diplomatic

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is barred from Peru after her government granted asylum to Peruvian ex-premier.

Peru has declared Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum a “persona non grata” who is unable to enter the country, days after severing ties with Mexico amid an escalating diplomatic dispute.

Peru’s Congress voted 63 to 34 on Thursday in favour of symbolically barring Sheinbaum from the country after her government granted asylum to former Peruvian Prime Minister Betssy Chavez, after she fled to the Mexican embassy in Peru’s capital Lima.

The designation of “persona non grata” is typically reserved for foreign diplomats and compels them to leave a host country, and is seen as a rebuke to their government.

President of Peru’s Congress Fernando Rospigliosi said the move was a show of support for the government and its decision to break off relations with Mexico, according to Mexico’s El Pais newspaper.

During a debate on Thursday, Ernesto Bustamante, an MP who sits on Peru’s Congressional Foreign Relations Committee, also accused Sheinbaum of having ties to drug traffickers.

“We cannot allow someone like that, who is in cahoots with drug traffickers and who distracts her people from the real problems they should be addressing, to get involved in Peruvian affairs,” Bustamante said, according to El Pais.

Chavez, who is on trial for her participation in an alleged 2022 coup attempt, earlier this week fled to the Mexican embassy in Lima, where she was granted political asylum.

Peru’s Foreign Minister Hugo de Zela called the decision by Mexico City an “unfriendly act” that “interfered in the internal affairs of Peru”.

Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has maintained that it was acting in accordance with international law, and the move in “no way constitutes an intervention in Peru’s internal affairs”.

Lima has yet to offer safe passage for Chavez to leave the embassy and travel to Mexico.

Chavez, a former culture minister, briefly served as prime minister to President Pedro Castillo from late November to December 2022.

Charges against the former minister stem from an attempt by President Castillo in December 2022 to dissolve the Peruvian Congress before he was quickly impeached and arrested.

Chavez, who faces up to 25 years in prison if found guilty, has denied involvement in the scheme. She was detained from June 2023 until September of this year, and then released on bail while facing trial.

Colombia announced the move after US President Donald Trump called President Gustavo Petro an ‘illegal drug leader’.

Colombia has said it has recalled its ambassador to the United States, after US President Donald Trump threatened to cut off aid and made disparaging remarks about the Colombian president over the weekend.

The South American country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday that Ambassador Daniel Garcia-Pena had already arrived in Bogota to meet with President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump called an “illegal drug leader” on Sunday.

The growing feud between the two countries has centred on US strikes in the Caribbean on vessels that the Trump administration alleges are transporting drugs, mostly from Venezuela. Those strikes, which have killed dozens of people and are widely viewed as a violation of US and international law, have drawn strong criticism from Petro.

In a social media post on Sunday, Trump said aid to Colombia would be cut off and threatened that if Petro did not take more steps to combat the drug trafficking in the country, the US would do the task itself, “and it won’t be done nicely”.

Colombian Interior Minister Armando Benedetti said on Monday that he viewed those remarks as “a threat of invasion or military action against Colombia”.

“I can’t imagine closing down some hectares [of drug production sites] unless it’s in that way, unless it’s by invading,” he added.

The US also announced over the weekend that it had struck a vessel from Colombia on Friday, alleging that it was helmed by a left-wing rebel group involved in the transport of drugs. The Trump administration has not provided evidence regarding those claims.

Petro responded in a series of social media posts, stating that one of those killed in the attack was a Colombian fisherman named Alejandro Carranza, who did not have any ties to drug trafficking.

“US government officials have committed murder and violated our sovereignty in territorial waters,” he wrote.

Islamabad, Pakistan – A series of explosions and bursts of gunfire rattled Afghanistan’s capital late Thursday evening, according to local media. The cause of the blasts and the extent of casualties remain unclear.

Taliban government spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid confirmed that an explosion had been heard in Kabul, saying the cause was under investigation.

“An explosion was heard in Kabul city,” he posted on social media platform X in Pashto. “But don’t worry, it’s all good and well. The accident is under investigation, and no injuries have been reported yet. So far there is no report of any harm done.”

The incident came amid worsening relations between Afghanistan and its western neighbour Pakistan, which has accused the Taliban government – in power since August 2021 – of providing safe havens to armed groups, particularly the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which Islamabad blames for a surge in attacks on its security forces.

