20 years after 9/11, has the Taliban severed its ties with Al-Qaeda?

Short Url
Updated 08 September 2021
Follow

20 years after 9/11, has the Taliban severed its ties with Al-Qaeda?

  • Taliban founder Mullah Omar refused to hand over 9/11 architect Osama bin Laden, prompting the US invasion
  • Under the terms of Feb. 2020 Doha peace deal with the US, the Taliban must dissociate itself from Al-Qaeda

PESHAWAR: Privately, Afghan Taliban leaders say they have made enough sacrifices for the sake of Al-Qaeda, despite publicly never conceding they ever harbored the group, its former leader Osama bin Laden, or that Afghanistan was used to prepare the 9/11 attacks and other operations.

They also argue that they lost power in Afghanistan resisting the US invasion after the 9/11 attacks, as the Bush administration launched a vengeful assault in October 2001 to destroy Al-Qaeda and oust the Taliban from power for harboring Osama bin Laden.




A frame grab (L) taken 29 October 2004 from a videotape aired by Al-Jazeera news channel shows Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. (FileAFP)


The gap between the positions that the Taliban has adopted privately and publicly shows that the Islamist group, founded by Mullah Mohammed Omar, does not want to take responsibility for the attacks — its denials meant to argue that the Taliban was, in fact, an unwitting victim when the US invaded Afghanistan.

The jury is still out on whether the Taliban remains associated with Al-Qaeda 20 years on. However, the US as well as the UN continues to claim that the Taliban has not cut its ties, providing names of Al-Qaeda members and affiliates who have died in different provinces of Afghanistan while fighting alongside the Taliban. 




Fighters loyal to Kandahar Governor Gul Agha stand in the wreckage of former Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar's compound, 14 December 2001. (File/AFP)

The Taliban has denounced the claims as propaganda, and issued blanket denials. This reaction is not surprising given that, under the terms of the Taliban-US Doha peace agreement of Feb. 29, 2020, the group must dissociate itself from Al-Qaeda. 

From the outset, the Taliban had a nebulous and controversial relationship with Al-Qaeda, with conflicting views over whether the former or the latter controlled the other. The general Western viewpoint was that Al-Qaeda funded and managed the Taliban, but Taliban leaders disputed this claim and argued that they were in power in Afghanistan and, naturally, called the shots.

The relationship was rather strange because the Taliban were Afghans, known for their fighting skills and a reputation for successfully resisting invaders, including three superpowers (Britain, the Soviet Union and the US). Al-Qaeda members, meanwhile, were mostly Arabs belonging to different countries, inspired by various causes and pulled to Afghanistan by the call of war.

Curiously, the first meeting between Bin Laden and the Taliban leadership took place in an environment of suspicion. It was held in Jalalabad just a few days before the fall of Kabul to the Taliban for the first time on Sept. 26, 1996. A Taliban delegation, led by one of their commanders, Mullah Mohammad Sadiq, who had lost his son battling the Mujahideen in Logar province a few days before, was sent to Bin Laden’s house on the outskirts of Jalalabad city to meet him and find out more about his future plans.

They were unsure if Bin Laden would stay put in Jalalabad, leave Afghanistan or accompany the Afghan Mujahideen trying to escape after facing defeat by the Taliban. The Taliban fighters had just captured the city, and were on their way to Kabul.




Taliban fighters stand guard in a vehicle along the roadside in Kabul on August 16, 2021, after a stunningly swift end to Afghanistan's 20-year war. (File/AFP)

I was a witness to the conversation between Mullah Sadiq, Mullah Mohammad Rabbani, the deputy leader of the Taliban at the time, and Mullah Borjan, the top Taliban military commander, to frame a unified Taliban position ahead of negotiations with Bin Laden.

All expressed their reservations about his intentions and decided to take a firm stand before deciding to let the Al-Qaeda head stay in areas controlled by the Taliban. Eventually, the issue was resolved when he gave an assurance that he would stay loyal to the Taliban and accept Mullah Omar as the Ameer-ul-Momineen. Soon afterwards, he pledged allegiance to Mullah Omar, which was conveyed to the Taliban chief through an interview I had conducted.

The Taliban supreme leader was called the Ameer-ul-Momineen (the commander of the faithful) because he had the final authority on every issue concerning the group. He was accountable to none; every member was answerable to him. His decisions had to be obeyed; disobeying him amounted to a sin.




