The United Nations Security Council's 1267 committee will decide on March 13 whether <a href="http://www.wionews.com/photos/ghost-of-kandahar-how-masood-azhars-release-keeps-haunting-india-200294#the-deadly-kandahar-hijack-200288">Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar</a> should be listed as an international terrorist. (The vote will take place at 3 pm, New York time or 1.30 am on March 14, Indian Standard Time.)&nbsp;

India has urged the UNSC to put Azhar on the UN terror list.&nbsp;

The UN-listed, Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed had claimed responsibility for the February 14 Pulwama attack that had left over 40 CRPF personnel dead in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.&nbsp;

"All members of the UNSC are aware about Jaish-e-Mohammed training camps in Pakistan and about the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad and his presence in Pakistan. We call upon all members of UNSC to list Masood Azhar as a designated terrorist under 1267 UN Sanctions Committee," Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar had said. &nbsp;

Azhar's listing as an international terrorist will put a freeze on his assets and put him on a global no-flight list. His listing will also help New Delhi point out how Pakistan has been an epicentre of terrorism.

France, along with the United States and the UK, had proposed Azhar's listing in the last week of February. Russia has supported the listing.

Deputy spokesperson of the US State Department Robert Palladino, reacting to Azhar's possible listing, said, "We will continue to work with the sanctions committee to ensure that the list is updated and that it’s accurate."

That leaves <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/responsible-discussions-can-resolve-the-issue-in-a-sustainable-manner-china-on-listing-jem-chief-masood-azhar-as-global-terrorist-at-unsc-202820">China as New Delhi's only worry</a>.&nbsp;

Beijing has blocked Masood Azhar's listing three times since 2016 when India first called for it.&nbsp;

Asked about Azhar's listing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said on Monday that the matter can only be resolved in a "responsible manner".

"China has all along participated in relevant discussions in a responsible manner and in strict accordance with the rules of procedure and provisions of the 1267 committee. China will continue to communicate and work with relevant parties in a responsible manner so as to properly resolve this matter. Only by making a decision through responsible and serious discussions can we find a lasting solution."

While pressure has been growing on Islamabad — from Washington to Kabul — to act on terrorists, China has been reluctant so far to call out its all-weather ally. The reluctance has been primarily due to economic considerations which include CPEC — the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which provides China with connectivity to west Asia.

The United Nations Security Council's 1267 committee will decide on March 13 whether Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar should be listed as an international terrorist.

The United Nations Security Council's 1267 committee will decide on March 13 whether Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar should be listed as an international terrorist. (The vote will take place at 3 pm, New York time or 1.30 am on March 14, Indian Standard Time.) India has urged the UNSC to put Azhar on the UN terror list. The UN-listed, Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed had claimed responsibility for the February 14 Pulwama attack that had left over 40 CRPF personnel dead in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. "All members of the UNSC are aware about Jaish-e-Mohammed training camps in Pakistan and about the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad and his presence in Pakistan. We call upon all members of UNSC to list Masood Azhar as a designated terrorist under 1267 UN Sanctions Committee," Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar had said. Azhar's listing as an international terrorist will put a freeze on his assets and put him on a global no-flight list. His listing will also help New Delhi point out how Pakistan has been an epicentre of terrorism. France, along with the United States and the UK, had proposed Azhar's listing in the last week of February. Russia has supported the listing. Deputy spokesperson of the US State Department Robert Palladino, reacting to Azhar's possible listing, said, "We will continue to work with the sanctions committee to ensure that the list is updated and that it’s accurate." That leaves China as New Delhi's only worry. Beijing has blocked Masood Azhar's listing three times since 2016 when India first called for it. Asked about Azhar's listing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said on Monday that the matter can only be resolved in a "responsible manner". "China has all along participated in relevant discussions in a responsible manner and in strict accordance with the rules of procedure and provisions of the 1267 committee. China will continue to communicate and work with relevant parties in a responsible manner so as to properly resolve this matter. Only by making a decision through responsible and serious discussions can we find a lasting solution." While pressure has been growing on Islamabad — from Washington to Kabul — to act on terrorists, China has been reluctant so far to call out its all-weather ally. The reluctance has been primarily due to economic considerations which include CPEC — the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which provides China with connectivity to west Asia.

Decision today, India urges UNSC to list Masood Azhar as international terrorist

The United States is to withdraw all remaining diplomatic personnel from Venezuela this week, the US State Department announced late on Thursday.

"Like the January 24 decision to withdraw all dependents and reduce embassy staff to a minimum, this decision reflects the deteriorating situation in Venezuela as well as the conclusion that the presence of US diplomatic staff at the embassy has become a constraint on US policy," the State Department said.

It did not say on what day the personnel would be withdrawn from the embassy in Caracas.

The South American nation has been in the throes of political unrest for months over its contested presidential election.

Venezuela is suspending school and business activities on Tuesday amid a continuing power blackout, Information Minister Jorge Rodriguez said in a televised broadcast on Monday.

It is the third such cancellation since power went out last week.

The United States is to withdraw all remaining diplomatic personnel from Venezuela this week, the US State Department announced late on Thursday. "Like the January 24 decision to withdraw all dependents and reduce embassy staff to a minimum, this decision reflects the deteriorating situation in Venezuela as well as the conclusion that the presence of US diplomatic staff at the embassy has become a constraint on US policy," the State Department said.

The United States is to withdraw all remaining diplomatic personnel from Venezuela this week, the US State Department announced late on Thursday. "Like the January 24 decision to withdraw all dependents and reduce embassy staff to a minimum, this decision reflects the deteriorating situation in Venezuela as well as the conclusion that the presence of US diplomatic staff at the embassy has become a constraint on US policy," the State Department said. It did not say on what day the personnel would be withdrawn from the embassy in Caracas. The South American nation has been in the throes of political unrest for months over its contested presidential election. Venezuela is suspending school and business activities on Tuesday amid a continuing power blackout, Information Minister Jorge Rodriguez said in a televised broadcast on Monday. It is the third such cancellation since power went out last week.

US says to withdraw all remaining diplomatic personnel from Venezuela

The United States on Monday warned Germany about future "information sharing" if it uses "untrusted vendors" in its 5G telecom infrastructure amid debate over whether <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-government-hacked-our-servers-stole-company-emails-huawei-201657">Chinese IT giant Huawei</a> is an espionage risk.

The Wall Street Journal reported that US Ambassador Richard Grenell sent a letter to German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier on Friday warning that in such a case the US could scale down intelligence and other information exchanges.

A US embassy spokesperson told AFP on Monday it would not comment on diplomatic communications, but added that its position on 5G network security was well known.

"To the extent there are untrusted vendors in the networks of an ally, that could raise future questions about the integrity and confidentiality of sensitive communications within that country, as well as between that country and its allies," the spokesperson said.&nbsp;

"This could in the future jeopardise nimble cooperation and some sharing of information. We are engaging intensively with our allies on how to secure our telecommunications networks to ensure continued interoperability."

German minister Altmaier confirmed he had received the letter, but told AFP he could not comment on its contents, adding: "We will respond quickly".

Germany, like other EU countries, has relied heavily on US intelligence on terror and other threats provided by the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and other spy services.

The US and several other Western nations, fearful of the security risks posed by the company closely tied to the Chinese government, have shut <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/huawei-calls-for-common-cybersecurity-standards-amidst-concerns-201312">Huawei </a>out of tenders for the development of the newest 5G infrastructure.

The Chinese telecoms behemoth has strenuously denied the espionage allegations.

Germany, anxious to not get sucked into the maelstrom of an ongoing US-China spat over a multitude of issues including trade, has taken a cautious stance on the issue.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has said it was necessary to talk to Beijing "to make sure that the company does not simply give up all data that is used to the Chinese state, but that there are safeguards".

Some measures in the works include adding a non-spying clause, a requirement to publish code sources used in the infrastructures as well as allowing independent laboratories to carry out tests on the components used.

Huawei has quietly become a leading supplier of the backbone equipment for mobile networks, particularly in developing markets thanks to cheaper prices.

Germany, although it is Europe's leading economy, has seen its mobile infrastructure lag behind, with most Germans having access only to 3G.

The 5G network is meant to be 100 times more rapid than 4G, and is viewed as the next major step in the digital revolution that makes data transfers almost instantaneous.

The United States on Monday warned Germany about future "information sharing" if it uses "untrusted vendors" in its 5G telecom infrastructure amid debate over whether Chinese IT giant Huawei is an espionage risk.

The United States on Monday warned Germany about future "information sharing" if it uses "untrusted vendors" in its 5G telecom infrastructure amid debate over whether Chinese IT giant Huawei is an espionage risk. The Wall Street Journal reported that US Ambassador Richard Grenell sent a letter to German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier on Friday warning that in such a case the US could scale down intelligence and other information exchanges. A US embassy spokesperson told AFP on Monday it would not comment on diplomatic communications, but added that its position on 5G network security was well known. "To the extent there are untrusted vendors in the networks of an ally, that could raise future questions about the integrity and confidentiality of sensitive communications within that country, as well as between that country and its allies," the spokesperson said. "This could in the future jeopardise nimble cooperation and some sharing of information. We are engaging intensively with our allies on how to secure our telecommunications networks to ensure continued interoperability." German minister Altmaier confirmed he had received the letter, but told AFP he could not comment on its contents, adding: "We will respond quickly". Germany, like other EU countries, has relied heavily on US intelligence on terror and other threats provided by the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and other spy services. The US and several other Western nations, fearful of the security risks posed by the company closely tied to the Chinese government, have shut Huawei out of tenders for the development of the newest 5G infrastructure. The Chinese telecoms behemoth has strenuously denied the espionage allegations. Germany, anxious to not get sucked into the maelstrom of an ongoing US-China spat over a multitude of issues including trade, has taken a cautious stance on the issue. Chancellor Angela Merkel has said it was necessary to talk to Beijing "to make sure that the company does not simply give up all data that is used to the Chinese state, but that there are safeguards". Some measures in the works include adding a non-spying clause, a requirement to publish code sources used in the infrastructures as well as allowing independent laboratories to carry out tests on the components used. Huawei has quietly become a leading supplier of the backbone equipment for mobile networks, particularly in developing markets thanks to cheaper prices. Germany, although it is Europe's leading economy, has seen its mobile infrastructure lag behind, with most Germans having access only to 3G. The 5G network is meant to be 100 times more rapid than 4G, and is viewed as the next major step in the digital revolution that makes data transfers almost instantaneous.

US warns Germany Huawei deal could hurt intelligence sharing

Top US and Chinese officials held phone talks Tuesday to discuss the next steps in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/explaining-the-us-china-trade-war-which-grabbed-spotlight-in-2018-185043">trade negotiations</a>, Chinese state media said, as the White House said no date has been set for a summit.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer spoke with Beijing's top economic official Liu He over the phone to discuss "key issues" on trade, the official news agency Xinhua reported.

The top negotiators also discussed the "next steps" in their talks, the brief report said, without providing details.

China and the United States have been locked in a trade war since last year, imposing tit-for-tat tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of mutual trade, spooking global markets.

Top-level negotiators are trying to hammer out an agreement before a truce expires, potentially triggering additional US tariffs on Chinese goods.

A possible summit between President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping remains up in the air, the White House said Monday.

Trump has previously expressed optimism that he will meet with Xi, probably at his Florida golf club Mar-a-Lago this month, to finalise an eventual trade deal.

But Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said it was too early to announce a meeting.

"In terms of whether or not we have a date set, not yet. We're continuing negotiations with China," she said at the White House. "When we have an announcement for the two leaders to sit down, we'll let you know."

The press secretary also said she was unaware of any plan for Xi and Trump to speak by phone.

Sanders said Trump will not agree to anything short of a deal beneficial to the United States.&nbsp;

She denied that the breakdown of Trump's attempts to negotiate with North Korea over the country's nuclear weapons had weakened his standing in Beijing.

"I would say that's absurd. He's going to make a deal if it's a good deal, if it's in the best interest of America, and if he doesn't feel like it's a good deal, it's not worth just signing a piece of paper," Sanders said.

"The president's gonna make sure whatever deal we get is in our best interest, that it's fair and reciprocal trade, that it protects our intellectual property and has safeguards."

Top US and Chinese officials held phone talks Tuesday to discuss the next steps in trade negotiations, Chinese state media said, as the White House said no date has been set for a summit.