The explosions also coincided with the arrival of the Taliban administration’s foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, in India for a six-day visit, the first such trip since the Taliban’s return to power.

Following the Kabul explosions, speculation swirled on social media that Pakistan was behind the attack, allegedly targeting senior TTP leaders, including its chief, Noor Wali Mehsud.

However, the Taliban have not levelled any accusations yet. Pakistani security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity as they were not authorised to talk to the media, neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the Kabul explosions. “We have seen the media reports and statements from Afghan officials about explosions in Kabul. However, we have no further details on this,” one official told Al Jazeera.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also did not respond to Al Jazeera’s queries.

While neither the Taliban nor the TTP has commented on Mehsud and whether he is safe, Mujahid’s comments suggest that no one was killed in the explosions.

Once seen as heavily backed by Pakistan, the Afghan Taliban have been trying to recalibrate their foreign policy, engaging regional powers such as India, their former adversary, in a bid to secure eventual diplomatic recognition.

Pakistan, meanwhile, has accused India of supporting armed groups operating on its soil, a charge New Delhi denies.

Fragile thaw between Kabul and Islamabad

After a bloody 2024, one of Pakistan’s deadliest years in nearly a decade, with more than 2,500 people killed in violence, both countries tried to reset their relationship.

Pakistan’s deputy prime minister Ishaq Dar visited Kabul in April, with senior leadership on both sides holding a series of meetings, often mediated by China. That process led to upgraded diplomatic ties and a brief lull in violence over the summer.

Yet, according to the Pakistan Institute of Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS), an Islamabad-based think tank, violence in the first three quarters of 2025 nearly matched the entire toll of 2024.

TTP remains the singular cause for the increasing attacks since 2021, according to US-based Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED).

“Our data show that the TTP engaged in at least 600 attacks against, or clashes with, security forces in the past year alone. Its activity in 2025 so far already exceeds that seen in all of 2024,” a recent report by the ACLED pointed out.

And in recent days, Pakistan has witnessed a further escalation in violence. A string of assaults has killed dozens of soldiers, mostly in the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which shares a long and porous border with Afghanistan. The Pakistani military on Friday said it killed more than 30 fighters involved in a recent attack in the tribal district of Orakzai.

In September alone, at least 135 people were killed and 173 injured. After visiting wounded soldiers following raids that killed 19 personnel, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif issued a stark warning to Afghanistan.

“Choose one of two paths. If they wish to establish relations with Pakistan with genuine goodwill, sincerity and honesty, we are ready for that. But if they choose to side with terrorists and support them, then we will have nothing to do with the Afghan interim government,” Sharif said on September 13.

On Thursday, Defence Minister Khwaja Asif also accused Afghanistan of enabling violence in Pakistan while speaking on the floor of the parliament

“Despite years of negotiations with the Afghan government and delegations coming and going to Kabul, the bloodshed in Pakistan has not stopped. Daily funerals of military personnel are being held. We are paying the price of 60 years of hospitality to 6 million Afghan refugees with our blood,” he said.

Pakistan has hosted millions of Afghan refugees since the 1980s, first after the Soviet invasion, then during the Taliban’s initial rule in the 1990s, and again after their 2021 takeover.

Since November 2023, Islamabad has been carrying out a mass expulsion campaign, forcing Afghans – many of whom have lived in Pakistan for decades – to return home. Government figures say nearly a million have been sent back so far.

Deepening mistrust

The tensions between Pakistan and the Taliban in recent years have also escalated into military clashes.

The Pakistani military has previously conducted airstrikes inside Afghan territory, the most recent one in December 2024.

Analysts say that if the latest explosions were indeed linked to Pakistan, the implications could be serious.

Tameem Bahiss, a security analyst based in Kabul, said the Taliban have consistently denied harbouring TTP fighters, and any formal acknowledgement of strikes inside the capital could inflame tensions.

“We’ve seen before those previous Pakistani airstrikes inside Afghanistan yielded no concrete results. Instead, they only deepened mistrust and made cooperation on countering the TTP more difficult. This latest incident will likely harden positions further, making dialogue and coordination even more complicated,” he told Al Jazeera.

The last major targeted strike in Kabul took place in 2022, when al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed in a US drone attack.

Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud, an Islamabad-based security analyst, said that if Pakistan was involved in the attacks, they may have been intended as a warning following recent attacks on Pakistani soil.

