POLITICS

China’s Approach to the Taliban: A Reflection of Realpolitik

Published

4 years ago

September 6, 2021

Editor

Spread the love

By Paul Wang

First of all, it is necessary to be aware that the Afghan Taliban should not be confused with the Tehrik-Taliban in Pakistan. Literally speaking, the term of the Taliban refers to students or seekers of Sharia law. As one of the prominent factions emerged during the Afghan civil war after the Soviet withdrawal from the country, the Taliban took power in 1996 and then founded the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in Kandahar which was its capital until 2001.

In foreign affairs where sovereign states react with each other in a diplomatic system, the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was essentially isolated from international system except only three countries recognizing it. China did suspend its diplomatic presence in Afghanistan since the Taliban regime was condemned internationally for the harsh-enforcement of their interpretation of Islamic law which resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans including women and children.

In November 2001, after the “9.11 terror attack” upon the United States, the U.S.-led allies decisively toppled the Taliban and forced them to retreat to the border areas but continued fighting against them as the insurgents. When the provisional government was created in 2002, Beijing first restored normal contacts with Kabul, and the bilateral relations between the two sides moved forward steadily with China’s support to Afghanistan financially and politically. Yet during the years of 2002-14, China politically maintained a low profile in Afghanistan even though it had unofficial ties with the Taliban reportedly from the Foreign Ministry of Afghanistan.

By 2014, as the U.S.-led forces began to withdraw from the country, China became “an active and enthusiastic supporter of reconciliation between the Taliban and the Afghan government through working with Pakistan. At first, China’s mediation efforts in Afghanistan began as the Istanbul Process (also known as the Heart of Asia) in Beijing, to reconcile the Afghan government and the Taliban. Since then, China continued its mediations between the warring parties through bilateral and multilateral channels. Some scholars argued that direct mediation between the warring parties in Afghanistan “marks a departure for China since it had previously preferred to exert influence on Afghanistan indirectly through Pakistan.” Now China held talks on peace processes with Afghanistan bilaterally and multilaterally like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The Taliban’s official visit to Beijing began in late 2014 to explore mutual understandings with each other on the world issues. Later China made a series of efforts to meet with Afghan government officials and the Taliban regularly. In addition, Chinese FM Wang Yi made his debut visit to Kabul in 2015 which was followed by the second visit to Beijing by the Taliban delegates in the same year and the next. As a senior official of the Taliban said “they like to keep China informed of the occupation by invading forces and their atrocities on Afghan people […] expecting the Chinese leadership to help us raise these issues on world forums and assist us to get freedom from occupying forces.”

Meanwhile, China used multilateral institutions to mediate between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The Istanbul Process is not the only one case because it followed the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) of which China became a member in 2016 along with Afghanistan, Pakistan and the U.S.; Russia–China–Pakistan Trilateral Dialogue and the SCO particularly. All shared the vision that the Afghan peace and reconciliation process must be an “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” solution which was initially proposed by China. More changes can be seen later in China’s acting as “the honest broker” between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the first trilateral foreign minister dialogues for Pakistan is the key to address counter-terrorism in the Pakistan–Afghan border regions.

China’s approach to the Afghanistan issue aims to claim four objectives: to advance an “Afghan-led” and “Afghan-owned” reconciliation process; to set up inclusive political reconciliation agenda; to insure counter-terrorism capability and combating extreme terrorist forces; and to maintain communication and coordination with the other major players involving the Afghanistan issue. The Taliban has been regarded by China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran, not mention of some states in the Middle East, as a political and military force in Afghan politics. This is a positive step forward not only in bringing peace and security to Afghanistan, but also securing the stability of the region which is pivotal to CPEC’s success and the entire BRI as well.

On July 28, China offered the Taliban a high-profile public forum in Tianjin, a city close to Beijing, declaring that the group that swiftly took back large parts of Afghanistan would play an “important role in the process of peaceful reconciliation and reconstruction” of the country. During the meeting, Chinese FM Wang Yi met with the visiting delegation led by head of the Afghan Taliban Political Commission Mullah Ghani Baradar in China. There are three key points worth noting.