Top US and Chinese officials held phone talks Tuesday to discuss the next steps in trade negotiations, Chinese state media said, as the White House said no date has been set for a summit. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer spoke with Beijing's top economic official Liu He over the phone to discuss "key issues" on trade, the official news agency Xinhua reported. The top negotiators also discussed the "next steps" in their talks, the brief report said, without providing details. China and the United States have been locked in a trade war since last year, imposing tit-for-tat tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of mutual trade, spooking global markets. Top-level negotiators are trying to hammer out an agreement before a truce expires, potentially triggering additional US tariffs on Chinese goods. A possible summit between President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping remains up in the air, the White House said Monday. Trump has previously expressed optimism that he will meet with Xi, probably at his Florida golf club Mar-a-Lago this month, to finalise an eventual trade deal. But Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said it was too early to announce a meeting. "In terms of whether or not we have a date set, not yet. We're continuing negotiations with China," she said at the White House. "When we have an announcement for the two leaders to sit down, we'll let you know." The press secretary also said she was unaware of any plan for Xi and Trump to speak by phone. Sanders said Trump will not agree to anything short of a deal beneficial to the United States. She denied that the breakdown of Trump's attempts to negotiate with North Korea over the country's nuclear weapons had weakened his standing in Beijing. "I would say that's absurd. He's going to make a deal if it's a good deal, if it's in the best interest of America, and if he doesn't feel like it's a good deal, it's not worth just signing a piece of paper," Sanders said. "The president's gonna make sure whatever deal we get is in our best interest, that it's fair and reciprocal trade, that it protects our intellectual property and has safeguards."

US, China negotiators talk but no date for Trump-Xi trade summit

Olympian Kelly Catlin, who helped the United States win the women's pursuit team silver medal at the 2016 Rio Games, has died, USA Cycling said. The three-time world champion was 23.

"The US cycling community suffered a devastating loss with the passing of Kelly Catlin," USA Cycling President and Chief Executive Rob DeMartini said in a statement. "Kelly was more than an athlete to us, and she will always be part of the USA Cycling family."

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the Catlin family. This is an incredibly difficult time and we want to respect their privacy," the statement added. "The entire cycling community is mourning this immense loss."

VeloNews reported that Catlin's father, Mark, said in a letter to the publication that she died on Friday night at her home in California. Her father told the publication that she died by suicide.

Catlin won gold medals with the US&nbsp;women's team pursuit team at the 2016, 2017 and 2018 world championships.

She was a graduate of the University of Minnesota.

Olympian Kelly Catlin, who helped the United States win the women's pursuit team silver medal at the 2016 Rio Games, has died, USA Cycling said. The three-time world champion was 23.

Olympian Kelly Catlin, who helped the United States win the women's pursuit team silver medal at the 2016 Rio Games, has died, USA Cycling said. The three-time world champion was 23. "The US cycling community suffered a devastating loss with the passing of Kelly Catlin," USA Cycling President and Chief Executive Rob DeMartini said in a statement. "Kelly was more than an athlete to us, and she will always be part of the USA Cycling family." "Our thoughts and prayers are with the Catlin family. This is an incredibly difficult time and we want to respect their privacy," the statement added. "The entire cycling community is mourning this immense loss." VeloNews reported that Catlin's father, Mark, said in a letter to the publication that she died on Friday night at her home in California. Her father told the publication that she died by suicide. Catlin won gold medals with the US women's team pursuit team at the 2016, 2017 and 2018 world championships. She was a graduate of the University of Minnesota.

Cycling: US Olympic medalist Kelly Catlin dies at age 23, father says it's 'suicide'

Indian foreign secretary to meet Mike Pompeo, Pakistan terror funding high on agenda

With an increasing number of US businesses no longer accepting cash, Philadelphia -- the City of Brotherly Love -- is taking a stand to protect the so-called "<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/why-a-cashless-india-could-be-a-distant-dream-1620">unbanked</a>" and will force merchants to accept greenbacks.

It will be the first major US city to outright reject a trend that has seen more and more retail outlets, especially restaurants, move to only accept payments via credit or debit cards and mobile phones.&nbsp;

Consumers and businesses who support digital payments say they are faster and more practical, but opponents say such practices exclude the "unbanked" -- those without bank accounts or credit cards.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney recently signed into law an amendment to the city's Fair Practices Ordinance prohibiting stores and restaurants from refusing to accept cash, calling it "unlawful discrimination."

The measure will go into effect on July 1.

Despite the cashless trend, the United States remains far behind other countries in terms of digital payment technology. In China, paying by smartphone is widely used.

According to data published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 32 percent of all consumer transactions were made with cash in 2015, down from 40 percent in 2012.

According to a study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 6.5 percent of American households were "unbanked" in 2017 -- a figure that has steadily declined since 2011, but which still accounts for nearly eight million households.

Beyond the action taken in Philadelphia, state lawmakers in New Jersey passed a bill in February that would make it illegal to run a cashless store, but Democratic Governor Phil Murphy has not yet signed it.

In New York and San Francisco, initiatives are working their way through legislative channels, but no city council votes are scheduled for now.

Lawmakers in Washington and Chicago have passed similar legislation, but they have not yet been ratified.

That makes Massachusetts the only US state so far which has a law on the books forcing all merchants to accept cash. But the measure, adopted more than 40 years ago, has not been applied in practice.

Fast-casual salad chain Sweetgreen, which no longer accepts cash in any of its restaurants, declined to comment when asked by AFP how it would implement the measure passed in Philadelphia.

With an increasing number of US businesses no longer accepting cash, Philadelphia -- the City of Brotherly Love -- is taking a stand to protect the so-called "unbanked" and will force merchants to accept greenbacks.

With an increasing number of US businesses no longer accepting cash, Philadelphia -- the City of Brotherly Love -- is taking a stand to protect the so-called "unbanked" and will force merchants to accept greenbacks. It will be the first major US city to outright reject a trend that has seen more and more retail outlets, especially restaurants, move to only accept payments via credit or debit cards and mobile phones. Consumers and businesses who support digital payments say they are faster and more practical, but opponents say such practices exclude the "unbanked" -- those without bank accounts or credit cards. Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney recently signed into law an amendment to the city's Fair Practices Ordinance prohibiting stores and restaurants from refusing to accept cash, calling it "unlawful discrimination." The measure will go into effect on July 1. Despite the cashless trend, the United States remains far behind other countries in terms of digital payment technology. In China, paying by smartphone is widely used. According to data published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 32 percent of all consumer transactions were made with cash in 2015, down from 40 percent in 2012. According to a study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 6.5 percent of American households were "unbanked" in 2017 -- a figure that has steadily declined since 2011, but which still accounts for nearly eight million households. Beyond the action taken in Philadelphia, state lawmakers in New Jersey passed a bill in February that would make it illegal to run a cashless store, but Democratic Governor Phil Murphy has not yet signed it. In New York and San Francisco, initiatives are working their way through legislative channels, but no city council votes are scheduled for now. Lawmakers in Washington and Chicago have passed similar legislation, but they have not yet been ratified. That makes Massachusetts the only US state so far which has a law on the books forcing all merchants to accept cash. But the measure, adopted more than 40 years ago, has not been applied in practice. Fast-casual salad chain Sweetgreen, which no longer accepts cash in any of its restaurants, declined to comment when asked by AFP how it would implement the measure passed in Philadelphia.

US's Philadelphia says no to totally cashless future

WION Gravitas: Ex-Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort jailed for tax and bank fraud

The Taliban denied on Friday that they were discussing a ceasefire and dialogue with the Kabul government during ongoing talks with the US in Doha, contrary to statements from Washington.

"This phase is about fleshing out the details of the two issues... The withdrawal of all occupying forces from Afghanistan and not allowing" the country to be used as a base for international militancy, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said.

He described them as "external" aspects of the 17-year conflict. "Other issues that have an internal aspect and are not tied to the United States... Have not been held under discussion." On Tuesday, US State Department spokesman Robert Palladino had affirmed the opposite.

"What we're focusing on are the four interconnected issues that are going to compose any future agreement," Palladino said -- listing them as "terrorism", "troop withdrawal", "intra-Afghan dialogue" and "ceasefire". He said progress was being made.

The latest round of talks, believed to be among the longest held between Washington and the militants, began on February 25 in the Qatari capital. Both sides have remained tight-lipped, however, and it is not clear how many days have involved direct negotiations.

The talks have already been paused at least once for two days, and the Taliban said Friday that they were again being suspended for a day, due to resume Saturday. It is not clear how much longer they will go on for.

Expectations remain high. The previous round, in January, saw the US and the Taliban walk away with a "draft framework" that focused on the issues Mujahid said were being discussed this time: a potential US troop withdrawal and a pact to prevent Afghanistan from harbouring terrorists.

The Taliban have repeatedly refused to meet with the Afghan government, whom they dismiss as "puppets".

US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is leading the diplomatic push, had earlier hinted that headway was being made on the issue, however.

He also met with the Taliban's top political leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar at the start of the current round in Doha, in what has been touted as the highest-level engagement between the two sides in the months-long diplomatic thrust. General Scott Miller, the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has also attended at least some of the talks.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced his eagerness to end America's involvement in Afghanistan, where 14,000 US troops are still deployed.

On Thursday, General Joseph Votel, head of US Central Command, said the military has received no directions yet to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has suggested he could visit Doha to help advance the negotiations "in a couple (of) weeks".

Afghanistan has been enmeshed in nearly constant conflict since the Soviet invasion in 1979, which was followed by civil war, the Taliban regime, and the post-9/11 US invasion in late 2001.

The Taliban denied on Friday that they were discussing a ceasefire and dialogue with the Kabul government during ongoing talks with the US in Doha, contrary to statements from Washington.

The Taliban denied on Friday that they were discussing a ceasefire and dialogue with the Kabul government during ongoing talks with the US in Doha, contrary to statements from Washington. "This phase is about fleshing out the details of the two issues... The withdrawal of all occupying forces from Afghanistan and not allowing" the country to be used as a base for international militancy, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said. He described them as "external" aspects of the 17-year conflict. "Other issues that have an internal aspect and are not tied to the United States... Have not been held under discussion." On Tuesday, US State Department spokesman Robert Palladino had affirmed the opposite. "What we're focusing on are the four interconnected issues that are going to compose any future agreement," Palladino said -- listing them as "terrorism", "troop withdrawal", "intra-Afghan dialogue" and "ceasefire". He said progress was being made. The latest round of talks, believed to be among the longest held between Washington and the militants, began on February 25 in the Qatari capital. Both sides have remained tight-lipped, however, and it is not clear how many days have involved direct negotiations. The talks have already been paused at least once for two days, and the Taliban said Friday that they were again being suspended for a day, due to resume Saturday. It is not clear how much longer they will go on for. Expectations remain high. The previous round, in January, saw the US and the Taliban walk away with a "draft framework" that focused on the issues Mujahid said were being discussed this time: a potential US troop withdrawal and a pact to prevent Afghanistan from harbouring terrorists. The Taliban have repeatedly refused to meet with the Afghan government, whom they dismiss as "puppets". US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is leading the diplomatic push, had earlier hinted that headway was being made on the issue, however. He also met with the Taliban's top political leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar at the start of the current round in Doha, in what has been touted as the highest-level engagement between the two sides in the months-long diplomatic thrust. General Scott Miller, the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has also attended at least some of the talks. President Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced his eagerness to end America's involvement in Afghanistan, where 14,000 US troops are still deployed. On Thursday, General Joseph Votel, head of US Central Command, said the military has received no directions yet to withdraw from Afghanistan. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has suggested he could visit Doha to help advance the negotiations "in a couple (of) weeks". Afghanistan has been enmeshed in nearly constant conflict since the Soviet invasion in 1979, which was followed by civil war, the Taliban regime, and the post-9/11 US invasion in late 2001.

Taliban deny discussing ceasefire, Afghan dialogue with US

The&nbsp;Joint&nbsp;Commission&nbsp;of the&nbsp;Joint&nbsp;Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) held its first meeting in&nbsp;Vienna&nbsp;on Wednesday since the establishment of the European Union's (EU) so-called special purpose vehicle (SPV) designed to facilitate trade with&nbsp;Iran.

The meeting was hosted by Helga Schmid, Secretary General of the European External Action Service, and attended by representatives from China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and Iran.

The meeting was held&nbsp;without&nbsp;the United States, which endorsed the&nbsp;nuclear&nbsp;deal&nbsp;with Tehran during the Obama administration but withdrew from it under President Donald Trump in spite of the EU's repeated calls for it to remain in the&nbsp;deal.

