller resources everywhere," Byrd said. Great Game As Afghan officials sought to raise interest in Afghanistan with the incoming US administration earlier this year, they pushed the idea of the mineral reserves. "President Trump is keenly interested in Afghanistan's economic potential," Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistan's ambassador to Washington, told Reuters in June. "Our estimated $1 trillion in copper, iron ore, rare earth elements, aluminium, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium. That's new." US officials have told Reuters that Trump argued at a White House meeting with advisors in July that the United States should demand a share of Afghanistan's mineral wealth in exchange for its assistance to the Afghan government. US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that Trump has made a decision on the United States' strategy for Afghanistan after a review with national security advisors, but did not give any details. It is easy to see why the mining sector has aroused so much interest in Afghanistan, a landlocked country with an economy worth about $20 billion a year, roughly half the size of Wyoming, the least populous US state. But private investors are wary, says Fogelman, and there is no quick fix. "In the case of large, public sector investment, the situation would be different, however, there would still be the problem of building up logistics and export links," he said. "I reckon it would still likely take years to get a meaningful large-scale operation going." Even if private armies could be hired to defend the mines against insurgent attack, the cost of moving minerals out would likely be prohibitive until the entire country was secure, which could take many years. One longtime mining expert formerly based in Kabul recounted his conversation with a top mining firm. "They said: 'Don't worry, we can bring our own security detail and do the mining operation'. But, they said, 'How are we going to get this stuff out of the country?'" According to a 2014 mining ministry study, some of Afghanistan's most promising deposits of lithium are in the eastern province of Ghazni and in the far southern region of Gowde Zereh in Helmand province, all areas largely under the control of the Taliban. "The idea that this will materialise in the near future and pay for the security sector budget is unrealistic," said Byrd. Even without the war, mining is tough. China acquired a 30-year lease on the Mes Aynak copper mine for around $3 billion in 2008 but, although the Taliban has explicitly declared that it will not target it, the project has been plagued by delays due to contractual wrangling. Under a donor programme agreed in Tokyo in 2012, Afghanistan was supposed to be earning $1 billion a year from mining revenues by 2017 but expectations have been pulled back. In the first 11 months of the last fiscal year, the government raised just $18 million from mining revenues and the government's own projections now do not see them exceeding the $1 billion mark before 2029. That compares with security spending of $4.6 billion this year, equivalent to almost a quarter of the total budget. "It's illusory to think that minerals will save Afghanistan in any foreseeable future," said one senior Western diplomat in Kabul.

Trump eyeing Afghanistan's mineral wealth to pay for 16-year war

<p>&nbsp;United States President Donald Trump wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan as he thinks that the Washington is being ripped off by Islamabad.</p>

<p>As per Foreign Policy report, US&nbsp;is considering to increase troop levels up to 15, 000 in Afghanistan as part of the new strategy, which also would change the US&nbsp;relationship with Pakistan significantly.</p>

<p>The report quoted a White House official as saying that &quot;the President thinks we&#39;re being ripped off by Pakistan. The president wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan. That&#39;s part of the strategy&quot;.</p>

<p>The report further said the Pentagon has already frozen support to Islamabad under the coalition support fund, which provides payments to Pakistan for supporting counterterrorism operations.</p>

<p>This move is being considered due to Pakistan&#39;s constant support to insurgent group Taliban. However, US&nbsp;wants to ensure the survival of the Afghan government by ending the war in the country by negotiating with the Taliban.</p>

<p>This move is triggered by Pakistan&#39;s insufficient actions against the Haqqani network, an insurgent group based in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said.</p>

<p>Currently, around 8400 US.soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>Terming Afghanistan issue as &#39;a mess&#39; that he took over from the previous administration; Trump had said that his administration is getting close to a decision on an updated strategy for the war in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>US Defense Secretary James Mattis had also hinted that President Trump is &quot;very close&quot; to making a decision on the strategy.</p>

<p>&quot;We&#39;re sharpening each one of the options so you can see the pluses and minuses of each one so that there&#39;s no longer any new data you&#39;re going to get. Now [he can] just make the decision,&quot; Mattis said.</p>

<p>Earlier, reports had emerged that the US&nbsp;administration may consider outsourcing the war management in Afghanistan to a private firm. (ANI)</p>


This move is reported;y being considered due to Pakistan's constant support to insurgent group Taliban

United States President Donald Trump wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan as he thinks that the Washington is being ripped off by Islamabad. As per Foreign Policy report, US is considering to increase troop levels up to 15, 000 in Afghanistan as part of the new strategy, which also would change the US relationship with Pakistan significantly. The report quoted a White House official as saying that "the President thinks we're being ripped off by Pakistan. The president wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan. That's part of the strategy". The report further said the Pentagon has already frozen support to Islamabad under the coalition support fund, which provides payments to Pakistan for supporting counterterrorism operations. This move is being considered due to Pakistan's constant support to insurgent group Taliban. However, US wants to ensure the survival of the Afghan government by ending the war in the country by negotiating with the Taliban. This move is triggered by Pakistan's insufficient actions against the Haqqani network, an insurgent group based in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said. Currently, around 8400 US.soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan. Terming Afghanistan issue as 'a mess' that he took over from the previous administration; Trump had said that his administration is getting close to a decision on an updated strategy for the war in Afghanistan. US Defense Secretary James Mattis had also hinted that President Trump is "very close" to making a decision on the strategy. "We're sharpening each one of the options so you can see the pluses and minuses of each one so that there's no longer any new data you're going to get. Now [he can] just make the decision," Mattis said. Earlier, reports had emerged that the US administration may consider outsourcing the war management in Afghanistan to a private firm. (ANI)

Trump wants to 'cut all military aid to Pakistan', thinks Washington is being 'ripped off' by Islamabad: Report

afghanistan-0

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

afghanistan 0