Category: 2. World

WASHINGTON: The relationship between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump has become increasingly tense following disagreements over the India-Pakistan conflict and escalating trade tensions, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

According to the report, a pivotal moment occurred during a June phone call, where Modi firmly rejected Trump’s claims of US mediation in the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, infuriating the US president.

During the conversation, Modi told Trump that “at no point during this entire sequence of events was there any discussion… on an India-US trade deal, or any proposal for US mediation between India and Pakistan”, as reported by India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.

This direct denial came after Trump repeatedly and publicly claimed that his intervention had played a key role in ending a military escalation.

Nobel Prize

According to the newspaper, Trump “repeatedly, publicly, exuberantly” declared that he had resolved the conflict, even suggesting that Pakistan might nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, a nomination that he had openly campaigned for.

The Times noted that Trump’s comments carried a “not-so-subtle implication” that Modi should support his Nobel bid — a suggestion the Indian leader refused to entertain.

Trump’s desire for a Nobel Prize added a personal layer to the tension. As the NYT reported, Trump took pride in his “diplomatic achievement”, and his insistence on being recognised for ending the conflict further frustrated Modi. Given Modi’s strongman image, especially in relation to Pakistan, acknowledging US mediation would have been politically damaging.

Swift fallout

The fallout from the June call was swift. Weeks later, amid stalled trade talks, Trump imposed a 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports and added a secondary 25pc tariff on India’s purchase of Russian oil, totalling a crushing 50pc. The New York Times highlighted that these penalties appeared to be more than just a response to trade imbalances — they were seen by many as a consequence of Modi’s refusal to recognise Tru­mp’s role in the ceasefire.

Richard M. Rossow of the Center for Strategic and International Studies pointed out: “The colossal penalties on India appear to be punishment for not falling in line.”

Despite multiple attempts by Trump to reach out to Modi, the Indian leader did not respond. “Modi did not respond to those requests,” two sources familiar with the matter told the newspaper.

This further signalled the unravelling relationship between the two leaders, who had once shared a close bond. Trump’s pursuit of recognition for the ceasefire and his efforts to claim credit for resolving the India-Pakistan conflict were central to the breakdown.

According to NYT, the dispute was exacerbated by Modi’s unwillingness to even subtly acknowledge any US involvement, illustrating how politically sensitive the Kas­h­mir issue remains for India.

Modi’s strong resistance to US intervention was also in line with India’s long-standing policy of rejecting third-party mediation in the Kashmir dispute.

Published in Dawn, August 31st, 2025

AFGHANISTAN is not a victim of any global power play, nor is there any conspiracy being hatched against it. The sole responsibility for the current state of affairs lies with the Afghan Taliban’s interim regime. Their policies are not aligned with their initial commitments, and they have disappointed experts and statesmen who once labelled them as ‘Taliban 2.0’, projecting them as different from the Taliban of the 1990s.

When the Taliban seized Kabul in August 2021, they promised a break from their 1990s image by announcing a roadmap centred on general amnesty, an inclusive Islamic government, respect for women’s rights within the Sharia, freedom of the press and assurances that Afghan soil would not be used against other countries. They also pledged to maintain constructive relations with the international community and to support education and reconstruction. However, these commitments quickly unravelled: the interim government became an exclusive Taliban-dominated setup, women and girls were barred from education and most work, the press was muzzled, extremist groups regained space and Afghanistan remained diplomatically isolated, with engagement limited to humanitarian aid and migration control.

Even so, the world remains divided, engaging with the Taliban only for humanitarian purposes and to curb the outflow of migrants from Afghanistan, with much of this focus directed towards the West. This is why several European countries are engaging with the Taliban.

The Taliban have ruled Afghanistan for four years but have failed to earn international goodwill.

Those who were jubilant after Russia’s recognition of the Taliban regime would have been disappointed that Afghanistan was not invited to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit scheduled for Aug 31 to Sept 1 in Tianjin, China. Afghanistan holds observer status in the SCO, and it is up to the host to decide whether to extend invitations to observer states.