First, China reiterates that Afghanistan belongs to the Afghan people, and its future should be decided by its own people. Due to this, China holds that the Taliban is an important military and political force in Afghanistan which is expected to play a key role in rebuilding peace, reconciliation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Second, the Taliban agrees to observe the “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” principle in the peace and reconciliation process, and establish a broad and inclusive political structure that suits Afghanistan’s realities. Third, China warns that in light of the UN Security Council resolutions, the Taliban must make a clean break with all terrorist organizations including the ETIM and play a positive role in advancing common security, stability and development in the region.

Echoing his host’s concerns, Baradar assured China as a reliable friend of the Afghan people and commended China’s positive role in Afghan peaceful reconciliation process. He added that the Taliban have been ready to work with other parties to establish a political framework in Afghanistan, and vowed never to allow any force to use the Afghan territory to engage in acts detrimental to China which has been regarded as a key player in future nation-reconstruction and economic development. It concludes that China and the Taliban shared a consensus on a wide range of issues.

Since taking Kabul on August 15, the Taliban have become the most possible master in the post-U.S. Afghanistan. Now people have talked about that “The Taliban is back in power, as it was 20 years ago, but what has changed since then?” For the world generally and its neighbors particularly, a key question remains whether Islamist terrorists will again use Afghanistan as a base in the way al-Qaeda did in preparation for the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. two decades ago?

On August 16, the top diplomats of China and the United States held phone talks on the Afghanistan issues and China-U.S. relations. Both sides agreed that the Taliban must announce a clean break with extremism, opt for an orderly transfer of power and establish an inclusive government. They also admitted that the future of Afghanistan should be decided by its own people, calling on the Taliban to ensure the safety of all those who wish to leave the country. China vowed that it stands ready to have communication and dialogue with the United States along the international society to push for a soft landing of the Afghan issue, indicating a readiness to play a constructive role in securing Afghanistan stability and nation-rebuild peacefully.

China has paid close attention to a new Afghan government to be announced soon since its embassy in Kabul is a key channel for the contacts between China and the Taliban. Along with Russia, Pakistan, Iran and some other members of the SCO, China urges that Afghanistan will form an open and inclusive government framework, adopt moderate and prudent domestic and foreign policies, and severe ties with all terrorist organizations. Yet some western states are being delusional that it is they who will determine Taliban’s “legitimacy”. Recently, the Western countries have reiterated that the international community must see whether the Taliban’s statements about providing peace and security are backed up by action. Or the engagement with the Taliban will depend on the fulfillment of the conditions presented to them. Yet China has worked with Russia to demonstrate common opposition to any external pressures on the Taliban, as President Putin said that the western way of so-called “civilization” of other nations is wrong and its purpose is to control these countries under the pretext of promoting democracy.

In sum, the Taliban has welcomed bilateral friendly relations with China with a view to joining the Belt and Road Initiative. As a Czech scholar Josef Kraus said, it all really depends on the pragmatism within the movement of the Taliban, because they have declare to keep away the world’s jihadists from the Afghani territory. Yet, the issues could potentially rise if the extremists within the Taliban exercise pressure on the leadership for more radical actions. Strategically, China wants good relations with the new government and ensures the Taliban does not offer support to terrorists targeting its Xinjiang Uygur Region. As usual, China may handle the situation in a more diplomatic way than other nations potentially threatened by the rise of the Taliban in the region. Accordingly, China has called on an urgent economic and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, so as to make up for the huge damage done to the country’s social-economic development and people’s well-being for more than five decades.

This is the rationale that since the early 2000s, China has become increasingly active in conflict management and post-conflict reconstruction in several countries.

COURTESY: moderndiplomacy.eu/Paul Wang Wang Li is Professor of International Relations and Diplomacy at the School of International and Public Affairs, Jilin University China.

Spread the love

POLITICS

Israel’s Expansion in Gaza: A Turning Point in the Conflict and the Future of Palestinian Territory

Published

2 days ago

April 16, 2025

Editor

Spread the love

Baba Yunus Muhammad

In an alarming escalation, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has announced the “capture of large areas” of the Gaza Strip to be permanently integrated into Israeli “security zones.” This declaration, made on April 15, 2025, signals a dangerous and irreversible shift in the decades-long Israeli occupation: the transition from occupation to de facto annexation.