Taliban fighters put down their weapons as they surrendered to join the Afghanistan government during a ceremony in Herat on 24, 2021. (File/AFP)

If there is a common factor that has kept both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda strong and relevant, it is their ability to survive in a united way as militant groups. Otherwise, both might have split not once, but many times over.

In hindsight, the Taliban’s decision, when it emerged as a movement in the autumn of 1994 in Kandahar, to have a supreme leader proved crucial in keeping the flock together. In Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda too had a resourceful founder.

For 27 long years, the Taliban has remained largely united despite the fact that its members were drawn to it from rival Afghan Mujahideen groups. Its leaders resisted political and monetary temptations to defect or launch separate wars on Mujahideen factions and US-led NATO forces.




Taliban fighters are pictured in a vehicle of Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) on a street in Kandahar on August 13, 2021. (File/AFP)

Though there have been a few minor splits in the group, including one led by Mullah Mohammad Rasool, none was big enough to weaken it and cause its collapse.

So far, the Taliban has had three supreme leaders, including Mullah Omar, a semi-literate village cleric from Kandahar, who was the founder and remained the supreme leader until his death in 2016. His leadership was unchallenged as long as he was alive and even his death was kept secret for nearly two years as other Taliban figures feared the group might splinter once the supreme leader was gone.

The other two supreme leaders were Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansoor, a controversial military commander who was killed in a US drone strike in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, and Shaikh Haibatullah Akhundzada, a respected religious scholar who has led the Taliban to their biggest military victory to date — the capture of the entire country.

Mullah Omar, as we know, refused to hand over Bin Laden to the US after the 9/11 attacks. Tremendous pressure was brought to bear on him, including the threat of an American invasion of Afghanistan, but none of this was enough to make him change his mind.




This undated photo obtained July 30, 2015 courtesy of the US State Department shows Mullah Omar. (File/AFP)

The Pakistan government, which was close to the Taliban, also applied pressure on the group through Pakistani religious scholars and the military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to hand over Bin Laden to the US or Saudi Arabia. Once again, the efforts did not succeed.

The Taliban was defeated in a few weeks as its fighters had no protection from American air power. However, they did not suffer many casualties. They merely retreated, melting into the rural population.

When the Americans invaded, Al-Qaeda decided to go to Tora Bora on the border with Pakistan. The Americans came to know Bin Laden was there in December 2001, and bombed heavily.




A US soldier armed with an M249 light machine gun takes position on a dirt road while troops from Battle Company, 1-32 Infantry Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team and Afghan National Army soldiers approach Mullah Omar mosque. (File/AFP)

The chain of events thus culminated in the US invasion, the collapse of the Taliban regime and the deaths of scores of Taliban fighters. Mullah Omar made it clear that Islamic teachings did not allow him to betray and deliver a fellow Muslim, even if the man had a $10 million price on his head.

Twitter: @rahimyusufzai1


UK union leaders say Met police charges against Palestine activists an attack on right to protest

Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

UK union leaders say Met police charges against Palestine activists an attack on right to protest

  • In January, the Metropolitan Police arrested over 70 people in a pro-Palestine protest, including several prominent activists
  • Union leaders called for the Met to drop charges against former NEU executive member, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

LONDON: Over 20 prominent union leaders in the UK have raised concerns about the erosion of the right to peaceful protest in the country and about the Metropolitan Police’s handling of pro-Palestinian marches.

The 22 trade union leaders criticized in a joint statement on Tuesday the Met’s decision to charge former union members who were arrested during a London protest in solidarity with Palestine.

The Met arrested over 70 people in a pro-Palestine protest on Jan. 18 in London. Among those detained were Alex Kenny, a former executive member of the National Education Union; Sophie Bolt, the general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign; and Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition.

The union leaders referred to the arrests and charges against Kenny and Bolt as a threat to the right to protest.

“Alex Kenny is a long-standing, and widely respected, trade union activist who has organised peaceful demonstrations in London for decades,” they said in a statement.

“We believe these charges are an attack on our right to protest. The right to protest is fundamental to trade unions and the wider movement. The freedoms to organise, of assembly and of speech matter; we must defend them,” they added.

They called for the Met to drop charges against Kenny, Bolt, Nineham, and Jamal.

The signatories include Paul Nowak from the Trades Union Congress, Christina McAnea from Unison, Daniel Kebede from the NEU, Matt Wrack from the Teachers’ Union, Dave Ward of the Communication Workers Union, Mick Whelan of the train drivers’ union ASLEF, and Eddie Dempsey from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

They said the decision to charge Kenny and Bolt follows the prosecution of Nineham and Jamal.