Mehsud, who co-founded The Khorasan Diary, a security-focused news outlet, said the explosions could signal Pakistan’s intent to pursue high-value targets across the border.

“Pakistan could try and target individuals in Kabul, which is the political capital, as well as those in Kandahar, which is seen as the spiritual capital of Taliban, in case security situation in Pakistan remains dire and Afghan Taliban don’t rein in the TTP,” he cautioned.

Bahiss, however, warned that any cross-border strikes could backfire.

“If Pakistan continues to expand its strikes inside Afghanistan, more Afghans may begin to sympathise with the TTP. This sympathy could translate into new recruits, funding, and possibly even quiet support from some segments within the Afghan Taliban,” he said.

He added that if Pakistan indeed was targeting TTP leaders inside Afghanistan, that could provoke the group into escalating attacks inside Pakistan.

“If TTP leaders have indeed been targeted or killed inside Kabul, that would also serve as a warning to the group, showing that they are not safe even in the capital,” Bahiss said. “The TTP will likely adapt by tightening its security measures, relocating its leadership, and possibly retaliating through more aggressive attacks in Pakistan.” 

UN delegates walked out as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to the podium at the UN General Assembly. Other world leaders condemned Israel’s genocide in Gaza, while a further 10 countries have recognised Palestinian statehood. Observers say Israel has never been more diplomatically isolated.

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy and Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa discuss cooperation and mutual respect as Ukraine and Syria rebuild diplomatic relations.

Ukraine and Syria have formally restored diplomatic relations as their leaders met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said following his meeting with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Syria’s Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, along with an accompanying delegation, also attended the meeting on Wednesday in New York, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said in a brief statement.

Ukraine broke off relations with Syria in 2022 after the government of the country’s former ruler, Bashar al-Assad, moved to recognise the “independence” of the Russian-backed breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. Shortly after, Syria announced it would break ties with Kyiv.

Zelenskyy said Ukraine and Syria signed a communique on the restoration of their diplomatic relations.

“We welcome this important step and are ready to support the Syrian people on their path to stability,” the Ukrainian leader wrote on X.

“During our negotiations with the President of Syria Ahmed al-Sharaa, we also discussed in detail promising sectors for developing cooperation, security threats faced by both countries, and the importance of countering them,” Zelenskyy said.

Today, Ukraine and Syria signed a Joint Communiqué on the restoration of diplomatic relations. We welcome this important step and are ready to support the Syrian people on their path to stability.

During our negotiations with President of Syria Ahmed al-Sharaa, we also discussed… pic.twitter.com/HBXsoaRob8

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 24, 2025

The Ukrainian leader said the two sides agreed to build “our relations on the basis of mutual respect and trust”.

Al-Sharaa arrived in New York on Sunday with a delegation of ministers to join the annual UN General Assembly, marking Syria’s first participation in the event at the presidential level in nearly 60 years.

Damascus had boycotted the gathering after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, when Israel occupied the Golan Heights in southwest Syria.

President Nureddin al-Atassi was the last Syrian head of state to attend the UN summit, holding office from 1966 to 1970.

In January, al-Sharaa assumed power in Damascus after the opposition forces he led overthrew President al-Assad’s regime, bringing an end to the Assad family’s five-decade rule over Syria.

In his debut speech at the UNGA earlier on Wednesday, al-Sharaa called for the lifting of international sanctions on his war-torn nation.

Al-Sharaa highlighted the reform measures introduced in the months since he took power, including the creation of new institutions, plans for elections and efforts to attract foreign investment.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Sunday that the world’s two largest economies should be “partners and not rivals” as Russian President Vladimir Putin made his way to a summit in the city of Tianjin with the leaders.

Meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Modi and Xi “noted the need” to strengthen ties between their populations by resuming direct flights and tourist visa approvals, India’s Press Information Bureau said in a statement.

Flights between the countries have been paused since deadly clashes between their troops in the Himalayas in 2020 over a longstanding border dispute. The visit marks Modi’s first trip to China in seven years, though the pair met in Kazan in 2024, which Xi praised Sunday as the “restart of China-India relations.”

“India is willing to work with China to seek a fair, reasonable, and mutually acceptable solution to the border issue,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in its own statement Sunday. China noted that the border remains “peaceful and stable,” but no timeline was given for when the flights might resume.