Israeli airstrikes continue to pummel Khan Younis and Rafah, killing dozens, including women, children, and the elderly. Gaza’s Health Ministry reports over 900 people killed in recent days alone — many of them children. The cumulative death toll now exceeds 50,000, with more than 110,000 injured, many maimed for life. The majority are civilians.

In the most chilling development this week, a mass grave was uncovered in Khan Younis containing the bodies of 15 Palestinian rescue workers — bound, shot, and buried. These were not combatants, but medics and volunteers. The execution-style killings speak to a deepening moral crisis that now grips the conflict.

Strategic Expansion: Occupation Masquerading as Security

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently confirmed Israel’s intentions to create a “second Philadelphi corridor,” effectively carving Gaza into disconnected territories. This would further divide and control the population, while seizing critical border areas along the Egypt-Gaza frontier.

Human rights organizations, including Israel’s own Gisha, warn that Israel has already seized 62 square kilometers of Gaza — nearly one-fifth of the territory — under the guise of “buffer zones.” These so-called zones increasingly resemble permanent annexations. What began as a war is morphing into a land grab, executed under the fog of military necessity.

As one analyst told The Islamic Economist: “This is not just about dismantling Hamas. It is about redrawing the map of Gaza, erasing Palestinian sovereignty, and engineering a demographic reality where Palestinians are forced to leave or live under siege indefinitely.”

Trump Administration and the Shift in American Policy

Under the current Trump administration, Israel enjoys unprecedented diplomatic latitude. Former President Biden opposed any moves to reoccupy Gaza or expel its residents, insisting on a political solution. President Trump, however, has openly spoken of Gaza as a potential “Riviera” and suggested relocating Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan — ideas widely condemned as ethnic cleansing.

Simultaneously, the Israeli government has quietly launched a bureau for the “voluntary transfer” of Gaza’s population. But with Gaza reduced to rubble, its hospitals shut down, bakeries burned, and humanitarian aid blocked, what appears voluntary on paper is, in reality, coerced displacement.

The UN and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have warned that such transfers violate international law, potentially amounting to war crimes. But with a muted response from key Western capitals, including Washington, the machinery of occupation continues unabated.

Deliberate Starvation as a Tool of War

Since January, Israel has imposed a near-total siege on Gaza. Water systems have been destroyed. Fuel is forbidden. Wheat reserves have run out. The United Nations World Food Programme says all bakeries are now closed. Only a few humanitarian kitchens remain — and they too are on the verge of collapse.

The result: Gaza is now facing famine. Children are dying from dehydration and starvation, not just bombs. Diseases are spreading through overcrowded shelters and makeshift camps. The siege is not a byproduct of war — it is the strategy itself.

By making Gaza uninhabitable, Israel appears to be pressuring its civilian population to flee. As history has shown — from the Nakba in 1948 to today — displacement is not a side effect. It is the plan.

Hostages and the Politics of Delay

Israel continues to justify its campaign by citing the 59 hostages held by Hamas since the October 2023 attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis. But as families of the hostages grow increasingly vocal, many accuse the government of sacrificing their loved ones for political and territorial gains.

Polls show that the Israeli public now favors a ceasefire deal that brings the hostages home, even if it means withdrawing from Gaza. But the Netanyahu government — emboldened by far-right coalition partners and a sympathetic White House — refuses to halt the offensive.

Hamas, meanwhile, demands a permanent ceasefire and the right to remain in power. Israel insists on total military victory and Hamas’s destruction. The resulting deadlock is costing lives — every day.

A Moment of Reckoning for the Muslim World

The silence from many Muslim capitals is deafening. While some countries have condemned the atrocities, few have taken tangible steps — whether diplomatic, legal, or economic — to halt the carnage. The Ummah watches in horror, but action remains limited.

Yet this is not just a Palestinian issue. It is a moral and existential test for the Islamic world. Gaza is not just being destroyed — it is being erased. If this moment passes without consequence, the precedent will be set: that under the right geopolitical conditions, a people can be displaced, their land seized, and their history rewritten — with impunity.

The Muslim world must ask: what kind of future are we building, if the soil of the Holy Land can be soaked in blood and the world simply watches?

Conclusion: Toward Justice, Not Just Ceasefire

This is not just a war. It is a transformation of Gaza’s geography, identity, and people. The Palestinian struggle is no longer about borders — it is about survival.

