Mediaboss Marketing

This dispatch was filed by a JURIST legal correspondent in Afghanistan. For privacy and security reasons we cannot disclose her name.

Reflecting the systematic misogyny now going on in Afghanistan, a government decree was recently published aimed at reducing the salaries of women professors and other government employees to 5000 AFG, or ~70$, without considering their expert knowledge and abilities. In Kabul, protests against the decree reportedly took place in many schools, but as always these days, they were suppressed by the Taliban.

The aim of the new decree is to put more pressure on educated women to make them leave their jobs and stay at home. Its not fair to work with 70 dollars per month this is such a ridiculous amount of money in the current economic chaos in Afghanistan. The worst part of this dictatorship and pressure is that even this 5000 AFG / 70$ is not actually paid to professors and employees.

Everything in this country happens to restrict the activity and appearance of women in society. It is such an unpleasant feeling to be in this situation as an ambitious girl. The authorities only look at women as tools for their own well-being.

It is interesting that all these events took place in advance of the recent Doha meeting. This shows the shameless threat of the Taliban in front of the international community and womens rights. They are insisting rudely on their positions that the subject of Afghan women is their internal issue and the international community doesnt have the right to dictate to them.

If they issue another order declaring that women are not allowed to breathe, it wont come as a surprise.

Opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our correspondents in the field and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.

See original here:
Afghanistan dispatch: salaries of women professors and government employees reduced to discourage them from working - JURIST

The meeting of Turkmenistans ambassador to Afghanistan, Khoji Ovezov, with Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaki in Kabul demonstrated specific dynamics in implementing the TAPI gas pipeline project.

The news agency Alemarah reported the talks centered on the TAPI project and its advancement in Afghanistan. Diplomats discussedthe possibility of increasing the pipelines capacity, which could significantly increase the volume of Turkmen gas supplies to Pakistan and India.

In addition to TAPI, the sides considered expanding transit and transportation connections through the Turgundi station and the joint electric power project of the Nurul Jihad substation in Herat province.

The Afghan side assured determination to resolve the outstanding issues on the TAPI project and start actual work. We are preparing all the necessary documents and starting preparations for construction, Amir Khan Muttaki said.

The minister also noted the work being done to develop railroad facilities in the dry port of Turgundi and promised to update Turkmenistan soon.

Taliban official Zabihullah Mujahid recently announced Afghanistans readiness to develop the TAPI project further and cooperate with regional countries to create a North-South international transport corridor.

View original post here:
Afghanistan Ready to Implement TAPI Project - Times of Central Asia

As the US-led NATO forces withdrew, China stepped into Afghanistan, focusing on exploiting mineral resources, including lithium, crucial for green technologies like electric vehicle batteries. This move has raised geopolitical tensions and also concerns about the ethical trade-offs between economic development and cultural preservation.

In the intricate tapestry of Afghanistans history, where the threads of conflict and resilience are intricately woven, a new chapter is unfolding with the departure of the US-led NATO forces since August 2021. Afghanistan is a nation riven by decades of war, without basic infrastructure or security; a country in which the majority of the population is grappling with severe economic hardship and poverty is impacting more than 90 percent of the countrys population. The security situation is precarious, but the economic condition is far worse. The US-led NATO forces remained in this country for two decades but were unable to uplift the economic condition of poor Afghans. As this nation seeks stability amid the challenges of a fragile security situation, China has stepped in to fill the vacuum and has ambitiously engaged the Taliban regime since August 2021. Chinas engagement in Afghanistan extends beyond maximising economic benefits due to its positioning at the crossroads of Central and South Asia, which is pivotal in its westward expansion, creating an arc from Chinas western regions all the way to the Euphrates, encompassing Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

The situation has sparked a wider debate and raised concerns in the United States, especially regarding strategic rivalry in green energy transition initiatives between the US and China.Afghanistan is home to estimated mineral reserves worth over US$3 trillion, including rich deposits of lithium, copper, iron ore, and rare earth elements crucial for modern technology. In 2010, US government geologists determined that Afghanistan held significant mineral reserves, and dubbed the country as the Saudi Arabia of lithium,an economic source that could begin to help to alleviate the country from poverty. However, little action was taken in this regard during US presence in the region.

With increased domestic and international demand for lithium, and to diversify its supply chains, China has come to see Afghanistan as a potential treasure trove. In January 2023, a Chinese company secured a significant $450 million deal to explore and exploit mineral reserves in northern Afghanistan. Another deal in the pipeline since April 2023 promises a$10 billion investment to explore lithium deposits, aiming at creating 120,000 direct jobs, plus some infrastructure buildings.These moves align with Chinas broader ambition to extend its economic and political influence globally, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative.