Modi noted that India and China both pursue strategic autonomy, and their relations “should not be seen through a third country lens,” India’s statement said. China echoed that sentiment, stating that “bilateral relations will not be influenced by third parties.”

“The two leaders deemed it necessary to expand common ground on bilateral, regional, and global issues and challenges, like terrorism and fair trade in multilateral platforms,” India’s statement reads.

Essentially, the Indian government expressed that India and China are seeking non-U.S.-centric alignment on their shared interests in a “multi-polar” world,” despite their differences in other areas. China’s Foreign Ministry further highlighted their roles as important members of the “Global South.”

“China and India, two ancient Eastern civilizations, are the world’s two most populous countries, and important members of the Global South,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement after the meeting. “Being good-neighborly friends and partners for mutual success and achieving a ‘Dancing of the Dragon and the Elephant’ should be the right choice for both China and India.”

The summit comes after President Donald Trump placed stiff sanctions on India for continuing to buy Russian oil as Russia faces the threat of U.S. sanctions for the war in Ukraine. Putin is also seeking to project a united front with India and China as internal tension in his country over the cost of the war grows.

Russia’s economy has been under growing strain as inflation, currently hovering around 9%, continues to bite, having been fueled by Putin’s wartime expenditures and the ongoing effects of Western sanctions.

On July 25, the Bank of Russia lowered its main interest rate by 2 percentage points, bringing it down to 18% per year, because inflation is easing faster than expected and the economy is gradually stabilizing with price growth slowing significantly earlier in the year, it said in a press release.

The bank said, however, that monetary policy will stay tight for a while. On average, the central bank expects interest rates to stay between 18.8% and 19.6% for 2025, then ease to about 13% in 2026 to make sure inflation continues to fall to its official 4% target by 2026.

Russian economists believe the country can sustain its war efforts for another year or so but new sanctions from the Trump administration, like those on India, could hurt Putin’s war effort.

Other members of the summit include Pakistan and Iran. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also met with Xi ahead of the summit and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is also expected to attend.

SEOUL, Aug. 20 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un‘s influential sister repeated her dismissal of Seoul’s outreach efforts, state media reported Wednesday, saying that South Korea “cannot be a diplomatic partner.”

Kim Yo Jong “sharply criticized the essence of the deceptive ‘appeasement offensive'” by the administration of South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, state-run Korean Central News Agency said.

“We have witnessed and experienced the dirty political system of the ROK for decades,” Kim told North Korean Foreign Ministry officials during a meeting on Tuesday, using the official acronym for South Korea.

“The ambition for confrontation with the DPRK has been invariably pursued by the ROK, whether it held the signboard of ‘conservatism’ or wore a mask of ‘democracy,'” Kim said.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

Kim’s remarks come as the United States and South Korea are holding their annual summertime Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercise. The 11-day exercise began Monday and includes live field maneuvers, computer simulation-based command post exercises and related civil defense drills. Some 21,000 troops, including 18,000 South Korean personnel, are participating this year.

President Lee has stressed that the drills are defensive in nature and has made a series of overtures to North Korea since taking office in June in an effort to improve strained ties.

In a speech Friday marking the 80th anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule, Lee vowed to “respect” North Korea’s political system and said Seoul would not pursue “unification by absorption.”

“We have no intention of engaging in hostile acts,” Lee said. “Going forward, our government will take consistent measures to substantially reduce tensions and restore trust.”

Kim called Lee’s defensive characterization of the joint military exercise “gibberish” and said his administration’s “stinky confrontational nature is swathed in a wrapper of peace.”

“Lee Jae Myung is not the sort of man who will change the course of history,” she added.

The Blue House, South Korea’s presidential office, responded to Kim’s comments Monday, calling them “regrettable.”

“The Lee Jae Myung administration’s preemptive measures for peace on the Korean Peninsula are not self-serving or for the benefit of one side, but rather are for the stability and prosperity of both South and North Korea,” the office said in a statement. “It is regrettable that North Korean officials are misrepresenting and distorting our sincere efforts.”

