|
Editorial Published January 9, 2025
WHAT Donald Trump does domestically when he enters the White House in just under two weeks is frankly the American people’s problem — after all, they voted him into power for the second time. The only exception may be his immigration policy, which would concern many foreigners, including Pakistanis. But the shape US foreign policy takes during the second Trump administration is a matter of concern for the entire globe, as American military and economic decisions have an impact in climes far beyond US borders. Though his support base includes both isolationist MAGA hardliners, who want little to do with the outside world, as well as neocons who favour unbridled American imperialism, it appears that the latter grouping may have the upper hand in forming foreign policy. During a presser on Tuesday, Mr Trump gave broad outlines of his external aims. If he is serious about even half of these promises, the world should be very concerned. For example, he refused to rule out using force to occupy the Panama Canal as well as Greenland. Moreover, he threatened to use “economic force” against Canada, and described the border with his North American neighbour as an “artificially drawn line”. But his most dangerous rhetoric was reserved for Gaza. Reiterating previous threats, Mr Trump said that unless Israeli captives held by Hamas were returned by the time of his inauguration, “all hell will break out in the Middle East”.
Mr Trump must realise that Gaza is already a living hell, thanks to Israeli barbarism and American weapons provided by the Biden administration. The Palestinian people have been constantly burying loved ones; they have been starved to death, and several babies have frozen to death in the Levantine winter. It is difficult to imagine how much more hellish the incoming American leader intends to make conditions for the people of Gaza. What is needed in the Strip is a long-term ceasefire and immediate provision of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. But it is naïve to expect Mr Trump to pressure Israel into silencing its guns in Gaza, surrounded as he is by fanatical Zionists for whom the extermination of the Palestinian people is almost an article of faith. His views on Iran are equally hawkish. Therefore, his promises to bring more ‘hell’ to the Middle East may be fulfilled quite soon.
Published in Dawn, January 9th, 2025
==============================================================================
• Experts suggest prevailing on Hibatullah Akhundzada to solve outstanding issues with Afghanistan
• Call for holistic approach to counterterrorism
• PIPS head opposes idea of restarting dialogue with banned group, says it would lend them political legitimacy
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan should engage with the Afghan Taliban leadership in Kandahar — the actual seat of power in Afghanistan — as it can help address Islamabad’s concerns about the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) hideouts, experts suggested on Wednesday.
The consensus among the group of experts, hailing from the media, academic and security institutions, seemed to be that Islamabad needs to directly talk to Taliban supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada to resolve its issues, particularly those of cross-border terrorism and trade, as he has influence over all ranks of the interim regime in Kabul.
The discussion took place at a dialogue titled ‘The Militant Landscape in Pakistan 2024-25’, organised by Islamabad-based think-tank Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) as part of a perception study that seeks to analyse the evolving militant landscape in the country.
Israr Madani, president of the International Research Council for Religious Affairs, said all major decisions by the Afghan regime, including the ban on women’s education, were taken in Kandahar.
“Islamabad must talk to the Afghan Taliban leadership sitting in Kandahar,” he said, adding that Pakistan should facilitate them if they need some health and visa facilities. “Ultimately, this channel would help Pakistan resolve all its issues with the neighbouring country,” he added.
Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) Managing Director Abdullah Khan observed that the proscribed TTP and other militant groups had changed their operational strategies by reducing attacks on civilians merely to rebuild their public perception.
Tahir Khan, a journalist with a keen interest in Afghan affairs, questioned that if Russia, China and Central Asian states could evolve a strategy to engage with the Afghan Taliban, then why was Pakistan pursuing a policy of disengagement.
Aarish U. Khan, research analyst at the Institute of Regional Studies, claimed that the state’s counterterrorism policy was not holistic. There is a need to involve local communities besides focusing on kinetic operations, he added.
Journalist Azaz Syed said that final decision-making to resolve the conflict should be done by parliament and civilian authorities, recalling how a civilian government had decided to initiate the Swat operation to curb militancy, which had brought long-lasting peace to the area.
Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) Executive Director Imtiaz Gul was of the view that Pakistan had an ad hoc policy when it came to dealing with terrorism and militancy. “We are not extinguishing [the] fire but doing spot-fixing,” he said, adding that Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy should be led by civilians.
In his concluding remarks, PIPS President Muhammad Amir Rana opposed the idea of restarting talks with the outlawed TTP, saying that dialogue gave political and moral legitimacy to militancy and provided fuel to it.
“TTP is an existential threat for Pakistan and there should be zero tolerance for the group,” he added.
Published in Dawn, January 9th, 2025
===============================================================================
|