The Islamic world, together with all people of conscience, must raise its voice against this unfolding injustice. Ceasefire is no longer enough. What is needed is an international movement — legal, economic, political, and moral — to end the occupation, prevent annexation, and restore dignity and self-determination to the Palestinian people.

Gaza may be small in landmass. But in the story of justice, it has become a vast battlefield for the soul of humanity.

Spread the love

POLITICS

The Battle for Khartoum: Tracking Sudan’s War over Two Years

Published

2 weeks ago

April 2, 2025

Editor

Spread the love

After nearly two years of brutal fighting, Sudan’s civil war is at a critical juncture: the Sudanese Armed Forces announced it has regained control of the capital Khartoum from its rivals, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. It’s yet to be seen if this signals a break in the war or is simply another phase in the fighting. In this article, Kagure Gacheche tracks the conflict since it began in 2023.

Sudan has been engulfed in brutal conflict since 15 April 2023, when tensions between the country’s two most powerful military factions erupted into civil war.

The conflict stems from a long-standing power struggle over military control and integration. Fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces began in the capital, Khartoum, and quickly spread across the country. International efforts to broker peace since have largely failed.

The conflict, which has been going on for two years now, has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian emergencies. An estimated 30 million Sudanese civilians are in need of aid. Brutal attacks, looting and destruction of infrastructure have become commonplace. Millions of people lack access to essential medical care. Food shortages and economic collapse have worsened the suffering. The war has also triggered a massive displacement crisis, with more than 14 million people forced to flee their homes. Many have sought refuge in neighbouring countries, while others remain trapped in dangerous conditions within Sudan.

As the conflict drags on, the toll on Sudan’s people continues to grow. Estimates of those killed vary widely, from 20,000 to 62,000, but the actual figure could be much larger. With no clear resolution in sight, Sudan’s crisis is one of the most urgent and devastating conflicts in the world. At The Conversation Africa, we have worked with academics who have tracked the conflict since 2023.

Weapons flow

Early on, it was clear that both the Sudanese army and the paramilitary force had a sufficient supply of weapons to sustain a protracted conflict. The country was already awash with firearms. It is ranked second – after Egypt – among its regional neighbours in total firearms estimates. Khristopher Carlson, part of a research project tracking small arms and armed violence in Sudan, noted that the two Sudanese forces might have different fighting methods but were adequately equipped to trade fire. The army’s superiority was its air force and heavy arsenal on the ground. The paramilitary force relied on nimble mobile units equipped primarily with small and light weapons.

External interference

This proliferation of weapons has been compounded by financial and military support from external states. Various foreign players – Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar and Russia – have picked a side to support. However, the influence of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates has been particularly problematic. Political scientist Federico Donelli explained that the two nations viewed Sudan as a key nation because of its location. Following President Omar al-Bashir’s ouster in 2019, the two monarchies bet on different factions within Sudan’s security apparatus. This external support exacerbated internal competition. Riyadh maintained close ties with army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Abu Dhabi aligned itself with the head of the Rapid Support Forces, Mohamed Dagalo, or Hemedti.

Regional dynamics

The support from international players in Sudan’s war has had a damaging effect on regional dynamics. The Sudanese army recently accused the United Arab Emirates of supplying the Rapid Support Forces with weapons through Chad. At a ceremony for an officer killed in a drone strike carried out by paramilitary forces, a senior army official said Chad’s airports would be “legitimate targets” should retaliatory action become necessary. This heightened the risk of a spillover of the Sudanese conflict. Sudan shares borders with seven countries in an unstable region, including Chad, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia. Economics professor and legal expert John Mukum Mbaku warned that a spillover of the fighting could devastate the region economically, socially and politically.

Protecting civilians

The conflict has put millions of civilians in Sudan in the crossfire. A UN report in September 2024 called for an independent force to protect civilians; Sudan’s officials rejected the proposal. However, peace talks have yet to achieve a lasting ceasefire. Sudan had a peacekeeping force between 2007 and 2020, followed by a UN-led political mission that exited in February 2024. Since then, there has been no security presence in Sudan responsible for protecting civilians. Peacekeeping researcher Jenna Russo noted the need for a regional or international peace force that could create “green zones”. This would help protect areas where displaced persons were sheltering and facilitate humanitarian aid.