Kim Yo Jong has made multiple public statements in recent weeks dismissing Seoul’s rapprochement efforts, which include removing its anti-Pyongyang propaganda loudspeakers from border areas inside the DMZ.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Monday said the U.S.-South Korea joint military exercise demonstrated the allies’ “will to ignite a war” and called for the rapid expansion of Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities

Powerful sister of North Korea’s leader rejects peace overtures from South Korea, denouncing its continued military drills with the US.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s sister has again dismissed peace overtures from South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, declaring that Pyongyang will never see Seoul as a partner for diplomacy, according to state media.

The report by KCNA on Wednesday came as South Korea and its ally, the United States, continued their joint military drills, which includes testing an upgraded response to North Korea’s growing nuclear capabilities.

Kim Yo Jong, who is among her brother’s top foreign policy officials, denounced the exercises as a “reckless” invasion rehearsal, according to KCNA, and said that Lee had a “dual personality” by talking about wanting to pursue peace while continuing the war games.

She made the comments during a meeting on Tuesday with senior Foreign Ministry officials about her brother’s diplomatic strategies in the face of persistent threats from rivals and a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, KCNA reported.

“The Republic of Korea [ROK], which is not serious, weighty and honest, will not have even a subordinate work in the regional diplomatic arena centred on the DPRK [The Democratic Republic of Korea],” Kim said, using the official names for the two countries.

“The ROK cannot be a diplomatic partner of the DPRK,” she added.

The statement followed the latest outreach by Lee, who said last week that Seoul would seek to restore a 2018 military agreement between the two countries aimed at reducing border tensions, while urging Pyongyang to reciprocate by rebuilding trust and resuming dialogue.

Since taking office in June, Lee has moved to repair relations that worsened under his conservative predecessor’s hardline policies, including removing front-line speakers that broadcast anti-North Korean propaganda and K-pop.

In a nationally televised speech on Friday, Lee said his government respects North Korea’s current system and that Seoul “will not pursue any form of unification by absorption and has no intention of engaging in hostile acts”.

But he also stressed that South Korea remains committed to an international push to denuclearise North Korea and urged Pyongyang to resume dialogue with Washington and Seoul.

Kim Yo Jong, who previously dismissed Lee’s overtures as a “miscalculation”, described the latest gestures as “a fancy and a pipe dream”.

“We have witnessed and experienced the dirty political system of the ROK for decades… and now we are sick and tired of it,” she said, claiming that South Korea’s “ambition for confrontation” with North Korea has persisted both under the conservative and liberal governments.

“Lee Jae-myung is not that man to change this flow of history” she continued, adding that “the South Korean “government continues to speak rambling pretence about peace and improving relations in order to lay the blame on us for inter-Korean relations never returning again”.

Kim Yo Jong’s comments follow Kim Jong Un’s statements, carried by KCNA on Tuesday, which called the US-South Korea military exercises an “obvious expression of their will to provoke war”. He also promised a rapid expansion of his nuclear forces as he inspected his most advanced warship being fitted with nuclear-capable systems.

The North Korean leader last year declared that North Korea was abandoning longstanding goals of a peaceful unification with South Korea and rewrote Pyongyang’s constitution to mark Seoul as a permanent enemy.

His government has repeatedly dismissed calls by Washington and Seoul to revive negotiations aimed at winding down his nuclear and missile programmes, which derailed in 2019, after a collapsed summit with US President Donald Trump during his first term.

Kim has also made Moscow the priority of his foreign policy since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, sending troops and weapons to support President Vladimir Putin’s war, while also using the conflict as a distraction to accelerate his military nuclear programme.

Moscow says Israeli troops did not intervene as settlers attacked a Russian diplomatic vehicle and verbally threatened diplomats.

Moscow has lodged a formal complaint with Israel over an attack by Israeli settlers on a Russian diplomatic vehicle near an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement on Tuesday that Moscow considered the attack a “gross violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961”, and expressed “bewilderment and disapproval” that the attack “occurred with the connivance of Israeli military personnel”.

According to Zakharova, the vehicle belonging to Russia’s representation to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and bearing diplomatic registration plates was attacked on July 30 near the “illegal Israeli settlement of Giv’at Asaf”, located east of Ramallah and some 20km (12 miles) north of Jerusalem, by a group of settlers.

“The vehicle sustained mechanical damage. The attack was accompanied by verbal threats directed at the Russian diplomats,” the spokeswoman said, adding that Israeli soldiers present “did not even bother to stop the aggressive actions of the attackers”.