It was up to China to invite the Afghan interim foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi. After the Chinese foreign minister’s recent visit to Kabul to attend a trilateral meeting, which included Pakistan, it was hoped that his Afghan counterpart would be invited to participate in the summit, and Russia, which had recognised the Taliban regime, was expected to put its weight behind the bid.

The US has become vindictive, since Moscow has recognised the Taliban regime and has a strict travel ban on the Taliban leadership, which were imposed on the Taliban leadership under UN Security Council Resolution 1988 (2011). Amir Muttaqi was not even allowed to visit Islamabad, where he had been several times on an official visit. One understands that he also has a scheduled visit to Delhi, which both Washington and Islamabad are not in favour of, but more surprising is that he will miss the SCO summit.

Several interpretations are circulating in the media, ranging from references to the UN Security Council resolutions to suggestions that the move was a punitive action against the Taliban for failing to fulfil their promises to China and Pakistan to act against terrorists operating from Afghan soil. Others believe that the Taliban’s arrogance was the real trigger. In this context, Afghanistan’s government recently terminated a 25-year oil exploration and extraction contract in the Amu Darya basin, previously awarded to the Chinese firm Xinjiang Central Asia Petroleum and Gas Company (CAPEIC), locally known as ‘Afchin’. Signed in early 2023, the $540 million agreement required an initial investment of $150m in the first year.

Interestingly, on one hand, the Taliban have revoked the agreement with the Chinese firm, while on the other, they are offering incentives to Central Asian companies for the same contract. But how can these firms realistically invest in a project that has already become controversial, one from which a significant economic power has been pushed out?

The Taliban have ruled Afghanistan for four years, yet they have failed to build goodwill with the international community. Even neighbouring states from Central Asia to China and Pakistan are reluctant to deepen cooperation, despite their interests in sustaining Afghanistan’s fragile economy and ensuring regional order. The Taliban have attempted to leverage Afghanistan’s natural resources, minerals, agriculture and water for diplomatic and geopolitical influence. However, to exploit these assets, Afghanistan must demonstrate compatibility with international norms and fulfil its commitments. Instead, the Taliban’s domestic order remains as draconian as it was in the 1990s, and their approach to neighbours remains unchanged. How then can they expect the world to treat them differently this time?

Many countries, especially in Europe, are engaging with the Taliban largely out of fear of uncontrolled migration and to prevent a collapse that could trigger another civil war. Yet uncertainty persists: in the event of renewed internal conflict, where will the Taliban stand? Will they revert to being the same militia they were before the Doha Agreement, aligned with Al Qaeda, the TTP, and other regional and global terrorist networks?

Pressure on the Taliban is mounting not only from the US but also its close ally China. Beijing remains uncertain about whether the Taliban can be trusted to engage in long-term mineral extraction and transnational infrastructure projects, as its initial experiences with the regime have been far from reassuring. The recent trilateral meeting in Kabul, involving Afghanistan, Pakistan and China, was significant in this regard. While China has excluded Afghanistan from CPEC, it is still exploring new bilateral geo-economic avenues, attempting to simplify its regional ambitions. Yet, for such cooperation to materialise, the Taliban must first prove themselves trustworthy to both their neighbours and the wider world.

Some Taliban leaders may realise that meaningful engagement with the international community cannot come solely through economic and trade partnerships; it also requires social and political transformation. But the central question is whether the Taliban leadership, especially Mullah Hibatullah, has the capacity or even the will to grasp this reality. Unless they learn to adapt, Afghanistan will remain trapped in isolation and continued suffering.

The writer is a security analyst.

Published in Dawn, August 31st, 2025

• Ruling however allows the levies to stay in place through mid-October
• US president vows to fight back

WASHINGTON: A US appeals court has ruled that many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which have upended global trade, were illegal — but allowed them to remain in place for now, giving him time to take the fight to the Supreme Court.

The 7-4 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday affirmed a lower court’s finding that Trump had exceeded his authority in tapping emergency economic powers to impose wide-ranging duties.

But the judges allowed the tariffs to stay in place through mid-October — and Trump swiftly made clear he would put the time to use.