Since the U.S.' withdrawal in May last year, some other countries involved, including major European powers such as Germany, France, and Britain, have tried to keep the&nbsp;deal&nbsp;alive.

In a statement after the meeting, all parties reiterated their commitments to upholding and implementing the&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;nuclear&nbsp;deal&nbsp;and enhancing coordination in this regard. Fu Cong, head of the Department of Arms Control of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called for unity and efforts by all parties to push for the implementation of the&nbsp;deal.

At the end of January, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Britain launched the special purpose vehicle to secure trade with&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;and skirt the U.S.' anti-Iran&nbsp;sanctions after Washington pulled out of the landmark 2015&nbsp;nuclear&nbsp;deal.

By launching the SPV mechanism, or the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), the three European countries reiterated "their resolute commitment and continued efforts to preserve the&nbsp;Joint&nbsp;Comprehensive Plan of Action".

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;will establish a mirror structure this month and hopes the two mechanisms can work with each other.

"We hope that in the coming weeks, INSTEX would become operational. This is for all the goods and commodities, not only humanitarian goods but maybe it started from humanitarian, in order to set the patterns for doing business with&nbsp;Iran," said Araghchi.

The Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) held its first meeting in Vienna on Wednesday since the establishment of the European Union's (EU) so-called special purpose vehicle (SPV) designed to facilitate trade with Iran.

The Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) held its first meeting in Vienna on Wednesday since the establishment of the European Union's (EU) so-called special purpose vehicle (SPV) designed to facilitate trade with Iran. The meeting was hosted by Helga Schmid, Secretary General of the European External Action Service, and attended by representatives from China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and Iran. The meeting was held without the United States, which endorsed the nuclear deal with Tehran during the Obama administration but withdrew from it under President Donald Trump in spite of the EU's repeated calls for it to remain in the deal. Since the U.S.' withdrawal in May last year, some other countries involved, including major European powers such as Germany, France, and Britain, have tried to keep the deal alive. In a statement after the meeting, all parties reiterated their commitments to upholding and implementing the Iran nuclear deal and enhancing coordination in this regard. Fu Cong, head of the Department of Arms Control of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called for unity and efforts by all parties to push for the implementation of the deal. At the end of January, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Britain launched the special purpose vehicle to secure trade with Iran and skirt the U.S.' anti-Iran sanctions after Washington pulled out of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal. By launching the SPV mechanism, or the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), the three European countries reiterated "their resolute commitment and continued efforts to preserve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran will establish a mirror structure this month and hopes the two mechanisms can work with each other. "We hope that in the coming weeks, INSTEX would become operational. This is for all the goods and commodities, not only humanitarian goods but maybe it started from humanitarian, in order to set the patterns for doing business with Iran," said Araghchi.

Iran nuclear deal joint commission meets in Vienna without US

The United States supports "dictators, butchers and extremists" in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/iran-warns-us-allies-of-humiliated-citizens-uprising-200889">Middle East</a>, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a Twitter post-Wednesday in a response to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-calls-apple-ceo-tim-apple-twitter-responds-with-funniest-memes-201755">US&nbsp;President Donald Trump</a>'s State of the Union speech.

Tensions have ramped up between <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/iran-nuclear-deal-joint-commission-meets-in-vienna-without-us-201692">Iran and the United States</a> since Trump pulled out of a multilateral nuclear deal last May and reimposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

"US hostility has led it to support dictators, butchers &amp; extremists, who've only brought ruin to our region," Zarif wrote in the Twitter post.

Trump called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terror" during his speech and said his administration had acted decisively to confront it, according to a video of the speech posted on the official White House website.

"It is a radical regime. They do bad, bad things," Trump said. "We will not avert our eyes from a regime that chants 'death to America' and threatens genocide against the Jewish people."

Zarif responded by saying that Iran, including its Jewish community, was commemorating progress as it prepares to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution on Monday.

"Iranians—including our Jewish compatriots—are commemorating 40 years of progress despite US pressure, just as @realDonaldTrump again makes accusations against us @ #SOTU2019" Zarif wrote on Twitter, referring to the State of the Union address.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Iranians—including our Jewish compatriots—are commemorating 40 yrs of progress despite US pressure, just as <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> again makes accusations against us @ <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SOTU2019?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SOTU2019</a>. US hostility has led it to support dictators, butchers &amp; extremists, who've only brought ruin to our region
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) <a href="https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1093014273347981314?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Top Iranian officials, including President Hassan Rouhani, have said that the Islamic Republic is facing its toughest economic situation in 40 years, at least partially due to the US&nbsp;sanctions.

The United States supports "dictators, butchers and extremists" in the Middle East, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a Twitter post-Wednesday in a response to US President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech.

The United States supports "dictators, butchers and extremists" in the Middle East, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a Twitter post-Wednesday in a response to US President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech. Tensions have ramped up between Iran and the United States since Trump pulled out of a multilateral nuclear deal last May and reimposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic. "US hostility has led it to support dictators, butchers & extremists, who've only brought ruin to our region," Zarif wrote in the Twitter post. Trump called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terror" during his speech and said his administration had acted decisively to confront it, according to a video of the speech posted on the official White House website. "It is a radical regime. They do bad, bad things," Trump said. "We will not avert our eyes from a regime that chants 'death to America' and threatens genocide against the Jewish people." Zarif responded by saying that Iran, including its Jewish community, was commemorating progress as it prepares to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution on Monday. "Iranians—including our Jewish compatriots—are commemorating 40 years of progress despite US pressure, just as @realDonaldTrump again makes accusations against us @ #SOTU2019" Zarif wrote on Twitter, referring to the State of the Union address. Iranians—including our Jewish compatriots—are commemorating 40 yrs of progress despite US pressure, just as @realDonaldTrump again makes accusations against us @ #SOTU2019. US hostility has led it to support dictators, butchers & extremists, who've only brought ruin to our region — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) February 6, 2019 × Top Iranian officials, including President Hassan Rouhani, have said that the Islamic Republic is facing its toughest economic situation in 40 years, at least partially due to the US sanctions.

US supports 'dictators, butchers and extremists' in Middle East: Iran

The US is "very closely" following the reports which have claimed that Pakistan misused American-made <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-seeks-information-on-potential-misuse-of-f-16-by-pakistan-200652">F-16 fighter jets against India</a> in the recent aerial confrontation between the air forces of the two countries, a top State Department official has said.

The Indian Air Force on Thursday displayed parts of an AMRAAM beyond visual range air-to-air missile as evidence to "conclusively" prove that Pakistan deployed US-manufactured F-16 fighter jets during an aerial raid targeting Indian military installations in Kashmir after India's anti-terror operation in Balakot.

Pakistan has said that no F-16 fighter jets were used.

The US State Department has said that America is seeking more information from Pakistan on the potential misuse of American-made F-16 fighter jets by it against India in violation of the end-user agreement.

"We've seen those reports and we're following that issue very closely," US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Robert Palladino told reporters at his biweekly news conference on Tuesday.

He was responding to questions that Pakistan has violated the end-user agreement on F-16 that it procured from the United States.

"I can't confirm anything, but as a matter of policy, we don't publicly comment on the contents of bilateral agreements that we have in this regard involving US defence technologies nor the communications that we have with other countries about that.

"So, we're taking a look and we're going to continue to take a look. I'm going to leave it at that," Palladino said.

AMRAAM missiles allow a fighter pilot to target an enemy aircraft that is beyond visual range, in day or night, and in all weather conditions. They have an autonomous guidance capability, which allows the pilot to manoeuvre immediately after the missile's launch.

Tensions between India and Pakistan flared up after a suicide bomber of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed killed 40 Central Reserve Police Force personnel in Kashmir's Pulwama district on February 14.

India launched a counter-terror operation in Balakot on February 26.The next day, Pakistan Air Force retaliated and downed a MiG-21 and captured its pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, who was handed over to India on Friday.

The US is "very closely" following the reports which have claimed that Pakistan misused American-made F-16 fighter jets against India in the recent aerial confrontation between the air forces of the two countries, a top State Department official has said.

The US is "very closely" following the reports which have claimed that Pakistan misused American-made F-16 fighter jets against India in the recent aerial confrontation between the air forces of the two countries, a top State Department official has said. The Indian Air Force on Thursday displayed parts of an AMRAAM beyond visual range air-to-air missile as evidence to "conclusively" prove that Pakistan deployed US-manufactured F-16 fighter jets during an aerial raid targeting Indian military installations in Kashmir after India's anti-terror operation in Balakot. Pakistan has said that no F-16 fighter jets were used. The US State Department has said that America is seeking more information from Pakistan on the potential misuse of American-made F-16 fighter jets by it against India in violation of the end-user agreement. "We've seen those reports and we're following that issue very closely," US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Robert Palladino told reporters at his biweekly news conference on Tuesday. He was responding to questions that Pakistan has violated the end-user agreement on F-16 that it procured from the United States. "I can't confirm anything, but as a matter of policy, we don't publicly comment on the contents of bilateral agreements that we have in this regard involving US defence technologies nor the communications that we have with other countries about that. "So, we're taking a look and we're going to continue to take a look. I'm going to leave it at that," Palladino said. AMRAAM missiles allow a fighter pilot to target an enemy aircraft that is beyond visual range, in day or night, and in all weather conditions. They have an autonomous guidance capability, which allows the pilot to manoeuvre immediately after the missile's launch. Tensions between India and Pakistan flared up after a suicide bomber of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed killed 40 Central Reserve Police Force personnel in Kashmir's Pulwama district on February 14. India launched a counter-terror operation in Balakot on February 26.The next day, Pakistan Air Force retaliated and downed a MiG-21 and captured its pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, who was handed over to India on Friday.

US ‘very closely’ following reports of F-16 misuse by Pakistan: State Department official

US continues to take steps for de-escalating Indo-Pak tensions

By Abdulkader Sinno

The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict.

In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory.

How did we get to this point – and what will be the consequences of such an agreement?

How did we get here?

As a longtime scholar of Afghanistan’s wars and conflict dynamics, I suggest beginning with a bit of history.

The current conflict began when the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan a few weeks after 9/11.

It was on Afghan soil that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot to attack the US. The Taliban, the de facto rulers of much of Afghanistan in the wake of a bloody civil war, had given bin Laden and his supporters'&nbsp;shelter.

Two months into the US invasion, Taliban state institutions and defensive positions crumbled and the United States formed new state institutions led by Afghans who had fought the Taliban. The US maintained a limited force to fight and capture Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders but otherwise invested little in the Afghan economy or society.

It took the Taliban four years to reconstitute itself as an effective force of insurgents to fight the US and the Afghan government, and they became stronger every year after 2004. As I explain in my research, the United States and the coalition of 42 countries it formed to defeat the resurgent Taliban was poorly organised, abusive and mismanaged.

Since 2001, the US-led coalition has spent $1 trillion dollars and committed a peak of 140,000 troops and 100,000 contractors to an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Taliban. More than 5,000 American soldiers and contractors were killed.

Today, a US force of 14,000 troops and massive US Airforce assets are helping maintain the defensive positions of an Afghan government that is widely considered as one of the most corrupt in the world.

The Taliban are making territorial gains and killing hundreds of regime troops each month, and feel that they are on the cusp of victory.

Militias that recruit from the Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek minorities have rearmed in anticipation of the collapse of the regime in Kabul and fear of a coming civil war with the mostly Pushtun Taliban. Afghanistan is nearing an endgame.

What it means for the Taliban

An agreement between the Taliban and the US would be an impressive accomplishment for the Taliban. From their perspective, it would be their reward for fighting the world’s strongest military power to a stalemate.

They already were rewarded by getting to negotiate directly with the United States, as they have always requested, instead of the Afghan regime which they despise. If the negotiations are successful, they would also be getting precisely what they asked for: an American withdrawal.

In return, they are making a commitment to do something they would likely have done anyway. Al-Qaida’s attack on the US caused the Taliban to lose control of Afghanistan for years. They are not likely to risk having to pay that cost again once they regain control of Kabul, even if they don’t sign an agreement.

What it means for the US 
 
There is little hope for an outright US victory over the Taliban at this point.