According to reports in Russian media, the vehicle came under attack while carrying members of Russia’s diplomatic mission to the PA, who are also accredited with Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

The Russian Embassy in Tel Aviv has sent a demarche letter to Israeli authorities, Zakharova added.

Russia’s first deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyansky, raised the attack on the diplomatic vehicle at a UN Security Council session on Tuesday focused on Israeli captives in Gaza.

Polyansky said the attack on Russia’s vehicle in the occupied West Bank comes at a time when “Israeli authorities have embraced the policy of cleansing and colonising” the Palestinian territory.

“It is ordinary Palestinians and even foreigners who every day become victims of relentless raids by security forces and settler violence,” Russia’s UN representative said.

The “attack on an official vehicle of the Russian Mission to the Palestinian Authority” was carried out “under the lenient eye of the Israeli military”, he said.

“It is clear that a systematic policy of exiling Palestinians – whether from the Gaza Strip or the West Bank – is fraught with new risks and dangers for stability and security in the Middle East and could once again bring the region to the brink of a major war,” he added.

Violent attacks by Israeli settlers and soldiers in the occupied West Bank have surged since October 2023, with the UN reporting that almost 650 Palestinians – including 121 children – have been killed in the territory by Israeli forces and settlers between January 1, 2024 and the start of July 2025.

A further 5,269 Palestinians were injured during that period, including 1,029 children. Settler attacks alone accounted for more than 2,200 casualties and cases of damage to property, the UN said.

Mass layoff came days after the Supreme Court cleared the way for US president to gut entire government positions.

More than 1,350 US State Department employees have been fired in a major diplomatic shake-up ordered by President Donald Trump, in a move critics predict would curb the United States’ influence around the world.

Friday’s mass layoff, which affect 1,107 civil service and 246 foreign service officers based in the United States, come at a time when Washington is grappling with multiple crises on the world stage: Russia’s war in Ukraine, the almost two-year-long Gaza conflict, and the Middle East on edge due to high tension between Israel and Iran.

Diplomats and other staff clapped out departing colleagues in emotional scenes at the Washington headquarters of the department, which runs US foreign policy and the global network of embassies.

Some were crying as they walked out with boxes of belongings.

“It’s just heartbreaking to stand outside these doors right now and see people coming out in tears, because all they wanted to do was serve this country,” said US Senator Andy Kim, a New Jersey Democrat who worked as a civilian adviser for the State Department in Afghanistan during the administration of former President Barack Obama.

The layoffs at the department came three days after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin carrying out its plan to gut entire government positions.

The conservative-dominated top court lifted a temporary block imposed by a lower court on Trump’s plans to lay off potentially tens of thousands of employees.

The 79-year-old Republican says he wants to dismantle what he calls the “deep state”. Since taking office in January, he has worked quickly to install fierce personal loyalists and to fire swaths of veteran government workers.

Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the foreign policy department is too cumbersome and requires thinning out of some 15 percent.

“It’s not a consequence of trying to get rid of people. But if you close the bureau, you don’t need those positions,” Rubio told reporters on the sidelines of his ASEAN meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. “Understand that some of these are positions that are being eliminated, not people.”

The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) – the union representing State Department employees – condemned the “catastrophic blow to our national interests”.

“We oppose this decision in the strongest terms.”

The State Department employed more than 80,000 people worldwide last year, according to a fact sheet, with about 17,700 in domestic roles.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID), long the primary vehicle to provide US humanitarian assistance around the world, has already been mostly dismantled.

According to The Washington Post, State Department employees were informed of their firings by email.

Foreign Service officers will lose their jobs 120 days after receiving the notice and will be immediately placed on administrative leave, while civil service employees will be separated after 60 days, the newspaper said.

Ned Price, who served as State Department spokesman under former Democratic President Joe Biden, condemned what he called haphazard firings.

“For all the talk about ‘merit-based,’ they’re firing officers based on where they happen to be assigned on this arbitrary day,” Price said on X. “It’s the laziest, most inefficient, and most damaging way to lean the workforce.”

British foreign secretary pledges support for Syria’s new government after talks with interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

The United Kingdom has announced it is formally restoring diplomatic ties with Syria as British Foreign Secretary David Lammy travelled to the capital Damascus to meet with interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Al-Sharaa received Lammy on Saturday alongside Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, according to photos of the meeting released by the presidency.