Amnesty International, along with dozens of legal experts, expressed concerns over the Met’s handling of the pro-Palestine protest in January, with some describing the arrests as “a disproportionate, unwarranted and dangerous assault on the right to assembly and protest.”

At the protest, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell were interviewed under caution and released pending further investigations. MPs and peers have also called on Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to review protest legislation introduced by the former Conservative government.


Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details 

Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

Europeans open to buying US arms for Ukraine under Trump plan but need details 

  • “Of course we can’t do it on our own, we need others to partner up,” Rasmussen told reporters
  • European ministers said they would now need to examine how new purchases of US weapons could be paid for

BRUSSELS: Several European countries said on Tuesday they were willing to buy US arms for Ukraine under a scheme announced by US President Donald Trump, although arrangements still needed to be worked out.

Trump said on Monday that Washington will supply Patriot air defense systems, missiles and other weaponry to Ukraine for its war against Russia’s invasion and that the arms would be paid for by other NATO countries.

But much remains undisclosed, including the amounts and precise types of weapons to be provided, how quickly they would be supplied and how they would be paid for.

US officials have suggested that European countries will be willing to give up some of their own stocks of weapons for Ukraine and then buy replacements from the United States. But some of the countries involved say they still don’t even know what is being asked of them.

Such a move would get weapons to Ukraine more quickly but would leave donor countries’ defenses more exposed until new systems are ready.

“We are ready to participate. Of course we can’t do it on our own, we need others to partner up – but we have a readiness,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday ahead of a meeting of European Union ministers.

Speaking alongside Trump at the White House on Monday, NATO chief Mark Rutte said that Germany, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada want to be part of the new initiative.

Many of those countries have been among the biggest military aid donors to Ukraine, either overall or per capita.

Asked whether Denmark could give US arms from its own stocks as part of the scheme, Rasmussen said: “We don’t have these kind of systems – the Patriot systems – so if we should lean in, and we are absolutely ready to do so, it will be (with) money and we have to work out the details.”

European ministers said they would now need to examine how new purchases of US weapons could be paid for. In many cases, that seems likely to involve countries teaming up to buy US weapons systems.

“Now we need to see how together we can go in and finance, among other things, Patriots, which they plan to send to Ukraine,” Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told Swedish radio.

In Brussels, Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said his country is looking into the plan “with a positive inclination”.

Asked about the scheme, Norwegian Defense Minister Tore Sandvik told Reuters that Oslo was “in close dialogue with Ukraine” on military aid and “air defense remains a high priority for Ukraine and for the Norwegian military support”.

“Norway has contributed to significant amounts of air defense for Ukraine, including co-financing the donation of a Patriot system and missiles,” he said.

The Finnish Defense Ministry said Helsinki “will continue to provide material support to Ukraine”.

“The details of the US initiative ... are not yet known and we are interested to hear more about them before we can take more concrete lines on this issue,” it said.


Air India crash: Pilot groups push back against human error narrative

Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

Air India crash: Pilot groups push back against human error narrative

  • Initial probe finds aircraft’s engine fuel switches were turned off, but does not specify by whom
  • Pilots reject report as ‘inconclusive,’ say it leads media and public to ‘jump to conclusions’

NEW DELHI: Associations of Indian pilots are rejecting claims that last month’s Air India plane crash that killed 260 people was due to human error, after a preliminary investigation sparked speculation implicating the flight crew.

The London-bound Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crashed less than a minute after taking off from Ahmedabad airport in the western Indian state of Gujarat on June 12.

A report released over the weekend by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau said that seconds after take-off, both of the plane’s fuel-control switches moved to the position stopping fuel from the engines.

It did not specify who turned off the switches, only citing the cockpit voice recording, in which “one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cut off,” while “the other pilot responded that he did not do so.”

The Indian Commercial Pilots Association and the Airline Pilots’ Association of India have issued statements after the release of the initial findings — and the first media and online reactions to it — rejecting speculative narratives and presumptions over the guilt of the pilots.

Capt. Kishore Chinta, an ALPA member and accident investigator, told Arab News that both associations have “raised red flags on the selective release of information” by the AAIB, which has “left the scope of ambiguity for people to jump to conclusions” and for the media to spin narratives.