The appeals court “incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end,” he said in a statement on his Truth Social platform lashing out at the ruling.

He added that he would fight back “with the help of the United States Supreme Court”. The decision marks a blow to the president, who has wielded duties as a wide-ranging economic policy tool.

It could also cast doubt over deals Trump has struck with major trading partners such as the European Union, and raised the question of what would happen to the billions of dollars collected by the United States since the tariffs were put in place if the conservative-majority Supreme Court does not back him.

Friday’s case, however, does not deal with sector-specific tariffs that the Trump administration has also imposed on steel, aluminum, autos and other imports.

‘Diplomatic embarrassment’

Since returning to the presiden­cy in January, Trump has invoked the International Emergency Econo­mic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose “reciprocal” tariffs on almost all US trading partners, with a 10-percent baseline level and higher rates for dozens of economies.

He invoked similar authorities to slap separate tariffs hitting Mexico, Canada and China over the flow of deadly drugs into the United States.

The Court of International Trade had ruled in May that Trump overstepped his authority with across-the-board global levies, blocking most of the duties from taking effect, but the appeals court later put the ruling on hold to consider the case.

Friday’s ruling noted that “the statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax”.

It added that it was not addressing if Trump’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy or deciding whether IEEPA authorises any tariffs at all.

Instead, it sought to resolve the question of whether Trump’s “reci­procal” tariffs and those imposed over trafficking were authorised, with the document noting: “We conclude they are not.”

In a supplementary filing just hours before the appeals court released its decision, Trump cabinet officials argued that ruling the global tariffs illegal and blocking them would hurt US foreign policy and national security.

“Such a ruling would threaten broader US strategic interests at home and abroad, likely lead to retaliation and the unwinding of agreed-upon deals by foreign-trading partners,” wrote Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He added that they could also “derail critical ongoing negotiations” with partners.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, meanwhile, warned that suspending the effectiveness of tariffs “would lead to dangerous diplomatic embarrassment”.

Several legal challenges have been filed against the tariffs Trump invoked. If these tariffs are ultimately ruled illegal, companies could seek reimbursements.

Published in Dawn, August 31st, 2025

SANAA: Yemen’s Hou­this on Saturday confirmed that prime minister had been killed in an Israeli airstrike, the most senior official known to have died in a series of attacks during the Gaza war.

Ahmed Ghaleb Nasser Al-Rahawi, who was appointed last year, was killed along with other officials in the Israeli attack on Thursday, the Houthis said.

“We announce the martyrdom of the fighter Ahmed Ghaleb Nasser Al-Rahawi…along with several of his ministerial colleagues, as they were targeted by the treacherous Israeli criminal enemy,” a Houthi statement said.

“Others among their companions were injured with moderate to serious wounds and are receiving medical care since Thursday afternoon,” it added.

Separately, the Houthis announced that Deputy Prime Minister Mohammed Ahmed Miftah was appointed as interim prime minister following Rahawi’s martyrdom.

Israel has been striking Yemen for several months in response to missile attacks by the Houthis in the Red Sea. The group claimed that the attacks were launched in solidarity with the Palestinians, who have been facing Israeli aggression.

Israeli forces earlier on Friday said they struck a Houthi regime military target. The airstrike had targeted the Iran-aligned group’s chief of staff, defence minister and other senior officials, Israel said, adding that it was verifying the outcome.

Published in Dawn, August 31st, 2025

The 25th SCO Summit is scheduled to be held in Tianjin, China, from August 31 to September 1, 2025. This much-awaited summit needs to be seen in the context of not only what China is doing but also the geopolitical alignment that India might be seeking. The last time PM Modi of India attended an SCO summit in person was in 2022. The 2023 SCO Heads of State Summit was held virtually, with PM Modi chairing it.