The great opportunity in mineral exploration is not without challenges, encompassing heritage preservation, geopolitical dynamics, religious extremism, and the delicate equilibrium between economic growth and cultural legacy. Mines identified at Mes Aynak, for instance, are spread over an archaeological site that occupies a vast and ancient Buddhist monastery complex around the Baba Wali Mountains. The archaeological sites dimple multiple hills and are scattered across more than 100 acres, sitting directly on top of an estimated $80-100 billion worth of copper and other minerals. The excavations have focused primarily on sites from the late Kashan to late Hindu Shahi periods, from around the 2nd to the 9th century CE. The nineteen sites discovered so far include dozens of temples and monasteries filled with painted murals, elaborate stupas, and hundreds of statues, many in an extraordinary state of preservation, but too fragile to be moved. Beyond the geopolitical chessboard, the narrative delves into the heart of Afghanistans rich heritage. The Mes Aynak mines, sitting atop an ancient Buddhist monastery complex, harbor treasures worth billions but also pose an ethical dilemma. The excavation site reveals a cultural tapestry spanning centuries, raising profound questions about the ethical trade-off between economic development and the preservation of Afghanistans invaluable cultural legacy.

Tamim Asey, a senior visiting research fellow at Kings College London, expresses his concerns about the Afghan mining ministrys inability to effectively manage and oversee such contracts. Although unlike the previous Taliban regime and its policies towards Buddhist sites, the current de facto Taliban government has emphasised its intention to preserve the archaeological remains at these site. Tamim Asey cautions that such deals could lead to corruption, mismanagement, and environmental disasters.

Meanwhile, the potential geo-strategic risks and geopolitical implications associated with Chinese investment have prompted careful scrutiny from US authorities, concerned that Chinas deepening involvement could reshape the regional landscape, potentially at the expense of US interests. The fine balance between economic opportunities and geopolitical considerations emerges as a critical challenge for both nations.

Washingtons objectives face even greater concerns regarding Chinese investment and its increasing involvement and influence in the region due to its strained relationship with the Taliban. The lack of transparency and sustainable practices in Chinese investments, as indicated in a George W. Bush Institutes recent report, may lack potency when considering similar malpractices and embezzlement that were routine during NATOs presence in Afghanistan. While legitimate concerns exist about Chinese investments potentially strengthening the Taliban regime, Washington needs to be tactfully select in its strategy for Afghanistan. Given Chinas provision of income and outreach to grassroots communities, it is necessary to reflect on how Chinese investment may impact regional stability. Without providing an alternative option to this poverty-stricken, war-torn land, jeopardising communities in dire need of investment will undermine human security.

Moving forward necessitates achieving a harmonious balance between fostering economic development and safeguarding Afghanistans rich heritage. Both China and the United States face the shared challenge of navigating this complex terrain, requiring diplomatic finesse.

As the narrative unfolds, it prompts the need for a broader global discussino on the ethical dimensions of prioritising financial gains over the conservation of Afghanistans cultural legacy. Stakeholders are urged to seek a delicate equilibrium that respects the nations past while forging a path towards a more stable and prosperous future.

Dr Seema Khanfocuses on South Asianrelations and the broader global context, reflecting her commitment to advancing knowledge in the realms of politics and international relations.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.

More:
Navigating the Crossroads: Chinas Mineral Pursuit in Afghanistan and the US Concerns - Australian Institute of International Affairs

ISLAMABAD: Former premier Imran Khans Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party on Friday demanded Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja and his top team to resign, following a Supreme Court decision criticizing them for misconstruing one of its verdicts and forcing the party candidates to contest the Feb. 8 polls independently.

The apex court upheld the Election Commission of Pakistans (ECP) decision to strip the PTI of its electoral symbol, the cricket bat, for holding intra-party elections that were deemed to be flawed and not in keeping with its constitution.

Subsequently, the ECP rejected the nomination papers of PTI candidates, who were listed as independents with individual electoral symbols.

The court decision that came just weeks before the general elections significantly impacted PTIs ability to present a united front and contest the national polls with full preparation.

The Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja and all four commissioners of the Election Commission of Pakistan should resign immediately if they have any honor and self-respect after the clear decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Omar Ayub Khan, leader of the opposition in the

National Assembly and PTIs general secretary, said in a social media post.

The Election Commission was biased against PM Imran Khan and PTI, he added. The Election Commission is still biased against PM Imran Khan and PTI.

He also lambasted the electoral watchdog in a press conference, saying it interfered in his partys election campaign before refusing to allocate reserved seats for women and minorities to it on proportional basis.

Earlier, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark 8-5 verdict, saying the PTI party was eligible for these seats in parliament.

The short order made it clear the denial of the election symbol did not affect in any way PTIs right to be a political party or participate in elections.

Reading portion of a minority verdict, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa noted the ECP had misinterpreted the courts earlier verdict related to PTIs election emblem.