0 seconds of 1 minute, 8 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
01:08
01:08
 

“We are left defending those pilots who are not there to defend themselves,” he said. “The Western media has been painting them as if they actually committed suicide-murder.”

The London-bound flight was carrying 242 people — 230 passengers, two pilots and 10 crew members. Only one person, sitting in an emergency exit seat, survived the crash. Another 18 people were killed on the ground as the aircraft fell on a B. J. Medical College and hostel for students and resident doctors of the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital.

Investigators at the crash site recovered both components of the black box — the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, days after the crash. The Ministry of Civil Aviation said at the time that the final report was expected within three months.

The early release of preliminary findings has shaken the Indian aviation community, for which it was unacceptable that experienced pilots who have flown thousands of hours would have turned off the fuel supply.

“Definitely a malfunction caused the disaster — poor maintenance or a hardware/software glitch,” said Sandeep Jain, an Indian aviator based in the US.

“Dead pilots are always the easiest target. They don’t bite back. No litigation, no shareholder value erosion.”

The Federation of Indian Pilots is planning to raise the consequences of the preliminary report with the government.

“We will be taking it up with the government no doubt. We will not let it go quietly. The report should not be open-ended,” Capt. C.S. Randhawa, the federation’s president, told Arab News.

“It is inconclusive. So many things are not answered properly. The report does not say that the pilots have moved the fuel control switches, that is why it is inconclusive, and it is leading to speculations.”


Ukraine’s prime minister Shmyhal resigns

Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

Ukraine’s prime minister Shmyhal resigns

  • Zelensky nominated First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko for the post

KYIV: Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said on Tuesday he had filed a resignation letter, as a part of a major governmental reshuffle expected this week.

President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday nominated First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko for the post.


Philippines to strengthen migrant workers’ protection in labor deal with Oman

Updated 15 July 2025
Follow

Philippines to strengthen migrant workers’ protection in labor deal with Oman

  • Philippines, Oman plan to sign new MoU on labor cooperation in January
  • Muscat also wants to boost ties beyond labor, explore business opportunities

MANILA: The Philippines is strengthening labor cooperation with Oman to protect the rights and welfare of Filipino workers, its Department of Migrant Workers said following a meeting with the Omani labor minister in Manila.

The majority of over 2 million overseas Filipinos live and work in Gulf countries. 

While most are based in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, some 50,000 are in Oman, contributing over $340 million in annual remittance inflows to the Philippines. 

Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Al-Busaidi and Labor Minister Mahad bin Said Ba’awin were in the Philippines earlier this week to discuss ways to further relations.  

In a meeting with Philippine Migrant Workers Secretary Hans Leo Cacdac on Monday, they held talks over a new agreement on labor cooperation. 

“A key highlight of the meeting was the pending Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Labor Cooperation, set to be signed by January 2026,” the department said in a statement. 

“The MOU establishes safeguards for Filipino workers through ethical recruitment standards, fair employment terms, joint dispute resolution mechanisms, and regular monitoring through a bilateral Joint Committee.” 

According to the DMW, Oman is “actively seeking Filipino domestic workers technicians, port staff, and other skilled professionals,” which could mean new employment pathways for Filipino migrant workers who are qualified. 

The Philippines is also seeking to incorporate technology to streamline recruitment and deployment of overseas Filipino workers to Oman. 

“By forging digital partnerships with host countries like Oman, we can make recruitment faster, more transparent, and more worker-friendly. Tech solutions can ensure every step is secure, accountable, and focused on protecting OFWs,” Cacdac said.

While labor relations have been a key aspect of Philippine-Omani ties, the Gulf state is now seeking to also explore business and investment opportunities with Manila. 

“For many decades, Oman has been a popular destination for overseas Filipino workers, who have found not just employment but a second home in our country,” Al-Busaidi said at the inaugural Oman-Cebu Investment Forum over the weekend. 

“Beyond the labor relations that have long defined our relations, we now open our arms to the business communities and investors of both our nations.”

A “new chapter” of Philippine-Oman relations is possible thanks to the connections created by Filipino migrant workers, he added, while urging Philippine and Omani businesses to collaborate. 

“Together, we can craft a future where the thousands of people to people connections created by the overseas Filipino workers can serve as a foundation for a flourishing economic partnership, and a new era of mutual investment,” Al-Busaidi said. 

“I invite you all to seize this opportunity and make it a beautiful and rewarding new chapter in the story of Oman and the Philippines.”