What’s been missing?

High-level peace talks brokered by the African Union and the UN to negotiate a ceasefire have largely been unsuccessful, putting civilians at constant risk. Talks held in Switzerland and Jeddah have had little impact. Philipp Kastner, a peace scholar, highlighted that the countries hosting or supporting these talks were pursuing competing interests in Sudan, which affected their impartiality. Progress to negotiate an end to the war would be unlikely if external military support to the warring parties continued unabated. Civilians would continue to pay the price.

Kagure Gacheche is the commissioning Editor, East Africa.

Courtesy: The Conservation

Spread the love

POLITICS

Russia-Ukraine War: A Delicate Pause Amid Geopolitical Maneuvering

Published

4 weeks ago

March 20, 2025

Editor

Spread the love

B.Y. Muhammad

In a surprising development, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has agreed to a mutual pause in attacks on energy infrastructure with Russia for 30 days, marking a potential step toward a broader cease-fire. The agreement, facilitated through a phone conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump, underscores the shifting dynamics of international involvement in the ongoing conflict.

The Cease-Fire Agreement: Tactical or Strategic?

While the 30-day truce is being framed as a diplomatic breakthrough, there are indications that the Kremlin has not deviated from its broader objectives in Ukraine. Russia’s agreement to pause strikes on energy infrastructure, participate in prisoner exchanges, and discuss security in the Black Sea has been presented as a concession. However, these elements align with longstanding Russian interests, making it unclear whether the Kremlin has genuinely altered its stance or is simply buying time.

Zelensky, while agreeing to the deal, expressed skepticism regarding Russia’s commitment, emphasizing the need for U.S. monitoring. “Just the assertion and the word of Putin that he will not strike energy sites is too little,” he remarked, underscoring the deep mistrust between Kyiv and Moscow.

Russian Strategy and Western Concerns

Western analysts argue that the Kremlin’s approach remains fundamentally unchanged. Putin’s overarching demand—a complete cessation of foreign military and intelligence support for Ukraine—would, if met, leave Kyiv vulnerable to Russian dominance. While Trump denied discussing aid with Putin, the Kremlin’s statement suggested otherwise, raising questions about the true nature of their discussions.

This development has heightened fears that Moscow is merely playing for time, anticipating that the U.S. may eventually disengage from Ukraine. The timing of this cease-fire agreement, coupled with Russia’s battlefield momentum and growing Western fatigue, suggests that Moscow might be maneuvering for a strategic advantage rather than pursuing genuine peace.

U.S. and Russian Diplomatic Calculations

Trump’s involvement in the negotiations signals a potential shift in U.S. policy. The former president has historically expressed skepticism toward Ukraine’s strategic importance, and his willingness to engage with Putin could indicate a broader recalibration of Washington’s stance. Russia, in turn, appears eager to leverage this opportunity to normalize relations with the U.S. without making significant concessions on Ukraine.

Moscow has already floated the prospect of economic cooperation with American firms, particularly in the rare earth metals and energy sectors. Additionally, discussions have included cultural engagements, such as a proposed U.S.-Russia hockey tournament—seemingly trivial, yet indicative of Russia’s broader attempt to reframe its relationship with Washington beyond the Ukraine conflict.

Implications for Ukraine and the Global Order

For Ukraine, the stakes remain high. While a temporary cessation of hostilities on energy infrastructure provides some relief, the country remains in a precarious position. The prospect of losing its principal backer, the U.S., could force Kyiv into unfavorable compromises that undermine its sovereignty.

For the broader international community, the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to reflect a contest not only between two nations but between geopolitical blocs vying for influence. Russia seeks to restore its sphere of control, while the West struggles to maintain a unified front in supporting Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Islamic world, with its historical ties to both Russia and Ukraine, watches closely, balancing economic interests and diplomatic relations in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

While the 30-day cease-fire offers a temporary reprieve, it is far from a definitive step toward peace. The agreement highlights the ongoing complexities of diplomacy in wartime, the strategic calculations of global powers, and the uncertain future of Ukraine’s sovereignty. As negotiations continue, the world waits to see whether this pause will serve as a bridge to lasting peace or merely as a tactical interlude in a protracted conflict.

Spread the love