The ECP by misinterpreting the judgment of this Court dated 13 January 2024, which was regarding non-holding [of] intra-party elections in PTI, wrongly mentioned the said candidates of the PTI as independents in Form 33 of the Election Rules, he said. The ECP had no authority to declare validly nominated candidates of a political party to be independent candidates.

The PTI is currently entitled to around 23 reserved seats in the National Assembly, which does not affect the parliamentary majority of the Sharif-led coalition administration.

Political parties are allocated a total number of 70 reserved seats, including 60 for women and 10 for non-Muslims, in proportion to the number of seats won in general elections. This completes the National Assemblys total 336 seats.

A simple majority in Pakistans parliament is 169 out of 336 seats.

Go here to see the original:
Pakistan says deeply values cooperation with Afghanistan as ties sour over deportations, militancy - Arab News Pakistan

Remarks by Under-Secretary-GeneralRosemary DiCarlo Press conference following the meeting with members ofAfghan civil society and Special Envoys on Afghanistan Doha, 2 July 2024

*The following is a near-verbatim transcript of todays press conference by Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding AffairsRosemary Dicarlo.

This morning, we heard views from members of Afghan civil society, women and men, who provided us the special envoys and the UN - with valuable insights on the rights of women and minorities in the country, girls education, the media, business and many other issues.

They shared their views and perspectives on the Doha process, as well as on engagement between Afghanistan and the international community generally.

Our exchange was extremely important and useful. You may recall that at Doha II, we also had extensive discussions with a broad range of voices.

This morning, we heard a diversity of views; Afghan civil society is not monolithic.

This wealth of perspectives must continue to be part of this process.

As I said at the meeting this morning and in talks with the de facto authorities, there is a need to build trust on all sides.

We have to have a dialogue thats built on honesty.

It must also be based on principles - those of the UN Charter and the various human rights treaties that Afghanistan is a party to.

We are still at the beginning of this process. We are going to need patience, a lot of it, and we are going to need to be realistic.

This is a process based on the independent assessment the UN Security Council recognized last November.

That assessment called for a more coordinated and structured process, with clear conditions and expectations for all sides.

It also called for a principled, step-for-step approach with a clear understanding of the outcomes and commitments from all sides.

Human rights, especially the rights of women and girls, and inclusion of all members of society will continue to be an integral part of all our discussions.

Regarding whats next, as I mentioned yesterday, during the talks with the special envoys and the de facto authorities, there was discussion of creating smaller groups on key issues that are raised in the independent assessment. We will continue that discussion on how to proceed forward.

We are still at the beginning of this process. And it will take time and patience. But our approach has one goal: helping all the people of Afghanistan.

**Questions and Answers

Question(AFI):Thank you so much, Ms. DiCarlo, for this briefing and yesterdays briefing. My question is regarding the participation of member states at the meeting today. A large number of countries didnt turn to participate in todays meeting and meet with society representatives. What do you make of that? They said that this isan important meeting, and yet it wasnt part of the official meeting that took place in the past two days. Do you agree? Also, some people from Afghanistan and the diaspora community are saying that the people who participated from Afghanistan, either by Zoom or in person, are following the same agenda as the Taliban. Do you agree with that? Do you have anything to share with us?

USG DiCarlo: Thank you. First of all, I think there were a fair number of member states there. Some had travel arrangements and had to leave early. Attendance is optional; the attendance at Doha III is optional. As I said, there were a fair number of countries there who asked some very good questions to the civil society members who were participating. In terms of whether these individuals represented Taliban views or not they represented themselves, and they were very clear that they were representing themselves. And I think, as I said its monolithic. Theres a variety of views. I dont think theres a difference for many of us, whether its the envoys, the civil society members who were there about an end state. There may be different views on how you get there, but I think it was really rich discussion. We heard a lot of different perspectives. We had people from the business community, from private sector, from the press, from womens organizations, from business organizations, micro finance organizations, and it was very interesting, and I think quite a rich discussion.

Question (AFI): (inaudible)

USG DiCarlo: Were they upset? Obviously, I think that civil society, many would like to be at the official meeting, but they were pleased to have the opportunity to speak with some of the envoys and explain what they are doing and what their needs are. Its important for us to understand what is it that various groups need. What are the obstacles to truly either practicing their profession or where do they see as obstacles for a society thats more inclusive, etc. and weve got that perspective.

Question(NHK): Thank you, madam. When will what was discussed today be shared with the de facto government? How many countries today appeared, and how about the members of civil society. How many of them were physically present as well as virtually attending?

USG DiCarlo: I am not going to get into how many were there physically or not physically, but there were eight members of civil society who were there. In terms of number of countries, 15 countries and the EU. I dont think the EU would mind that we mentioned that they were there. We had different counts, and everyone was sort of counting a little bit differently, but 15, 16 reps were there. Again, we understand that some had to leave because of pressing business. I know one in particular who very much regretted that he could not remain for another day. But again, we dont mandate people coming to either Doha meeting or civil society meetings, or any other meetings. It was something we wanted to have as a possibility for the envoys to engage.