One of the reasons that brings Modi back to SCO and most importantly, to China, the host country, is the 50% tariff snub it got from President Trump. India considered this American act as unjust and irresponsible. Unjust because China is the largest importer of Russian oil, yet it is not sanctioned, but India was. So the diplomatic response by India was in line with how it chose to serve its national interest. We will not be told whom we can buy from and from whom we cannot, said India, thus laying the ground for seeking strategic autonomy. Modi heads to China, understanding the geopolitical weight of the SCO. If India won’t export to the US, it will seek alternative markets of the SCO and BRICs as well as access to their resources and the energy reserves.

India’s refusal to join BRI is based on the fact that such an action would undermine its sovereignty. CPEC is the flagship project of BRI, and India fears that joining BRI might legitimise Pakistan’s claim over the disputed Kashmir territory that India claims and Pakistan holds. If India is seeking a broad geopolitical alignment, which means mending its relations with China despite the territorial and land disputes with it, then the circle of this broad geopolitical alignment will not be complete unless India considers mending its relations with Pakistan as well.

Events shape geopolitical trends. The upcoming Head of States SCO Summit is one such event that will definitely contribute to accelerating the geopolitical trend of the demise of American primacy. This SCO summit is unique in the sense that twenty countries are participating in it – the largest number to have ever participated in an SCO summit. This is the beginning, and with every subsequent year, the number of countries attending may rise. Both SCO and BRICS and their membership are likely to become bigger and larger as their attractive economies suck in more and more countries of the Global South.

There is this old quote that a common enemy brings the adversaries together. In the changing geopolitical structure of the world, the US is likely to stand out not as the common enemy but as a losing global hegemon that may be left stranded because it fails to get its act together. Already, SCO and BRICs together hold 35% of the total share of the global output, which is 8% more than the 27% of the same output that G-7 countries hold.

Global North was considered the core, and Global South was the gap. But given this difference in share of the global output by the countries of the Global South, the rich core of the global economy seems to be gradually shifting towards the Global South. Demographically as well, the US represents 4.5% of the world’s population while China, Russia and India combined represent almost 40% of the world’s population. What SCO and BRICS member countries can initiate as a geopolitical trend is similar to a geopolitical trend that the US initiated after World War II.

Within a week of the Allied forces victory, the US cancelled its Land-Lease Program for Britain and replaced it with a loan on commercial terms that Britain could not afford. The US action clearly suggested that a rising power was capitalising on the demise and loss of status of a declining power. Whatever indignity was left for Britain to suffer, as a declining power, was completed when, in 1956, the Anglo-French invasion was undertaken to retake the Suez Canal, which was nationalised by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. President Eisenhower of the US didn’t like Britain’s idea of undertaking the invasion of a strategically important zone without prior consultation. Britain’s global aspirations ended when it was forced to withdraw its forces. Post Suez Canal withdrawal, the geopolitical trend of Britain’s decline and demise as a great power reached its culminating point.

Currently, there is no Land-Lease agreement between the existing three great powers and India as a rising power. What the major powers in SCO and BRICS can do is understand that there can be differences but not disputes, that there can be competition but not conflict. The US Achilles heel is based on misunderstanding this concept. It has become too powerful to resist the temptation of projecting its power in all the negative ways. India is the only country in the world that has been subjected to 50% tariffs, which is an act that is both humiliating and provocative. By imposing huge tariffs on India, all that the US has done is push India into the Russo-Sino orbit.

Two days after the end of the SCO summit, China celebrates its victory over Japan in a victory day parade. There is also a Modi-Putin Summit scheduled in India later this year. India will also act as the host nation for BRICS in 2026. So, there are many opportunities for one-on-one meetings between these leaders of the Global South.

As the world travels down the geopolitical road, the US stands out as a great power that is a borrower and under $35 trillion in debt, which is way more than the annual output of its goods and services. The tariffs and the sanctions that it has imposed is already bringing together 60% of the world’s population that holds 38% of the world’s GDP. The world is witnessing a change. The SCO Summit and similar events showcase that change. It is not only the aspiration for change but also how that change is brought about, which is more important.

No change can be brought about unless the leaders of great powers create conditions for that change to be put into practice. Under the changing geopolitical conditions, the onus lies with India not only to mend its ways with China but also with Pakistan. If this is done, the road ahead can only be one of regional peace and prosperity.