
Widening diplomatic space for Taliban 2.0
On July 3, Russia became the first country to formally recognise the Taliban regime as a legitimate government. China welcomed the Russian move but adopted a cautious approach of not going beyond maintaining contacts with Kabul. Other countries like Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and India also possess ties with the Taliban regime short of granting diplomatic legitimacy. So far 17 countries have established embassies in Kabul but except Russia, none has formally granted diplomatic recognition to Taliban 2.0.
For the Afghan Taliban, the Russian diplomatic recognition is a big victory because so far Kabul has no representation in the UN. Recently the UN General Assembly also passed a resolution against the Taliban regime which was supported by Pakistan but not endorsed by India.
From a pariah state and a source of international condemnation because of its repressive policies against women and girls, Taliban 2.0 failed to comply with the Doha Accord of 2020 which called for forming an inclusive government in Kabul. Since seizing power in August 2021, the Taliban regime is able to widen diplomatic space and seeking full control of Afghanistan. The first Taliban regime which ruled from 1996 and 2001 controlled 90% of Afghan territory and its writ was effectively challenged by the Northern Alliance.
Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its granting of diplomatic recognition to Kabul means that Afghan Taliban will now try to extend their legitimate status. Russia as a successor state of the Soviet Union is however carrying the baggage of 10 years of its military intervention from 1979 and 1989 which devastated Afghanistan.
According to the July 4, 2025 report of Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), "The normalisation of diplomatic ties with the Taliban since their 2021 takeover has come gradually. China became the first country to accredit a Taliban diplomat as an ambassador in December 2023. Beijing was nonetheless quick to claim that this did not amount to diplomatic recognition. Since then, several other countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Türkiye and Pakistan, have upgraded diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level. So far no Western country has granted legitimacy to Taliban regime despite the fact that the Trump administration is in contact with Kabul on security issues."
Facing threats from IS (K), Russia considers Taliban regime as a lesser evil and its natural ally. The ICG report further states, "Although it has been critical of the presence of transnational jihadist groups in Afghanistan, Moscow has found a willing partner in the Taliban in addressing the threat posed by Islamic State's Khorasan Province (IS-KP), which was involved in the March 2024 Crocus City Hall attack that killed 145 people. Moscow went on to remove the Taliban from its list of designated terrorist organisations in April 2025. Russian special envoy Zamir Kabulov stated that Afghan authorities will participate as a full member in the upcoming Moscow Format meeting — a regional forum for addressing concerns around the country."
How is the Taliban regime, despite condemnation from human rights organisations, able to widen its diplomatic space? When Taliban rule is highly authoritarian in nature and prevents any dissent, how has it maintained peace in Afghanistan and given the impression to the outside world that it is focusing on development? Certainly, it is the ambition of Kabul to get maximum legitimacy without reforming its mode of governance, but in view of its rigid approach vis-à-vis women and opposition, it may not be able to achieve its objective so easily.
The widening diplomatic space for the Taliban regime needs to be examined from three ways.
First, the Afghan Taliban seem to be confident that after Russia's diplomatic recognition, other countries will follow suit. According to a BBC report of July 4, "Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi said he hoped it would serve as an example to other countries, which have been reluctant to recognise a regime which implements a version of Sharia law along with severe restrictions on women and girls. Others have decried the move, with former Afghan politician Fawzia Koofi saying 'any move by any country to normalise relations with the Taliban will not bring peace it will legitimise impunity'."
For those countries which have established diplomatic contacts with the Taliban regime despite legitimacy issue, it doesn't matter who rules Afghanistan. What matters is that Taliban government, despite its repressive policies, is a reality and controls the country. Economic, security and strategic interests in Afghanistan are more important than human rights violations by the Taliban regime and denial of a democratic mode of governance by Kabul. Critics argue that compromising on Taliban's exclusive form of government is a violation of Doha Accord which will further encourage the Islamic Emirate to deny women and opposition parties their legitimate rights.
Second, Russia's diplomatic recognition of the Taliban regime will certainly push other countries to follow suit. In that case, voices of dissent against Taliban's denial of fundamental rights to girls and women will be further suppressed. It will create a bad precedent and deprive the people of Afghanistan of their democratic rights. When political opportunism on the part of some countries leads to diplomatic recognition to the once outlawed Taliban regime, it means political repressive regimes of North Korea and Myanmar will also get diplomatic space.