The remaining force of 14,000 US troops is mostly meant to shore up Afghan state defences. It is too small to reverse momentum on the battlefield. An agreement and withdrawal would, therefore, be attractive for those who value less military spending and stress on the military, including General John Nicholson, the previous commander of the American and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The agreement, however, could undermine US reputation in ways big and small. The Obama and Trump administrations never reversed a 2002 Bush executive order that added the Taliban to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, but they have simultaneously pleaded with them to negotiate in spite of claims that Washington does not negotiate with terrorists.

It also signals US weakness and inability to fight a dedicated force of insurgents. Militants elsewhere, including Islamic State leaders, could find this lesson instructive. I believe such an agreement may well be remembered as a turning point in America’s ability to successfully project its military power around the Muslim world.

An agreement could also signal that the US is an unreliable ally that abandons those who side with it. The United States is involved in numerous conflicts worldwide in places as diverse as Syria and Somalia, and many of its local allies would logically recalculate their own commitments after witnessing a US disengagement from Afghanistan.

What happens to the state

As I describe in my book “Organisations at War in Afghanistan,” governments tend to unravel quickly in Afghanistan when foreign support, both military and financial, ceases.

This is precisely what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and stopped their support to the Najib regime in the early 1990s. As I report in greater detail in my book, different regime militias and military units either disintegrated, joined their erstwhile Mujahideen opponents or became independent militias.

Similarly, today’s Afghan state officials at all levels have long hedged their bets by maintaining ties with the Taliban, their nominal opponents and minority militias. If history is any indication, we can expect that entire agencies and units will either fragment or collectively join any of several strongman-led ethnic militias when the rewards of working for the regime stop outweighing the risks of facing the Taliban. Some may even defect to the Taliban. This is expected behaviour in dangerous environments such as Afghanistan, where everyone is expected to have a hedging strategy for survival.

Once the state gets pulled in all directions, Afghanistan will likely degenerate into a civil war very similar to the one that the United States interrupted when it invaded in late 2001. Other countries, including Russia, Iran and India will choose sides to back. I estimate that the Taliban, with their dedicated Pakistani and Arab Gulf backers, will win that conflict, just like they almost did in 2001. We may very well reach a point where we see the 17-year American occupation as merely a futile, bloody and costly interruption of the Afghan civil war.

I consider a US-Taliban agreement to be no more than a face-saving measure to conclude a failed and costly American military intervention. If there is a useful lesson to be learned from this misadventure, it is that leaders of even the world’s mightiest military power need to reconsider the merits of a militarised foreign policy in the Muslim world. US military interventions are stoking resentment and inflaming a perpetual transnational insurgency across Muslim countries. If it doesn’t change its course, the US may very well suffer more defeats such as the one in Afghanistan and will cause even more hurt and damage in other countries along the way.

(Abdulkader Sinno is Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies, Indiana University)

(This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-will-come-after-a-us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-111036">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Abdulkader Sinno The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict. In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory.

By Abdulkader Sinno The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict. In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory. How did we get to this point – and what will be the consequences of such an agreement? How did we get here? As a longtime scholar of Afghanistan’s wars and conflict dynamics, I suggest beginning with a bit of history. The current conflict began when the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan a few weeks after 9/11. It was on Afghan soil that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot to attack the US. The Taliban, the de facto rulers of much of Afghanistan in the wake of a bloody civil war, had given bin Laden and his supporters' shelter. Two months into the US invasion, Taliban state institutions and defensive positions crumbled and the United States formed new state institutions led by Afghans who had fought the Taliban. The US maintained a limited force to fight and capture Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders but otherwise invested little in the Afghan economy or society. It took the Taliban four years to reconstitute itself as an effective force of insurgents to fight the US and the Afghan government, and they became stronger every year after 2004. As I explain in my research, the United States and the coalition of 42 countries it formed to defeat the resurgent Taliban was poorly organised, abusive and mismanaged. Since 2001, the US-led coalition has spent $1 trillion dollars and committed a peak of 140,000 troops and 100,000 contractors to an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Taliban. More than 5,000 American soldiers and contractors were killed. Today, a US force of 14,000 troops and massive US Airforce assets are helping maintain the defensive positions of an Afghan government that is widely considered as one of the most corrupt in the world. The Taliban are making territorial gains and killing hundreds of regime troops each month, and feel that they are on the cusp of victory. Militias that recruit from the Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek minorities have rearmed in anticipation of the collapse of the regime in Kabul and fear of a coming civil war with the mostly Pushtun Taliban. Afghanistan is nearing an endgame. What it means for the Taliban An agreement between the Taliban and the US would be an impressive accomplishment for the Taliban. From their perspective, it would be their reward for fighting the world’s strongest military power to a stalemate. They already were rewarded by getting to negotiate directly with the United States, as they have always requested, instead of the Afghan regime which they despise. If the negotiations are successful, they would also be getting precisely what they asked for: an American withdrawal. In return, they are making a commitment to do something they would likely have done anyway. Al-Qaida’s attack on the US caused the Taliban to lose control of Afghanistan for years. They are not likely to risk having to pay that cost again once they regain control of Kabul, even if they don’t sign an agreement. What it means for the US There is little hope for an outright US victory over the Taliban at this point. The remaining force of 14,000 US troops is mostly meant to shore up Afghan state defences. It is too small to reverse momentum on the battlefield. An agreement and withdrawal would, therefore, be attractive for those who value less military spending and stress on the military, including General John Nicholson, the previous commander of the American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The agreement, however, could undermine US reputation in ways big and small. The Obama and Trump administrations never reversed a 2002 Bush executive order that added the Taliban to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, but they have simultaneously pleaded with them to negotiate in spite of claims that Washington does not negotiate with terrorists. It also signals US weakness and inability to fight a dedicated force of insurgents. Militants elsewhere, including Islamic State leaders, could find this lesson instructive. I believe such an agreement may well be remembered as a turning point in America’s ability to successfully project its military power around the Muslim world. An agreement could also signal that the US is an unreliable ally that abandons those who side with it. The United States is involved in numerous conflicts worldwide in places as diverse as Syria and Somalia, and many of its local allies would logically recalculate their own commitments after witnessing a US disengagement from Afghanistan. What happens to the state As I describe in my book “Organisations at War in Afghanistan,” governments tend to unravel quickly in Afghanistan when foreign support, both military and financial, ceases. This is precisely what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and stopped their support to the Najib regime in the early 1990s. As I report in greater detail in my book, different regime militias and military units either disintegrated, joined their erstwhile Mujahideen opponents or became independent militias. Similarly, today’s Afghan state officials at all levels have long hedged their bets by maintaining ties with the Taliban, their nominal opponents and minority militias. If history is any indication, we can expect that entire agencies and units will either fragment or collectively join any of several strongman-led ethnic militias when the rewards of working for the regime stop outweighing the risks of facing the Taliban. Some may even defect to the Taliban. This is expected behaviour in dangerous environments such as Afghanistan, where everyone is expected to have a hedging strategy for survival. Once the state gets pulled in all directions, Afghanistan will likely degenerate into a civil war very similar to the one that the United States interrupted when it invaded in late 2001. Other countries, including Russia, Iran and India will choose sides to back. I estimate that the Taliban, with their dedicated Pakistani and Arab Gulf backers, will win that conflict, just like they almost did in 2001. We may very well reach a point where we see the 17-year American occupation as merely a futile, bloody and costly interruption of the Afghan civil war. I consider a US-Taliban agreement to be no more than a face-saving measure to conclude a failed and costly American military intervention. If there is a useful lesson to be learned from this misadventure, it is that leaders of even the world’s mightiest military power need to reconsider the merits of a militarised foreign policy in the Muslim world. US military interventions are stoking resentment and inflaming a perpetual transnational insurgency across Muslim countries. If it doesn’t change its course, the US may very well suffer more defeats such as the one in Afghanistan and will cause even more hurt and damage in other countries along the way. (Abdulkader Sinno is Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies, Indiana University) (This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US-Taliban deal is a face-saving measure to conclude a failed American military intervention

The United States is "seeking information" on whether Pakistan used US-built F-16 jets to down an Indian warplane, the US Embassy in Islamabad said on Sunday, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-seeks-information-on-potential-misuse-of-f-16-by-pakistan-200652">which may violate the F-16 sale agreements between Washington and Pakistan</a>.

Pakistan says it did not use F-16s in shooting down an Indian warplane when it crossed the Line of Control that acts as a de facto border in Kashmir. Islamabad says this was an act of self defence.

"We are aware of these reports and are seeking more information," a US Embassy spokesperson told Reuters. "We take all allegations of misuse of defense articles very seriously."

US often inserts restrictions on how its exported military hardware can be used through so-called end-user agreements.&nbsp;

The United States is "seeking information" on whether Pakistan used US-built F-16 jets to down an Indian warplane, the US Embassy in Islamabad said on Sunday, which may violate the F-16 sale agreements between Washington and Pakistan.

The United States is "seeking information" on whether Pakistan used US-built F-16 jets to down an Indian warplane, the US Embassy in Islamabad said on Sunday, which may violate the F-16 sale agreements between Washington and Pakistan. Pakistan says it did not use F-16s in shooting down an Indian warplane when it crossed the Line of Control that acts as a de facto border in Kashmir. Islamabad says this was an act of self defence. "We are aware of these reports and are seeking more information," a US Embassy spokesperson told Reuters. "We take all allegations of misuse of defense articles very seriously." US often inserts restrictions on how its exported military hardware can be used through so-called end-user agreements.

US says it is 'seeking information' on whether Pakistan used F-16s to shoot down Indian jet

By Sojin Lim

The summit talks between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and US President&nbsp;Donald Trump, began in a climate of surprise and expectation in Singapore in June 2018. They have now ended (for the time being) in disappointment in Hanoi, Vietnam, with Trump walking out.

The US president said: “It was all about the sanctions. They wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety and we couldn’t do that … Sometimes you have to walk and this was one of those times.”

But is this the full story? Time will tell.

Either way, when Kim and Trump first met last year in Singapore, it was viewed as a victory for Kim’s gesture politics and a ray of hope for stability in the region. But as the latest round of talks ends prematurely without agreement, it seems Vietnam, the host, is the only winner – thanks to the summit drawing attention to the recent success of that country’s impressive economic development.

But while the US, North Korea and Vietnam have been dominating headlines, where has South Korea – the other principal stakeholder – been? So far, it seems to have been conspicuously absent. Is this because South Korea was not a part of the armistice agreement (between North Korea, the US, China and the UN) that halted the Korean War? Or is it because South Korea ultimately wouldn’t benefit from any North Korea-US agreement?

Certainly, South Korea is an immediate victim of the failed Hanoi summit. As soon as Trump abandoned the talks, the South Korean stock market fell dramatically. If Kim now resumes missile tests, South Korea would be the nation most at threat.

Indeed, even if Trump agrees eventually to lift the sanctions on North Korea, it would likely be South Korea that would have to provide most of the financial support to North Korea. The only immediate benefit for South Korea, if future negotiations between Kim and Trump go well, would be a diminished threat of war.

Not all doom and gloom

But South Korea could also benefit economically – at least in the long term – in a post-sanction environment. It could, for example, reopen the joint Kaesong Industrial Complex, which would benefit some small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in South Korea. South Korea could also expect a rising employment rate, due to more business opportunities with North Korea and beyond, and market expansion through the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund (IKCF). The IKCF was established in 1990 under the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund Act to promote mutual understanding and socio-economic cooperation between the Koreas. Anticipating lifting of sanctions, South Korea increased its IKCF budget to $890.7m in 2019, a 15 per cent increase in 2018.

With sanctions lifted, South Korea could also expect increased trade and tourism profits by linking railways between the two Koreas. Indeed, one of the main reasons why Kim took the train from North Korea to Vietnam was to send a message to South Korea: if South Korea pushes for an end to sanctions, it could run its railways through the north and connect with trade routes in China, Russia and Vietnam.

But these benefits rely on one key caveat: they will only happen if either North Korea or the US gives way to the other. And until that happens, this chicken-or-egg dilemma will worsen relations between the two Koreas.

Will he or won’t he?

It seems unlikely that Kim will surrender his nuclear programme. As the second summit was staged, on February 27, news broke of another well-known nuclear state, Pakistan, reportedly shooting down Indian military aircraft over Kashmir. The Pakistani prime minister, Imran Khan, immediately called a meeting of Pakistan’s National Command Authority and ordered a no-fly zone over the country, later commenting that given “the weapons they (India) have and we have, can we afford a miscalculation?”