Question (DW): (inaudible)

USG DiCarlo: No, the discussion was within us. We are not sharing it beyond. People came on their own behalf and expressed views. We really appreciated it, and I think we learned quite a lot.

Question: My question is that we talked to the Taliban delegation, and they said that there were meetings with UN officials based on counter-narcotics, on banking and on supporting the private sector. Regarding girls education and inclusive government, and human rights, they said that its our internal issue, and we will solve it in our country according to Sharia, based on their interpretation of Sharia, and they said they will solve it according to our tradition. Do you think that such big issues could be internal affairs and could be solved in Afghanistan?

USG DiCarlo: OK, let me just explain that, first of all, we had a general session that encompassed the range of issues that were raised in the independent assessment that was done. Then we had two special sessions, one on private sector, and the other on counter-narcotics. We felt that we had to start somewhere and getting into the nitty-gritty of what the obstacles the de facto authority sees, for example, in developing the private sector and hear from the envoys and what they think could be done. So thats one. In the general session and throughout, issues of human rights, especially women and girls, were raised. You cant speak about private sector without talking about having women and more women in the private sector. It is not just, lets say, the right of women to work. But if 50% of the population is not working, thats pretty bad for a countrys economy. Lets be perfectly clear here. In terms of counter-narcotics, obviously the issue of women was also raised. We have alternative livelihoods. There were some women who were growing these crops, it wasnt just men. We have women addicts that need to be treated. This is an issue that absolutely has to be raised. Our role here is to go issue by issue in the independent assessment and cover those issues in a process. That will take time. Human rights, rights of women and girls factor in all of them. The issue of inclusion, inclusivity is a really important issue. Its not just inclusive governance. Its also inclusive aspects in the society, and that was raised as well. And that will be raised in subsequent meetings as we go along. Is it just an internal issue? Afghanistan has signed on to a number of treaties, international covenants, and agreements that are focused on human rights, civil rights. They are bound by those agreements. It doesnt matter that a government changes; the country has signed on as a country. And in that sense, it is not just an internal issue, and we made that clear.

Question (Afghanistan International News Channel): There were a lot of talks and criticism about the secrecy of these three meetings two official and one side event. About today, the names of the participants didnt come out, and they try to not reveal the names and who is participating. Just to clear some minds and also some people who were criticizing this, can give us a quick explanation why these people didnt want to actually have their names come out and introduce themselves? And the whole secrecy about these events why is it so important for details to not come out from these events?

USG DiCarlo: We respect the privacy of participants in any of our meetings, whether it be on Afghanistan or on any issue. And certainly, we dont release the names of people we meet with, particularly if they would prefer that they not be released. I think that that is something that we need to continue as an issue. If they want themselves to maintain or say to the press or anyone else that they were part of it, then that is certainly their prerogative. Thats not something that we do, and this is not just on Afghanistan. Our meetings when we meet, particularly with members of civil society, are closed meetings. And were not hiding anything, but we want to have good discussions and have any participants feel very comfortable.

Question (VoA): Thank you so much. This time, given the criticism of having a separate meeting with the Taliban and meeting separately with civil society activists, it seems as if the Taliban are not going to agree in the future, also, with anyone else. Theyve made it very clear in these two meetings that you have held in February and now. Would the UN again consider repeating this exercise the same way? Or would you, for future meetings, consider changing the format so that the UN does not receive the type of criticism that it has, because the Taliban would not sit with civil society activists, its quite clear.

USG DiCarlo: I would never say never. I think we will see as we go forward how were going to manage this issue. I think its a decision that not only we have to make, but also those who attend, the envoys who attend, on whether they think.. what they think who should be present, if you will. All we want to be able to do is to continue to speak to everybody and have everyones voice heard, and if we can amplify voices who are not, that are not present at a particular event, we are very happy to do that. But again, I would never say never. One thing I want to emphasize is that, if you read the independent assessment, it comes up with a lot of, a number of concerns that Afghanistan has to build its society. It also lists many of the concerns that international community has, where international community feels that Afghanistan is not abiding by its international obligations. A lot of thematic issues. Then at the very end talks about eventually needing an inter-Afghan dialogue. What we are doing is not an inter-Afghan dialogue right now. We are just going through issues at this point, and we want to get various perspectives. But lets be perfectly honest, the citizens, de facto authorities are not ready for sitting down at the table with each other. At least, they werent for this past meeting.

Question: (inaudible)

USG DiCarlo: Thank you and thank you for the interest you have in this process.

See the original post here:
USG DiCarlo on Afghanistan: "Human rights, especially the rights of women and girls, and inclusion of all members of ... - Department of...