Finally, so far Taliban rulers have been able to convince the world that they different from those of their leaders who ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Although, the Taliban regime is trying to argue that it is fighting the terrorist organisation IS-K, it doesn't mean that its links with TTP don't exist. Islamabad has repeatedly blamed the Afghan Taliban rulers for looking the other way as the TTP carries out terrorist activities inside Pakistan with Indian involvement. Henceforth, the Afghan Taliban's contradictory policy vis-à-vis Pakistan must not lead to Islamabad granting formal diplomatic recognition to Kabul.
The only plausible solution to the Afghan predicament is to launch a political process leading to an inclusive mode of governance instead of granting diplomatic space to a regime which has violated Doha Accord and is in no mood to grant girls, women and opposition their legitimate rights.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
EU unveils bigger long-term budget but risks fight with farmers
BRUSSELS: The EU executive proposed on Wednesday a two-trillion-euro long-term budget bazooka focused on tackling overseas competition and Russian aggression at Europe's borders — at the risk of a new showdown with farmers. Presenting the $2.3-trillion 2028-2034 budget blueprint to reporters in Brussels, EU chief Ursula von der Leyen said it 'will be the most ambitious ever proposed'. The plans seek to bolster Europe's security and ramp up its competitiveness, while paying off debts from a massive Covid-era loan as of 2028 — against a backdrop of soaring trade tensions with the bloc's biggest commercial partner, the United States. The European Commission put 451 billion euros on the table under a broad 'competitiveness' tag that encompasses defence and space — together allocated 131 billion euros, a five-fold increase. The budget plan earmarks up to 100 billion euros for the reconstruction of war-torn Ukraine — as well as substantial new 'flexibility' funds kept available in event of crises.


Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
The strait of no return
When US intelligence revealed that Iran had loaded sea mines near the Strait of Hormuz on July 1, it sent an unmistakable message to the West: Tehran is not backing down after US and Israeli airstrikes devastated its nuclear facilities. Although the Strait remains open, the mere threat of closure is enough to send ripples across global markets. The conflict might appear as yet another Middle Eastern flashpoint, but the trickle-down effects are going to be much worse. Asia's largest economies – China, India, Japan, and South Korea – stand dangerously exposed. Around 80% of their Middle Eastern oil passes through the Strait, an artery vital to global trade. Even a short disruption would send economic shockwaves beyond Tehran, Washington, or Tel Aviv. Vice President JD Vance recently pronounced the 'Trump Doctrine' in Ohio, redefining American foreign policy. The new doctrine prioritizes aggressive diplomacy and, if necessary, deploying overwhelming military force followed by a swift withdrawal. Iran's recent defiance near the Strait of Hormuz is already putting the Trump Doctrine on trial, testing how far Washington will go to enforce its red lines. Earlier, Trump demonstrated a tough stance, ordering airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites, offering the first glimpse of how this doctrine might unfold. Yet, despite US escalation, CIA analyses indicate the Iranian nuclear programme was set back only a few months; not years, as Trump had claimed. The Pentagon, however, has shown prudence. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Trump's optimism, whereas General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, noted cautiously that 'all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' though he stopped short of confirming the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Tehran retaliated by expelling UN nuclear inspectors, heightening fears of a renewed nuclear drive. Trump's foreign policy does not operate in isolation however. His aggressive stance abroad corresponds closely with domestic priorities articulated in the new 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a fiscal package designed to operationalize his doctrine by reinforcing energy independence and bolstering defense production, at the expense of domestic welfare. After overcoming resistance from Republican hardliners, the bill also includes $4.5 trillion tax cut, substantial hikes in defense spending, and dramatic increases in border security funding, offset by over $1 trillion in cuts from Medicaid and reductions in food assistance for low-income Americans. This strategy seems politically calculated: reassuring Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) base amid sliding poll numbers by projecting decisiveness abroad and economic insulation at home. Yet, such insulation remains a luxury Asia cannot afford. The implications extend far beyond Iran. Trump's new doctrine has alarmed other countries, especially those non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran, despite being an NPT signatory, braved intense punishment, prompting justified caution in countries like Pakistan, a declared nuclear power outside the NPT framework. Recently questioned about potential threats against Pakistan's nuclear facilities, Pakistan's military spokesperson Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry firmly dismissed the possibility, stating unequivocally, 'There is absolutely no concern whatsoever in the military that Pakistan can become the next target.' He further warned that any attempt against nuclear-armed Pakistan would have 'horrific consequences.' Islamabad's cautious yet active diplomacy stems from strategic necessity, heightened by recent events. Only in January 2024, Pakistan and Iran exchanged missile fire across their shared 905-kilometer border, each accusing the other of harboring militant groups. But geopolitical tides shift swiftly; the sudden eruption of simultaneous regional crises, including Pakistan's conflict with India in May and the recent Israel-Iran hostilities, has unexpectedly brought Tehran and Islamabad closer than ever. Following the devastating Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, Pakistan swiftly condemned the aggression, calling it a violation of Iran's sovereignty and urging the UN to intervene. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar publicly signaled Islamabad's willingness to facilitate negotiations, conveying Iran's openness to dialogue should Israeli hostilities cease. Although past mistrust, especially concerning border security and separatist sanctuaries, hasn't vanished overnight, the current environment of heightened tensions has created strategic congruence between these uneasy neighbors. Despite these tensions, it is pertinent to note that Pakistan's imports from Iran grew by 18% last fiscal year, indicating resilient economic ties between the two nations. According to Pakistan's Ministry of Commerce, imports from Iran reached $66 million in June 2025 alone, maintaining steady trade through geopolitical disruptions. Critical land routes, especially the Taftan border crossing, remain operational, essential for sustaining these imports. Total imports from Iran reached $1.222 billion from July 2024 to June 2025, reflecting growing demand for energy supplies, fertilizers, construction materials, and agricultural staples sourced from Iran. Experts highlight that energy imports, mainly refined petroleum and natural gas, account for over 40% of this trade. If Trump, under his renewed doctrine, deals with a heavy hand towards Iran, the resulting regional crisis can jeopardize not just Pakistan's energy security, but the stability of other Asian countries too. For China, a Hormuz closure would pose an immediate economic threat; around 90% of Iran's oil exports, over five million barrels a day, transit via Hormuz. Senator Marco Rubio, sensing the potential fallout in June, urged Beijing to persuade Tehran directly against closure, highlighting severe consequences for China's economy. Such vulnerability emerges at a moment when China's economic recovery remains fragile and Beijing is increasingly wary of Trump's unpredictable military assertiveness, especially following recent US actions in Iran and implicit warnings towards Taiwan. India also walks a tightrope. Despite diversifying energy sources from the US, Russia, and elsewhere, India still relies heavily on Middle Eastern oil, with approximately 35% passing through Hormuz. As energy analyst Vibhuti Garg notes, India remains critically tethered to fossil fuels. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran in retaliation could trigger inflation precisely when India's economy is recovering from recent shocks. Japan and South Korea import over 80% of their energy from abroad; they face even greater risks. Nearly 75% of Japan's oil and 70% of South Korea's crude transit Hormuz, according to France 24. South Korea's renewable energy share remains low at 9%, significantly behind the OECD's 33% average, leaving it especially vulnerable. Any disruption in Hormuz could rapidly choke manufacturing output and escalate consumer prices, dealing severe blows to these two major Asian economies. Trump's latest bill appears to reinvigorate his electoral base, although it would come at substantial political and geopolitical costs. Days after the strikes, Trump's approval ratings dropped to 44%, reflecting Americans' skepticism over US involvement in another Middle Eastern conflict. The administration's tough stance on Iran – backed by record defense spending – caters to voters who are hungry for strength abroad but wary of another endless war. While Tehran has historically issued threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, recent parliamentary support to block the strait have posed a real risk, albeit symbolic. Experts like Edward L. Morse of Hartree Partners suggest the threat is overstated given Iran's own economic dependence on open shipping lanes. Nevertheless, even symbolic actions dramatically raise the risk of miscalculation. Ultimately, Trump's muscular approach risks triggering instability he claims to prevent, potentially forcing nuclear-armed non-NPT states like Pakistan into defensive postures, further complicating global security. The Trump Doctrine favors swift strikes and rapid withdrawals, but the Strait of Hormuz cannot be so easily attacked without mitigating the consequences. Asia, heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil, now faces potential economic turmoil; collateral damage from a geopolitical gamble that has, even before full escalation, already gone too far. (The writer is an educationist and an economist) Copyright Business Recorder, 2025


Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
US lawmakers warn Pakistan over ‘repression', hint at possible sanctions