The two events may seem unconnected, but it is highly likely that this has reaffirmed to Kim why he needs nuclear weapons. Remaining a de facto nuclear state is key to Kim ensuring his regime’s survival. Nuclear capability is certainly not something he will readily concede.

It is also doubtful whether Trump truly wants to pay too much attention to North Korea’s denuclearisation and economic development. It’s more likely that Trump is using his summits with Kim to strengthen his own domestic standing. Trump announced he was shelving an earlier second summit last year so he could focus on the mid-term elections – a ploy, perhaps, to attract more votes. And it’s perfectly possible now that he’s using the Hanoi summit to distract people from his ongoing scandals at home. Again, on the day Trump met Kim, Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was giving highly critical testimony to Congress about his dealings with Trump.

And so South Korean president Moon Jae-in seems stuck between North Korea and the US – neither of whom seem entirely committed to their summit’s success. Meanwhile, Moon will face growing domestic criticism from conservatives at home over his growing IKCF budget – and the ongoing lack of results. There is still hope for the Korean peninsula, but it is dwindling. And if Moon is to survive, and South Korea is to benefit, he will have to find novel ways of getting Kim and Trump back to the negotiating table. It will be no easy task.

(Sojin Lim is Senior Lecturer, Deputy Director of the International Institute of Korean Studies, University of Central Lancashire)

(This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/north-korea-us-summit-what-its-failure-means-for-the-peninsulas-future-112634">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

By Sojin Lim The summit talks between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and US President Donald Trump, began in a climate of surprise and expectation in Singapore in June 2018.

By Sojin Lim The summit talks between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and US President Donald Trump, began in a climate of surprise and expectation in Singapore in June 2018. They have now ended (for the time being) in disappointment in Hanoi, Vietnam, with Trump walking out. The US president said: “It was all about the sanctions. They wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety and we couldn’t do that … Sometimes you have to walk and this was one of those times.” But is this the full story? Time will tell. Either way, when Kim and Trump first met last year in Singapore, it was viewed as a victory for Kim’s gesture politics and a ray of hope for stability in the region. But as the latest round of talks ends prematurely without agreement, it seems Vietnam, the host, is the only winner – thanks to the summit drawing attention to the recent success of that country’s impressive economic development. But while the US, North Korea and Vietnam have been dominating headlines, where has South Korea – the other principal stakeholder – been? So far, it seems to have been conspicuously absent. Is this because South Korea was not a part of the armistice agreement (between North Korea, the US, China and the UN) that halted the Korean War? Or is it because South Korea ultimately wouldn’t benefit from any North Korea-US agreement? Certainly, South Korea is an immediate victim of the failed Hanoi summit. As soon as Trump abandoned the talks, the South Korean stock market fell dramatically. If Kim now resumes missile tests, South Korea would be the nation most at threat. Indeed, even if Trump agrees eventually to lift the sanctions on North Korea, it would likely be South Korea that would have to provide most of the financial support to North Korea. The only immediate benefit for South Korea, if future negotiations between Kim and Trump go well, would be a diminished threat of war. Not all doom and gloom But South Korea could also benefit economically – at least in the long term – in a post-sanction environment. It could, for example, reopen the joint Kaesong Industrial Complex, which would benefit some small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in South Korea. South Korea could also expect a rising employment rate, due to more business opportunities with North Korea and beyond, and market expansion through the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund (IKCF). The IKCF was established in 1990 under the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund Act to promote mutual understanding and socio-economic cooperation between the Koreas. Anticipating lifting of sanctions, South Korea increased its IKCF budget to $890.7m in 2019, a 15 per cent increase in 2018. With sanctions lifted, South Korea could also expect increased trade and tourism profits by linking railways between the two Koreas. Indeed, one of the main reasons why Kim took the train from North Korea to Vietnam was to send a message to South Korea: if South Korea pushes for an end to sanctions, it could run its railways through the north and connect with trade routes in China, Russia and Vietnam. But these benefits rely on one key caveat: they will only happen if either North Korea or the US gives way to the other. And until that happens, this chicken-or-egg dilemma will worsen relations between the two Koreas. Will he or won’t he? It seems unlikely that Kim will surrender his nuclear programme. As the second summit was staged, on February 27, news broke of another well-known nuclear state, Pakistan, reportedly shooting down Indian military aircraft over Kashmir. The Pakistani prime minister, Imran Khan, immediately called a meeting of Pakistan’s National Command Authority and ordered a no-fly zone over the country, later commenting that given “the weapons they (India) have and we have, can we afford a miscalculation?” The two events may seem unconnected, but it is highly likely that this has reaffirmed to Kim why he needs nuclear weapons. Remaining a de facto nuclear state is key to Kim ensuring his regime’s survival. Nuclear capability is certainly not something he will readily concede. It is also doubtful whether Trump truly wants to pay too much attention to North Korea’s denuclearisation and economic development. It’s more likely that Trump is using his summits with Kim to strengthen his own domestic standing. Trump announced he was shelving an earlier second summit last year so he could focus on the mid-term elections – a ploy, perhaps, to attract more votes. And it’s perfectly possible now that he’s using the Hanoi summit to distract people from his ongoing scandals at home. Again, on the day Trump met Kim, Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was giving highly critical testimony to Congress about his dealings with Trump. And so South Korean president Moon Jae-in seems stuck between North Korea and the US – neither of whom seem entirely committed to their summit’s success. Meanwhile, Moon will face growing domestic criticism from conservatives at home over his growing IKCF budget – and the ongoing lack of results. There is still hope for the Korean peninsula, but it is dwindling. And if Moon is to survive, and South Korea is to benefit, he will have to find novel ways of getting Kim and Trump back to the negotiating table. It will be no easy task. (Sojin Lim is Senior Lecturer, Deputy Director of the International Institute of Korean Studies, University of Central Lancashire) (This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What does the failure of North Korea-US summit mean for Korean peninsula

Taliban and American officials holding talks in Qatar on ways to end the war in Afghanistan have held “extensive” discussions on how foreign troops could be withdrawn and on how to guarantee the country would not be used again by outside forces to attack other countries, the Taliban said in a statement on Thursday.

The US special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said in a tweet that the meetings in Doha were productive.

"We continue to take slow, steady steps toward understanding and eventually peace," Khalilzad adding that the talks would be continued on Saturday after a two-day break.

After Wednesday's session, the two sides decided to adjourn in order to hold consultations and prepare for their next session, according to the statement issued by Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid.

The two sides had resumed talks this week after making significant progress in an earlier round of discussions, also held in Doha, in January.

While the United States and other powers have long maintained that the peace process should ultimately be Afghan-led, the Taliban this week reiterated opposition to direct talks with President Ashraf Ghani's administration in Kabul, which it regards as an illegitimate government.

The Taliban said their newly-appointed political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar met with Khalilzad, and General Scott Miller, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, as well as senior members of the Qatari government this week.

Baradar, a co-founder of the hardline Islamist group, was released from a Pakistani jail last year to participate in the talks, and his presence at the negotiating table demonstrated Taliban's readiness to engage at a more senior level.

US President Donald Trump said he intended to reduce US forces in Afghanistan. And in his annual State of the Union address to Congress this month, Trump said: "Great nations do not fight endless wars."

The United States intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 to help opposition forces topple a Taliban government which had sheltered the al Qaeda militants responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Washington and its allies later sent troops to prevent the Taliban from returning to power, and have been locked in a war with the insurgents ever since.

A senior Taliban commander informed on the content of the talks told Reuters that the two sides could soon reach an agreement assuring the United States that Afghanistan would not be used against them or their allies in the future.

He said the Taliban had resisted pressure from the US delegation to declare a ceasefire before the onset of warmer spring weather, which usually flags off an escalation in the insurgency.

"They repeatedly ask for a ceasefire. But the answer is no from our side," the commander said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Last year, almost 4,000 civilians were killed in the conflict, including a record number of children, making it the single deadliest year for Afghan civilians since the United Nations began documenting casualties a decade ago.

Taliban and American officials holding talks in Qatar on ways to end the war in Afghanistan have held “extensive” discussions on how foreign troops could be withdrawn and on how to guarantee the country would not be used again by outside forces to attack other countries, the Taliban said in a statement on Thursday.

Taliban and American officials holding talks in Qatar on ways to end the war in Afghanistan have held “extensive” discussions on how foreign troops could be withdrawn and on how to guarantee the country would not be used again by outside forces to attack other countries, the Taliban said in a statement on Thursday. The US special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said in a tweet that the meetings in Doha were productive. "We continue to take slow, steady steps toward understanding and eventually peace," Khalilzad adding that the talks would be continued on Saturday after a two-day break. After Wednesday's session, the two sides decided to adjourn in order to hold consultations and prepare for their next session, according to the statement issued by Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid. The two sides had resumed talks this week after making significant progress in an earlier round of discussions, also held in Doha, in January. While the United States and other powers have long maintained that the peace process should ultimately be Afghan-led, the Taliban this week reiterated opposition to direct talks with President Ashraf Ghani's administration in Kabul, which it regards as an illegitimate government. The Taliban said their newly-appointed political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar met with Khalilzad, and General Scott Miller, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, as well as senior members of the Qatari government this week. Baradar, a co-founder of the hardline Islamist group, was released from a Pakistani jail last year to participate in the talks, and his presence at the negotiating table demonstrated Taliban's readiness to engage at a more senior level. US President Donald Trump said he intended to reduce US forces in Afghanistan. And in his annual State of the Union address to Congress this month, Trump said: "Great nations do not fight endless wars." The United States intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 to help opposition forces topple a Taliban government which had sheltered the al Qaeda militants responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States. Washington and its allies later sent troops to prevent the Taliban from returning to power, and have been locked in a war with the insurgents ever since. A senior Taliban commander informed on the content of the talks told Reuters that the two sides could soon reach an agreement assuring the United States that Afghanistan would not be used against them or their allies in the future. He said the Taliban had resisted pressure from the US delegation to declare a ceasefire before the onset of warmer spring weather, which usually flags off an escalation in the insurgency. "They repeatedly ask for a ceasefire. But the answer is no from our side," the commander said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Last year, almost 4,000 civilians were killed in the conflict, including a record number of children, making it the single deadliest year for Afghan civilians since the United Nations began documenting casualties a decade ago.

Taliban says held 'extensive talks' with US officials, reconvening Saturday

Saudi Arabia plans to become a major gas exporter within a decade raise questions about what the real goal of the kingdom’s policy, and by extension that of the United States, is towards Iran.

Officially both Saudi Arabia and the US, which last year withdrew from the 2015 international accord that curbs the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme and imposed harsh economic sanctions, are demanding a change of Iran’s regional and defence policies rather than of its regime.

Yet, statements in recent years by some Saudi leaders and US officials as well a string of declarations at the recent US-sponsored ministerial to promote a future of peace and stability in the Middle East in Warsaw by officials of the Trump administration as well as Saudi Arabia, Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain suggested that regime change was on their radar.

President Donald J Trump’s hard-line national security advisor John Bolton, a past advocate of regime change and a covert war to destabilise Iran, concluded an outline on the White House’s official Twitter account of Washington’s long list of grievances and accusations levelled at Iranian leaders by addressing supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, directly: “I don’t think you’ll have too many more anniversaries,” Bolton said as Iran celebrated the 40th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

The notion that the real goal of Saudi and US policy is regime change prompted by the sanctions and a destabilisation campaign that would foster unrest among Iran’s ethnic minorities was bolstered by multiple indicators.

These include statements of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and Bolton before he became Trump’s advisor; a flow of funds from the kingdom to militant, ultra-conservative anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian madrassas or religious seminaries that dot the Iranian border in the troubled Pakistani province of Balochistan; US and Saudi support for an exiled Iranian group that demands regime change in Tehran; and a string of recent attacks inside Iran.

With Saudi Arabia, however, announcing that it will invest $150 billion to enable it to export three billion cubic metres of gas a year by 2030, suggests that imminent regime change may not be in the kingdom’s immediate interest.

Viewed through the lens of the timeline of Saudi Arabia’s gas plans, the Kingdom is likely to benefit more from an Iran that is isolated and weakened for years to come to give the Saudis the time to get up to speed on gas rather than an Iran that under a new more accommodating government returns to the international fold. A potential destabilisation campaign that is low-level and intermittent but not regime threatening would serve that purpose.

It would also extend the window of opportunity on which Saudi Arabia relies to assert regional leadership. That window of opportunity exists as long as the obvious regional powers – Iran, Turkey and Egypt – are in various degrees of disrepair. Punitive economic sanctions, international isolation and domestic turmoil serve to keep Iran weak and unable to leverage its assets.

The emergence of Saudi gas plans appears to put Saudi strategy towards Iran at cross purposes. If Saudi Arabia’s gas-driven interest is prolonged containment of Iran, operations at the Indian-backed Arabian Sea port of Chabahar were believed to have given the effort to achieve a change of Tehran’s regional and defence policy, if not its regime, a sense of urgency.

Pakistani militants reported the flow of Saudi funds to Baloch Madrassas at the time that a government-backed Saudi think-tank, the International Institute of Iranian Studies, argued in a study that Chabahar, a mere 70 kilometres up the coast from the Chinese-backed Pakistani port of Gwadar posed “a direct threat to the Arab Gulf states” that called for “immediate countermeasures.”

Written by Mohammed Hassan Husseinbor, identified as an Iranian political researcher, the study warned that Chabahar posed a threat because it would enable Iran to increase its market share in India for its oil exports at the expense of Saudi Arabia, raise foreign investment in the Islamic republic, increase government revenues, and allow Iran to project power in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Pakistani analysts expect around $5 billion in Afghan trade to flow through Chabahar after India in December started handling the port’s operations. It could also further strain ties with Pakistan that accuses India of fomenting nationalist unrest in Balochistan. India and Pakistan are on the brink of a &nbsp;potentially escalating military conflict over Kashmir.

The perceived threat of Chabahar, however, pales against the opportunity that Saudi Arabia’s ability to be a major gas exporter would open up.

In a study published in 2015, energy scholar Micha’el Tanchum suggested that it would be gas supplies from Iran and Turkmenistan, two Caspian Sea states, rather than Saudi oil that would determine which way Eurasia’s future energy architecture tilts: China, the world’s third largest LNG importer, or Europe.

With 24.6 billion cubic metres potentially available for annual piped exports beyond its current supply commitments, Iran, unfettered by sanctions and with no Saudi competition, could emerge as Eurasia’s swing producer, which would significantly enhance its regional clout.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s resignation in recent days, had it been accepted by President Hasan Rouhani, would have amounted to a victory for hardliners and served the interest of the Saudis and their allies.

“Zarif went. We are rid of him,” Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu gloated prematurely on his Farsi-language Twitter account.

The departure of Zarif, a suave, US-educated moderate who was Iran’s main negotiator of the nuclear accord, would have enhanced the quest of Saudi Arabia and its allies even if their timelines for a change of Iranian policies, if not of the regime, differ.

His continued tenure as foreign minister is likely to encourage Europe, China and Russia in their efforts to salvage the nuclear deal but little to change Saudi or US long-term strategy. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Saudi Arabia plans to become a major gas exporter within a decade raise questions about what the real goal of the kingdom’s policy, and by extension that of the United States, is towards Iran.

Saudi Arabia plans to become a major gas exporter within a decade raise questions about what the real goal of the kingdom’s policy, and by extension that of the United States, is towards Iran. Officially both Saudi Arabia and the US, which last year withdrew from the 2015 international accord that curbs the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme and imposed harsh economic sanctions, are demanding a change of Iran’s regional and defence policies rather than of its regime. Yet, statements in recent years by some Saudi leaders and US officials as well a string of declarations at the recent US-sponsored ministerial to promote a future of peace and stability in the Middle East in Warsaw by officials of the Trump administration as well as Saudi Arabia, Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain suggested that regime change was on their radar. President Donald J Trump’s hard-line national security advisor John Bolton, a past advocate of regime change and a covert war to destabilise Iran, concluded an outline on the White House’s official Twitter account of Washington’s long list of grievances and accusations levelled at Iranian leaders by addressing supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, directly: “I don’t think you’ll have too many more anniversaries,” Bolton said as Iran celebrated the 40th anniversary of its Islamic revolution. The notion that the real goal of Saudi and US policy is regime change prompted by the sanctions and a destabilisation campaign that would foster unrest among Iran’s ethnic minorities was bolstered by multiple indicators. These include statements of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and Bolton before he became Trump’s advisor; a flow of funds from the kingdom to militant, ultra-conservative anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian madrassas or religious seminaries that dot the Iranian border in the troubled Pakistani province of Balochistan; US and Saudi support for an exiled Iranian group that demands regime change in Tehran; and a string of recent attacks inside Iran. With Saudi Arabia, however, announcing that it will invest $150 billion to enable it to export three billion cubic metres of gas a year by 2030, suggests that imminent regime change may not be in the kingdom’s immediate interest. Viewed through the lens of the timeline of Saudi Arabia’s gas plans, the Kingdom is likely to benefit more from an Iran that is isolated and weakened for years to come to give the Saudis the time to get up to speed on gas rather than an Iran that under a new more accommodating government returns to the international fold. A potential destabilisation campaign that is low-level and intermittent but not regime threatening would serve that purpose. It would also extend the window of opportunity on which Saudi Arabia relies to assert regional leadership. That window of opportunity exists as long as the obvious regional powers – Iran, Turkey and Egypt – are in various degrees of disrepair. Punitive economic sanctions, international isolation and domestic turmoil serve to keep Iran weak and unable to leverage its assets. The emergence of Saudi gas plans appears to put Saudi strategy towards Iran at cross purposes. If Saudi Arabia’s gas-driven interest is prolonged containment of Iran, operations at the Indian-backed Arabian Sea port of Chabahar were believed to have given the effort to achieve a change of Tehran’s regional and defence policy, if not its regime, a sense of urgency. Pakistani militants reported the flow of Saudi funds to Baloch Madrassas at the time that a government-backed Saudi think-tank, the International Institute of Iranian Studies, argued in a study that Chabahar, a mere 70 kilometres up the coast from the Chinese-backed Pakistani port of Gwadar posed “a direct threat to the Arab Gulf states” that called for “immediate countermeasures.” Written by Mohammed Hassan Husseinbor, identified as an Iranian political researcher, the study warned that Chabahar posed a threat because it would enable Iran to increase its market share in India for its oil exports at the expense of Saudi Arabia, raise foreign investment in the Islamic republic, increase government revenues, and allow Iran to project power in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Pakistani analysts expect around $5 billion in Afghan trade to flow through Chabahar after India in December started handling the port’s operations. It could also further strain ties with Pakistan that accuses India of fomenting nationalist unrest in Balochistan. India and Pakistan are on the brink of a potentially escalating military conflict over Kashmir. The perceived threat of Chabahar, however, pales against the opportunity that Saudi Arabia’s ability to be a major gas exporter would open up. In a study published in 2015, energy scholar Micha’el Tanchum suggested that it would be gas supplies from Iran and Turkmenistan, two Caspian Sea states, rather than Saudi oil that would determine which way Eurasia’s future energy architecture tilts: China, the world’s third largest LNG importer, or Europe. With 24.6 billion cubic metres potentially available for annual piped exports beyond its current supply commitments, Iran, unfettered by sanctions and with no Saudi competition, could emerge as Eurasia’s swing producer, which would significantly enhance its regional clout. Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s resignation in recent days, had it been accepted by President Hasan Rouhani, would have amounted to a victory for hardliners and served the interest of the Saudis and their allies. “Zarif went. We are rid of him,” Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu gloated prematurely on his Farsi-language Twitter account. The departure of Zarif, a suave, US-educated moderate who was Iran’s main negotiator of the nuclear accord, would have enhanced the quest of Saudi Arabia and its allies even if their timelines for a change of Iranian policies, if not of the regime, differ. His continued tenure as foreign minister is likely to encourage Europe, China and Russia in their efforts to salvage the nuclear deal but little to change Saudi or US long-term strategy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Saudi Arabia tends to intensify efforts to isolate Iran

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday called for India and Pakistan to "exercise restraint" amid escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours while urging Islamabad to take action against militants.

"We encourage India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, and avoid escalation at any cost," Pompeo said in a statement after speaking with the foreign ministers of both countries.

Pompeo said that in talks with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, he stressed "the priority of de-escalating current tensions by avoiding military action, and the urgency of Pakistan taking meaningful action against terrorist groups operating on its soil."

''I also encouraged both the ministers to prioritise direct communication and avoid further military activity,'' the statement further said.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Pakistan should take meaningful action against terror groups operating on its soil: US on Indian strikes on terror camps in Pakistani territory <a href="https://t.co/wiYAMXYO5l">pic.twitter.com/wiYAMXYO5l</a>
— Sidhant Sibal (@sidhant) <a href="https://twitter.com/sidhant/status/1100588845651947521?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

(With inputs from AFP)

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday called for India and Pakistan to "exercise restraint" amid escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours while urging Islamabad to take action against militants.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday called for India and Pakistan to "exercise restraint" amid escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours while urging Islamabad to take action against militants. "We encourage India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, and avoid escalation at any cost," Pompeo said in a statement after speaking with the foreign ministers of both countries. Pompeo said that in talks with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, he stressed "the priority of de-escalating current tensions by avoiding military action, and the urgency of Pakistan taking meaningful action against terrorist groups operating on its soil." ''I also encouraged both the ministers to prioritise direct communication and avoid further military activity,'' the statement further said. Pakistan should take meaningful action against terror groups operating on its soil: US on Indian strikes on terror camps in Pakistani territory pic.twitter.com/wiYAMXYO5l — Sidhant Sibal (@sidhant) February 27, 2019 × (With inputs from AFP)

US urges India, Pakistan to 'exercise restraint': Secretary of State Pompeo

By Ben Zissimos

Violence erupted at the Venezuela-Colombia border over the delivery of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, killing four people and injuring 24 on February 22.

US&nbsp;Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro that his “days are numbered,” and Trump officials reiterated that the US is considering all options, including military action, to address Venezuela’s crisis.

Almost 80 per cent of Venezuelans disapprove of Maduro, who was reinaugurated for a second six-year term in January after an election widely seen as fraudulent. Since taking power in 2013, he has led Venezuela into a deep economic crisis.

In late January, opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared Maduro a “usurper” and swore himself in as the country’s rightful president. More than 50 countries – including the United States, Europe and most of Latin America – want to replace Maduro’s regime with a Guaidó-led government.

Despite near global condemnation of Maduro, any US intervention in Venezuela would be controversial. The United States’ long history of interfering in Latin American politics suggests that its military operations generally usher in dictatorship and civil war – not democracy.

The Cuban-US Cold War

Cuba, the focus of my history research, is a prime example of this pattern.

US-Cuban relations have never recovered from President William McKinley’s intervention in Cuba’s war for independence over a century ago.

Before waging what in the US is known as the Spanish-American War in 1898, McKinley promised that “the people of the island of Cuba” would be “free and independent” from Spain and that his government had no “intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over said Island.”

In the end, however, Cuba’s independence from Spain meant domination by the United States.

For 60 years after the Spanish-American War, the White House made repeated military and diplomatic interventions in Cuba, supporting politicians who protected US economic interests in sugar, utilities, banks or tourism and who backed American foreign policy in the Caribbean.

By 1952, when the US-backed Fulgencio Batista overthrew President Carlos Prío Socarrás, Cuba’s government had effectively become protectors of American businesses, according to my research. Batista had a warm relationship with both Washington, DC and the American organized crime groups that used to control Havana’s tourist industry.

A communist revolution led by Fidel Castro overthrew Batista’s military junta in 1959. Castro decried the “imperialist government of the United States” for turning Cuba into an “American colony.”

The Kennedy administration’s trade embargo against Cuba and the disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion – in which the US military trained Cuban dissidents in an attempt to unseat Castro – only pushed Cuba further into the orbit of Soviet Russia.

For the past six decades, the US and Cuba have remained locked in a Cold War, with a brief thaw under President Barack Obama.

Anti-communist coups

Fearing that communism would spread across the hemisphere, the US government repeatedly interfered in the politics of Latin American nations during the Cold War.

In 1954 the CIA worked with elements of the Guatemalan military to overthrow elected President Jacobo Árbenz, whom US policymakers considered dangerously left-wing. Decades of dictatorship and civil war followed, killing an estimated 200,000 people.

A peace agreement in 1996 restored democracy, but Guatemala has yet to recover economically, politically or psychologically from the bloodshed.

Then there is Chile’s US-supported coup d'etat. In 1973, the US government covertly assisted right-wing elements of the Chilean military in overthrowing the socialist president Salvador Allende.

General Augusto Pinochet took power with the quiet financial and political support of the United States. His dictatorship, which lasted until 1990, killed tens of thousands of Chileans.