KARACHI: The US Congress may soon urge President Donald Trump's administration to consider imposing sanctions on countries that suppress religious freedom and violate human rights, Republican Congressman Christopher H Smith suggested during a congressional hearing on Pakistan on Tuesday. 'One of the biggest disappointments — regardless of who is in the White House or at the State Department — is the absence of sanctions,' said Smith, who co-chairs the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC). Smith recalled that the only individual ever sanctioned under US religious freedom laws was Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, following the 2002 Gujarat riots. 'We are going to call on the Irfa office to consider imposing (sanctions) — especially in light of the terrible acts committed against people of various faiths,' he said. The Irfa office, based at the State Department, enforces the International Religious Freedom Act, which authorises the US government to designate and penalise countries that engage in or tolerate severe religious persecution. 'That's it. We've got 18 sanctions here, and we are going to impose them on you,' Smith declared during the hearing on Pakistan's current political and human rights situation. Amnesty International's advocacy director for Europe and Central Asia, Ben Linden; PTI leader Zulfi Bukhari; law firm Perseus Strategies' Managing Director Jared Genser; and Afghanistan Impact Network founder Sadiq Amini provided their testimonies during the hearing. Although the TLHRC does not directly recommend sanctions, Smith's remarks were widely seen as a signal that such measures may be under consideration if current trends persist. His Democratic counterpart, Congressman James McGovern, echoed the concern. 'A vibrant Pakistani community in Massachusetts engages me all the time, and quite frankly, they are worried about the signals coming from our government right now,' he said. The hearing also addressed last week's White House meeting between Trump and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir. Bukhari, a former close aide to Imran, told the panel: 'President Trump wanted to meet someone who is calling the shots. That's why he met the army chief.' Bukhari claimed nearly 200 politically motivated cases had been filed against Imran and his wife, Bushra Bibi. He alleged that 'fundamental rights had been suspended' in Pakistan, the media silenced, and judicial independence undermined through 'coercive' amendments. He also questioned the legality of the February 2024 elections, which PTI has repeatedly alleged were rigged, and criticised the military trials of civilians that he said led to the conviction of dozens of party members and supporters. 'This is a purge,' he said. 'It's not justice.' Toward the end of Bukhari's statement, Smith urged the US administration to sit up and take notice of the situation in Pakistan. He also urged the Trump administration to 'redouble its commitment to democracy and human rights' in the South Asian country. Speaking about the political climate in Pakistan, McGovern added: 'They need to know that people are watching. They need to know we don't like what we are hearing.' The bipartisan hearing focused on civil liberties and political freedoms in Pakistan, highlighting reports of repression, persecution of minorities, and efforts to silence dissidents abroad. Amnesty's Ben Linden opened his testimony by raising concerns over the situation in Balochistan. 'Dr Mahrang and other Baloch detainees should be freed,' he said, referring to the rights activist who has been in prison for more than three months over cases on allegedly 'attacking' the Quetta Civil Hospital and 'inciting people to violence'. Linden warned that recent crackdowns on PTI supporters should be seen in the context of a broader assault on fundamental rights. In 2024 alone, over 300 new blasphemy cases were registered — most against Muslims. 'Several of the accused were killed extra-judicially,' Linden said, calling the trend 'a tragedy'. He also condemned the recent blocking of US-based YouTube channels critical of Pakistan's military, describing the move as 'totally unacceptable'. However, Jared Genser of Perseus Strategies stressed that Washington could not afford to disengage entirely. 'We don't act that way with any regime. We have to engage. The key is for President Trump and Secretary (of State) Marco Rubio to say very clearly: we want a strong relationship with Pakistan, but this is what needs to be done to get there. And that includes releasing (ex-prime minister) Imran Khan and other political prisoners,' Genser said. He noted: 'We need to talk about the tragedy that Pakistan is today in terms of human rights. The Pakistani diaspora is a ray of hope.' McGovern concurred: 'We need to talk. We need to engage. And we need to be talking about political prisoners, the future of Imran Khan … but also how you do it.' In earlier remarks, TLHRC Co-chair Smith warned that the US 'cannot stand by' while military influence allegedly subverts civilian rule in Pakistan. Earlier on Tuesday, US lawmakers also heard disturbing accounts of harassment faced by Pakistani dissidents in the US. Multiple speakers alleged that within 48 hours of a protest outside the Pakistani Embassy in Washington on June 14, 'family members of critics were abducted in Pakistan.' Lawmakers, including Democratic representatives Jimmy Panetta, Suhas Subramanyam and Greg Casar, expressed support for safeguarding the civil liberties of Pakistani Americans. During the commission's hearing, speakers also urged Congress to oversee foreign surveillance operations on US soil and to press technology companies to resist censorship demands from foreign military courts. Established in 2008 and named after Holocaust survivor and former House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Lantos, the TLHRC holds bipartisan hearings to guide US human rights policy. Tuesday's session underscored longstanding concerns about Pakistan's democratic trajectory and signalled growing interest in potential policy responses — including targeted sanctions. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025