The Dominican Republic and Panama

US intervention in Latin America did not start or end with the Cold War.

During World War I, the United States was concerned that Germany could use the Dominican Republic as a base of military operations. So American troops occupied the Caribbean island from 1916 to 1924. 
 
Though the American-led administration improved the finances and infrastructure of the Dominican Republic, it also created the national guard that helped to propel Gen. Rafael Trujillo into power. His 30-year reign was savage.

President George H W Bush’s 1989 invasion of Panama is the rare exception when U.S. intervention in Latin American affairs actually created stability.

Most Panamanians appear to have supported the 1989 U.S. military operation to remove the corrupt and brutal military strongman Manuel Noriega.

In the years since, Panama has enjoyed comparatively peaceful elections and transfers of power.

Anti-Americanism in Latin America

On balance, though, US military operations in Latin America have rarely brought democracy.

But they have created strong anti-American sentiment in the region, which leftist leaders from Fidel Castro to Hugo Chávez have adeptly harnessed to vilify their political opponents as mere US puppets.

Support for the US government is lower now than it has been in decades. Just 35 per cent of Argentines, 39 per cent of Chileans and 45 percent of Venezuelans view the US favourably, according to the Pew Research Center.

President Maduro, too, has used anti-imperialist rhetoric. He denounces US sanctions and other efforts to isolate his regime as a “gringo plot.”

A safer way to restore democracy

This history explains why a US intervention in Venezuela would be viewed with skepticism. Though Maduro is unpopular, 65 per cent of Venezuelans oppose any foreign military operation to remove Maduro, according to recent polling.

Rather than plan yet another coup d'etat, I believe US&nbsp;efforts in Venezuela should support the work of the Lima Group, a coalition of 12 Latin American countries, including Mexico, Guatemala and Brazil, plus Canada.

The Lima Group has ruled out military force in Venezuela. Its pressure campaign to force him out peacefully has included diplomatically isolating his regime and asking Venezuela’s soldiers to pledge loyalty to Guaidó.

A negotiated settlement leading to Maduro’s voluntary departure from office is their ultimate goal.

Regional diplomacy is much slower than foreign intervention. But it avoids further bloodshed and reduces the role of anti-Americanism in Venezuela’s crisis.

It may also open a new chapter in the history of US-Latin American relations – one in which the US takes its lead from the region, and not the other way around.

(Joseph J Gonzalez is Associate Professor, Global Studies, Appalachian State University)

(This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/venezuela-crisis-trump-threats-to-maduro-evoke-bloody-history-of-us-intervention-in-latin-america-111169">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

By Ben Zissimos Violence erupted at the Venezuela-Colombia border over the delivery of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, killing four people and injuring 24 on February 22.

By Ben Zissimos Violence erupted at the Venezuela-Colombia border over the delivery of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, killing four people and injuring 24 on February 22. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro that his “days are numbered,” and Trump officials reiterated that the US is considering all options, including military action, to address Venezuela’s crisis. Almost 80 per cent of Venezuelans disapprove of Maduro, who was reinaugurated for a second six-year term in January after an election widely seen as fraudulent. Since taking power in 2013, he has led Venezuela into a deep economic crisis. In late January, opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared Maduro a “usurper” and swore himself in as the country’s rightful president. More than 50 countries – including the United States, Europe and most of Latin America – want to replace Maduro’s regime with a Guaidó-led government. Despite near global condemnation of Maduro, any US intervention in Venezuela would be controversial. The United States’ long history of interfering in Latin American politics suggests that its military operations generally usher in dictatorship and civil war – not democracy. The Cuban-US Cold War Cuba, the focus of my history research, is a prime example of this pattern. US-Cuban relations have never recovered from President William McKinley’s intervention in Cuba’s war for independence over a century ago. Before waging what in the US is known as the Spanish-American War in 1898, McKinley promised that “the people of the island of Cuba” would be “free and independent” from Spain and that his government had no “intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over said Island.” In the end, however, Cuba’s independence from Spain meant domination by the United States. For 60 years after the Spanish-American War, the White House made repeated military and diplomatic interventions in Cuba, supporting politicians who protected US economic interests in sugar, utilities, banks or tourism and who backed American foreign policy in the Caribbean. By 1952, when the US-backed Fulgencio Batista overthrew President Carlos Prío Socarrás, Cuba’s government had effectively become protectors of American businesses, according to my research. Batista had a warm relationship with both Washington, DC and the American organized crime groups that used to control Havana’s tourist industry. A communist revolution led by Fidel Castro overthrew Batista’s military junta in 1959. Castro decried the “imperialist government of the United States” for turning Cuba into an “American colony.” The Kennedy administration’s trade embargo against Cuba and the disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion – in which the US military trained Cuban dissidents in an attempt to unseat Castro – only pushed Cuba further into the orbit of Soviet Russia. For the past six decades, the US and Cuba have remained locked in a Cold War, with a brief thaw under President Barack Obama. Anti-communist coups Fearing that communism would spread across the hemisphere, the US government repeatedly interfered in the politics of Latin American nations during the Cold War. In 1954 the CIA worked with elements of the Guatemalan military to overthrow elected President Jacobo Árbenz, whom US policymakers considered dangerously left-wing. Decades of dictatorship and civil war followed, killing an estimated 200,000 people. A peace agreement in 1996 restored democracy, but Guatemala has yet to recover economically, politically or psychologically from the bloodshed. Then there is Chile’s US-supported coup d'etat. In 1973, the US government covertly assisted right-wing elements of the Chilean military in overthrowing the socialist president Salvador Allende. General Augusto Pinochet took power with the quiet financial and political support of the United States. His dictatorship, which lasted until 1990, killed tens of thousands of Chileans. The Dominican Republic and Panama US intervention in Latin America did not start or end with the Cold War. During World War I, the United States was concerned that Germany could use the Dominican Republic as a base of military operations. So American troops occupied the Caribbean island from 1916 to 1924. Though the American-led administration improved the finances and infrastructure of the Dominican Republic, it also created the national guard that helped to propel Gen. Rafael Trujillo into power. His 30-year reign was savage. President George H W Bush’s 1989 invasion of Panama is the rare exception when U.S. intervention in Latin American affairs actually created stability. Most Panamanians appear to have supported the 1989 U.S. military operation to remove the corrupt and brutal military strongman Manuel Noriega. In the years since, Panama has enjoyed comparatively peaceful elections and transfers of power. Anti-Americanism in Latin America On balance, though, US military operations in Latin America have rarely brought democracy. But they have created strong anti-American sentiment in the region, which leftist leaders from Fidel Castro to Hugo Chávez have adeptly harnessed to vilify their political opponents as mere US puppets. Support for the US government is lower now than it has been in decades. Just 35 per cent of Argentines, 39 per cent of Chileans and 45 percent of Venezuelans view the US favourably, according to the Pew Research Center. President Maduro, too, has used anti-imperialist rhetoric. He denounces US sanctions and other efforts to isolate his regime as a “gringo plot.” A safer way to restore democracy This history explains why a US intervention in Venezuela would be viewed with skepticism. Though Maduro is unpopular, 65 per cent of Venezuelans oppose any foreign military operation to remove Maduro, according to recent polling. Rather than plan yet another coup d'etat, I believe US efforts in Venezuela should support the work of the Lima Group, a coalition of 12 Latin American countries, including Mexico, Guatemala and Brazil, plus Canada. The Lima Group has ruled out military force in Venezuela. Its pressure campaign to force him out peacefully has included diplomatically isolating his regime and asking Venezuela’s soldiers to pledge loyalty to Guaidó. A negotiated settlement leading to Maduro’s voluntary departure from office is their ultimate goal. Regional diplomacy is much slower than foreign intervention. But it avoids further bloodshed and reduces the role of anti-Americanism in Venezuela’s crisis. It may also open a new chapter in the history of US-Latin American relations – one in which the US takes its lead from the region, and not the other way around. (Joseph J Gonzalez is Associate Professor, Global Studies, Appalachian State University) (This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Venezuela crisis: Donald Trump's threats to Nicolas Maduro evoke history of US intervention in Latin America

American and Taliban officials looking to end a 17-year war in Afghanistan began their most detailed and high-level discussions yet on foreign troop withdrawals and counter-terrorism on Tuesday, officials close to the peace negotiations said.

The talks, which kicked off in Doha on Monday with a meet-and-greet lunch, are seen as the most promising yet between the warring parties after the Taliban`s newly-appointed political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar joined for the first time, flying in from Pakistan.

The two sides are looking to hammer out a timeline and logistics for a potential troop withdrawal, as well as guarantees that the Taliban will not host militant groups like the US winds down its presence, sources close to the talks said.

"The Taliban knows foreign forces are committed to withdrawal, but we have the responsibility to ensure that Afghanistan does not get used as a base to launch terror attacks on foreign nations," one of the officials said.

Some 14,000 U.S. troops are based in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US&nbsp;forces also carry out counter-terrorism operations.

The US&nbsp;military officials have been brought in to join this week's talks in Doha, a second official said, raising hopes for progress after the last round in January secured a broad framework agreement but few details on critical aspects of a ceasefire and withdrawal.

"We have all the right people in the room on both sides," the second official said.

The US&nbsp;President Donald Trump told Congress this month he intended to reduce US forces from Afghanistan as negotiators make progress in talks with Taliban insurgents, saying: "Great nations do not fight endless wars."

The US&nbsp;team, led by special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, is also pushing for the Taliban to meet with the Afghan government, which the group has so far snubbed, and to agree on a ceasefire ahead of its annual spring offensive, sources said.

The hardline Islamist movement considers the Afghan government a puppet regime of the U.S. and has refused direct talks.

Government fears

Supporters of the Afghan government worry that Washington could negotiate an abrupt pullout in their absence, leaving communities that opposed the Taliban in danger and imperilling reforms such as the education of girls which the Taliban banned.

Qatar, which has hosted a political office for the Taliban since 2013, has looked to present itself as a critical staging ground and mediator for the talks.

The first meeting on Monday between Khalilzad and Baradar appeared to be "formal, and yet very cordial," a third source close to the talks said. The two agreed to have "a result-oriented discussion" for the next five days, the source said.

Hopes have been high for a breakthrough ever since Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban and the movement`s new political chief, was freed from a Pakistani jail last year to participate.

His appointment was widely seen as a fresh effort by the Taliban to emerge from the political and diplomatic shadows.

"Baradar gave the opening address, met with all the U.S. and Qatari officials. He requested his delegation to continue talks. He will be in Qatar, but may not attend all the sessions," the first official said.

The United States intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 to help opposition forces topple the Taliban government which had sheltered the al Qaeda militants responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Washington and its allies later sent troops to prevent the Taliban from returning in a war that escalated for a decade.

Foreign intervention peaked in 2010 with 130,000 troops including 100,000 Americans but has been scaled back sharply since 2014, with Afghan forces assuming nearly all of the combat responsibility.&nbsp;

More than 2,300 Americans have died in Afghanistan and more than 1,100 troops from more than two dozen allied countries, including more than 450 British soldiers.

The United Nations has documented the deaths of tens of thousands of Afghan civilians, mostly from insurgent attacks. Tens of thousands of members of the Afghan security forces and an unknown number of militants have also died.

American and Taliban officials looking to end a 17-year war in Afghanistan began their most detailed and high-level discussions yet on foreign troop withdrawals and counter-terrorism on Tuesday, officials close to the peace negotiations said.

American and Taliban officials looking to end a 17-year war in Afghanistan began their most detailed and high-level discussions yet on foreign troop withdrawals and counter-terrorism on Tuesday, officials close to the peace negotiations said. The talks, which kicked off in Doha on Monday with a meet-and-greet lunch, are seen as the most promising yet between the warring parties after the Taliban`s newly-appointed political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar joined for the first time, flying in from Pakistan. The two sides are looking to hammer out a timeline and logistics for a potential troop withdrawal, as well as guarantees that the Taliban will not host militant groups like the US winds down its presence, sources close to the talks said. "The Taliban knows foreign forces are committed to withdrawal, but we have the responsibility to ensure that Afghanistan does not get used as a base to launch terror attacks on foreign nations," one of the officials said. Some 14,000 U.S. troops are based in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US forces also carry out counter-terrorism operations. The US military officials have been brought in to join this week's talks in Doha, a second official said, raising hopes for progress after the last round in January secured a broad framework agreement but few details on critical aspects of a ceasefire and withdrawal. "We have all the right people in the room on both sides," the second official said. The US President Donald Trump told Congress this month he intended to reduce US forces from Afghanistan as negotiators make progress in talks with Taliban insurgents, saying: "Great nations do not fight endless wars." The US team, led by special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, is also pushing for the Taliban to meet with the Afghan government, which the group has so far snubbed, and to agree on a ceasefire ahead of its annual spring offensive, sources said. The hardline Islamist movement considers the Afghan government a puppet regime of the U.S. and has refused direct talks. Government fears Supporters of the Afghan government worry that Washington could negotiate an abrupt pullout in their absence, leaving communities that opposed the Taliban in danger and imperilling reforms such as the education of girls which the Taliban banned. Qatar, which has hosted a political office for the Taliban since 2013, has looked to present itself as a critical staging ground and mediator for the talks. The first meeting on Monday between Khalilzad and Baradar appeared to be "formal, and yet very cordial," a third source close to the talks said. The two agreed to have "a result-oriented discussion" for the next five days, the source said. Hopes have been high for a breakthrough ever since Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban and the movement`s new political chief, was freed from a Pakistani jail last year to participate. His appointment was widely seen as a fresh effort by the Taliban to emerge from the political and diplomatic shadows. "Baradar gave the opening address, met with all the U.S. and Qatari officials. He requested his delegation to continue talks. He will be in Qatar, but may not attend all the sessions," the first official said. The United States intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 to help opposition forces topple the Taliban government which had sheltered the al Qaeda militants responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Washington and its allies later sent troops to prevent the Taliban from returning in a war that escalated for a decade. Foreign intervention peaked in 2010 with 130,000 troops including 100,000 Americans but has been scaled back sharply since 2014, with Afghan forces assuming nearly all of the combat responsibility. More than 2,300 Americans have died in Afghanistan and more than 1,100 troops from more than two dozen allied countries, including more than 450 British soldiers. The United Nations has documented the deaths of tens of thousands of Afghan civilians, mostly from insurgent attacks. Tens of thousands of members of the Afghan security forces and an unknown number of militants have also died.

US, Taliban talk troop withdrawal, counter-terrorism at peace talks

At a time when US president Donald Trump is holding peace talks with the Taliban terrorists and has decided to withdraw 7,000 troops in the next few months, at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed in one of the deadliest terrorist attacks carried out by the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in Pulwama. &nbsp;

While Indian security forces have killed the three main terrorists behind the Pulwama attack and the Indian government is weighing all possible options to dismantle terror outfits operating against India from across the border, this attack has once again reinforced the fact that the language of peace cannot be an effective tool to deal with terrorists. &nbsp; &nbsp;

In fact, ever since the Trump administration started peace talks with the Taliban, there were apprehensions in India, the US and elsewhere that such efforts would only embolden the Taliban. 
 
Sure, it was during the Obama administration that the US decided to hold talks with the Taliban and during the 2016 presidential election campaign, Trump too promised to end the war in Afghanistan.

Interestingly, the Trump Administration’s South Asia Policy released in 2017 underscored the need for US troops to stay on in Afghanistan. In fact, on the issue of promoting peace, security, stability and development in Afghanistan, Trump’s South Asia Policy mentioned that the US will deploy more troops in Afghanistan without fixing a timeline for the return of US forces.&nbsp;

However, over a year later in July 2018, President Trump shifted his position on Afghanistan issue with the intention of clinching a deal with the Taliban. It would give the US a morally legitimate reason to withdraw its troops.&nbsp;

At the same time, Russia and China’s efforts to hold talks with the Taliban was seen by the US as a major geo-strategic threat to its interests in the region.&nbsp;

While the possible re-emergence of the Taliban is being seen as the onset of another phase of darkness for that blighted country, for India, which has always supported the “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled,” process with participation of the elected government in Kabul, peace talks between the US and the Taliban and Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops, now pose serious security challenges.

Ever since reconstruction work began in Afghanistan, India has invested over $3 billion building roads, hospitals, schools, providing training, arms and fighter aircraft to the Afghan armed forces.&nbsp;

Taliban’s arrival on the centre stage will not only put India’s economic interests at stake in Afghanistan, it will also pose a huge security threat to India because Pakistan’s prominence in Afghanistan will increase and Islamabad could use the Taliban against Indians there. &nbsp;

Since Russia has also moved to improve ties with Pakistan and is more than keen to play an important role in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, as evident from Moscow’s own peace talks with the Taliban last year, the possible emergence of a strategic China-Russia-Pakistan axis along the Taliban, could jeopardise India’s position.&nbsp;

The Pulwama attack has only validated India’s security concerns. Counter-terrorism experts in the US have argued that it has highlighted the utter failure of the Trump administration in pressurising Pakistan to act against terrorist organisations operating from its soil.

They have also argued that the ISI must have helped JeM in carrying out the Pulwama attack. Afghanistan has also complained to the UN Security Council against Pakistan’s recent engagement with the Taliban.

While US National Security Adviser John Bolton has told his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval that America supports India’s right to self-defence, with both sides reaffirming to work together to ensure that Pakistan ceases to be a safe haven for the JeM and other terror outfits, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration fulfills such promises.&nbsp;

At the same time, the Indian government needs to give up the tag of a soft-power state and take long-lasting punitive action against terrorist organisations and the country whose only aim is to destabilise India.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-its-effects-on-india-2723612">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

At a time when US president Donald Trump is holding peace talks with the Taliban terrorists and has decided to withdraw 7,000 troops in the next few months, at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed in one of the deadliest terrorist attacks carried out by the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in Pulwama.

At a time when US president Donald Trump is holding peace talks with the Taliban terrorists and has decided to withdraw 7,000 troops in the next few months, at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed in one of the deadliest terrorist attacks carried out by the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in Pulwama. While Indian security forces have killed the three main terrorists behind the Pulwama attack and the Indian government is weighing all possible options to dismantle terror outfits operating against India from across the border, this attack has once again reinforced the fact that the language of peace cannot be an effective tool to deal with terrorists. In fact, ever since the Trump administration started peace talks with the Taliban, there were apprehensions in India, the US and elsewhere that such efforts would only embolden the Taliban. Sure, it was during the Obama administration that the US decided to hold talks with the Taliban and during the 2016 presidential election campaign, Trump too promised to end the war in Afghanistan. Interestingly, the Trump Administration’s South Asia Policy released in 2017 underscored the need for US troops to stay on in Afghanistan. In fact, on the issue of promoting peace, security, stability and development in Afghanistan, Trump’s South Asia Policy mentioned that the US will deploy more troops in Afghanistan without fixing a timeline for the return of US forces. However, over a year later in July 2018, President Trump shifted his position on Afghanistan issue with the intention of clinching a deal with the Taliban. It would give the US a morally legitimate reason to withdraw its troops. At the same time, Russia and China’s efforts to hold talks with the Taliban was seen by the US as a major geo-strategic threat to its interests in the region. While the possible re-emergence of the Taliban is being seen as the onset of another phase of darkness for that blighted country, for India, which has always supported the “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled,” process with participation of the elected government in Kabul, peace talks between the US and the Taliban and Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops, now pose serious security challenges. Ever since reconstruction work began in Afghanistan, India has invested over $3 billion building roads, hospitals, schools, providing training, arms and fighter aircraft to the Afghan armed forces. Taliban’s arrival on the centre stage will not only put India’s economic interests at stake in Afghanistan, it will also pose a huge security threat to India because Pakistan’s prominence in Afghanistan will increase and Islamabad could use the Taliban against Indians there. Since Russia has also moved to improve ties with Pakistan and is more than keen to play an important role in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, as evident from Moscow’s own peace talks with the Taliban last year, the possible emergence of a strategic China-Russia-Pakistan axis along the Taliban, could jeopardise India’s position. The Pulwama attack has only validated India’s security concerns. Counter-terrorism experts in the US have argued that it has highlighted the utter failure of the Trump administration in pressurising Pakistan to act against terrorist organisations operating from its soil. They have also argued that the ISI must have helped JeM in carrying out the Pulwama attack. Afghanistan has also complained to the UN Security Council against Pakistan’s recent engagement with the Taliban. While US National Security Adviser John Bolton has told his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval that America supports India’s right to self-defence, with both sides reaffirming to work together to ensure that Pakistan ceases to be a safe haven for the JeM and other terror outfits, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration fulfills such promises. At the same time, the Indian government needs to give up the tag of a soft-power state and take long-lasting punitive action against terrorist organisations and the country whose only aim is to destabilise India. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and its effects on India

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Saturday the United States "will take action" as he condemned violence perpetrated by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's "thugs" after security forces fired on demonstrators.

"The U.S. will take action against those who oppose the peaceful restoration of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/without-gas-for-cremation-even-dying-is-a-struggle-in-venezuela-181842">democracy in #Venezuela</a>. Now is the time to act in support of the needs of the desperate Venezuelan people," Pompeo wrote on Twitter.

"We stand in solidarity with those continuing their struggle for freedom. #EstamosUnidosVE."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The U.S. will take action against those who oppose the peaceful restoration of democracy in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Venezuela?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Venezuela</a>. Now is the time to act in support of the needs of the desperate Venezuelan people. We stand in solidarity with those continuing their struggle for freedom. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EstamosUnidosVE?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EstamosUnidosVE</a> <a href="https://t.co/XfLEsyT6Rj">pic.twitter.com/XfLEsyT6Rj</a>
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1099476061484658689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

After two people were killed and more than 300 wounded in clashes between people trying to get humanitarian aid into Venezuela from neighboring countries and forces loyal to Maduro blocking the shipments, the top US diplomat said "the U.S. condemns the attacks on civilians in #Venezuela perpetrated by Maduro's thugs."&nbsp;

"These attacks have resulted in deaths and injuries," he added.

"Our deepest sympathies to the families of those who have died due to these criminal acts. We join their demand for justice. #EstamosUnidosVE."

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Saturday the United States "will take action" as he condemned violence perpetrated by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's "thugs" after security forces fired on demonstrators.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Saturday the United States "will take action" as he condemned violence perpetrated by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's "thugs" after security forces fired on demonstrators. "The U.S. will take action against those who oppose the peaceful restoration of democracy in #Venezuela. Now is the time to act in support of the needs of the desperate Venezuelan people," Pompeo wrote on Twitter. "We stand in solidarity with those continuing their struggle for freedom. #EstamosUnidosVE." The U.S. will take action against those who oppose the peaceful restoration of democracy in #Venezuela. Now is the time to act in support of the needs of the desperate Venezuelan people. We stand in solidarity with those continuing their struggle for freedom. #EstamosUnidosVE pic.twitter.com/XfLEsyT6Rj — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) February 24, 2019 × After two people were killed and more than 300 wounded in clashes between people trying to get humanitarian aid into Venezuela from neighboring countries and forces loyal to Maduro blocking the shipments, the top US diplomat said "the U.S. condemns the attacks on civilians in #Venezuela perpetrated by Maduro's thugs." "These attacks have resulted in deaths and injuries," he added. "Our deepest sympathies to the families of those who have died due to these criminal acts. We join their demand for justice. #EstamosUnidosVE."

Venezuela crisis: US 'will take action', says Mike Pompeo

Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday accused the United States and its NATO allies of discussing how to arm the opposition in Venezuela and alleged Washington was deploying special forces and equipment near the South American nation.

Moscow said it had information to back its assertion but did not reveal it or say what it was.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said a US&nbsp;humanitarian aid convoy for Venezuela could provoke clashes and create a pretext for removing President Nicolas Maduro, a staunch Russian ally, by force.

A senior US&nbsp;administration official called the assertion a "senseless accusation" distributed by Russia as "propaganda."

"There’s no truth to that," the official told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday accused the United States and its NATO allies of discussing how to arm the opposition in Venezuela and alleged Washington was deploying special forces and equipment near the South American nation.

Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday accused the United States and its NATO allies of discussing how to arm the opposition in Venezuela and alleged Washington was deploying special forces and equipment near the South American nation. Moscow said it had information to back its assertion but did not reveal it or say what it was. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said a US humanitarian aid convoy for Venezuela could provoke clashes and create a pretext for removing President Nicolas Maduro, a staunch Russian ally, by force. A senior US administration official called the assertion a "senseless accusation" distributed by Russia as "propaganda." "There’s no truth to that," the official told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Russia accuses US of planning to arm opposition in Venezuela

us-1

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