“After over a decade of conflict, there is renewed hope for the Syrian people,” Lammy said in a statement released by his office, noting that the visit was the first by a British minister to Syria in 14 years.

“The UK is re-establishing diplomatic relations because it is in our interests to support the new government to deliver their commitment to build a stable, more secure and prosperous future for all Syrians,” he said.

Syria has been improving relations with Western countries after longtime President Bashar al-Assad was removed from power in December 2024 in an offensive led by al-Sharaa’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) armed group.

In April, the British government lifted sanctions against a dozen Syrian entities, including government departments and media outlets, to help the country rebuild after al-Assad’s fall.

Weeks earlier, the UK had dropped sanctions against two dozen Syrian businesses, mostly banks and oil companies.

On Monday, United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order to dismantle a web of sanctions against Syria that had crippled the country’s economy under al-Assad.

In a statement posted on X, al-Shaibani – the Syrian foreign minister – welcomed Trump’s decision, saying it would “open the door of long-awaited reconstruction and development”.

“It will lift the obstacle against economic recovery and open the country to the international community,” he said.

Syria’s new leaders have been struggling to rebuild the country’s decimated economy and infrastructure after nearly 14 years of civil war that killed half a million people.

Prosecutors in Colombia open a probe into an alleged plot to overthrow President Petro as ties sharply deteriorate.

The United States and Colombia have called home their respective top diplomats in an acceleration of worsening ties, against the backdrop of an alleged plot against Colombia’s left-wing leader.

Washington, DC went first, recalling its charge d’affaires John McNamara on Thursday, “following baseless and reprehensible statements from the highest levels of the government of Colombia,” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said, without giving specifics.

In addition to McNamara’s recall, Bruce said the United States “is pursuing other measures to make clear our deep concern over the current state of our bilateral relationship”, without further details.

Within hours, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro announced he was calling home his top diplomat in Washington, DC, in response.

Ambassador Daniel Garcia-Pena “must come to inform us of the development of the bilateral agenda,” Petro wrote on X, such as tapping South America’s “great potential for clean energy” and the fight against “drug lords and their international finances”.

The diplomatic row came on the heels of the resignation of Colombia’s foreign minister earlier on Thursday – the latest top-ranking official to exit Petro’s government.

“In recent days, decisions have been made that I do not agree with and that, out of personal integrity and institutional respect, I cannot support,” Laura Sarabia, who was also Petro’s former chief of staff, wrote on X.

Deterioration of ties

Colombia was until recently one of the US’s closest partners in Latin America, with decades of right-wing rule, before bilateral relations sharply deteriorated.

Prosecutors in the South American nation opened an investigation this week into an alleged plot to overthrow Petro with the help of Colombian and American politicians, following the publication by the Spanish daily El Pais of recordings implicating former Foreign Minister Alvaro Leyva.

“This is nothing more than a conspiracy with drug traffickers and apparently, the Colombian and American extreme right,” Petro said on Monday.

During a speech in Bogota on Thursday, Petro said he did not think US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whom he had previously linked to the alleged overthrow attempt, was “in the midst of a coup d’etat” against his government.

“I don’t believe that a government that has Iran as its enemy and nuclear weapons pointed at it … is going to start fooling around with a coup d’etat” in Colombia, he said.

In late January, the US briefly suspended consular services to retaliate for Petro’s refusal to allow US military planes to return Colombian refugees and migrants to their homeland.

Petro accused the US of treating them like criminals, placing them in shackles and handcuffs.

The two countries issued threats and counter-threats of crippling trade tariffs of up to 50 percent.

A backroom diplomatic deal involving the deployment of Colombian air force planes to collect the refugees and migrants averted a looming trade war at the eleventh hour.

Al Jazeera’s Alessandro Rampietti, reporting from Bogota, said the first crisis between the two countries over the deportation of migrants was resolved quickly in January.

“The current situation is obviously very worrisome as it is unclear what will happen in this case,” he said.

“But it shows that ties that were taken for granted might now be unravelling,” Rampietti added.

Colombia’s left-wing government also recently refused a US request to extradite two prominent rebel leaders wanted by Washington, DC, for alleged drug trafficking.

Last month, Colombia was rattled by bombing attacks in Cali in the southwest of the country that killed seven people, and the attempted assassination of a conservative opposition senator and presidential hopeful, Miguel Uribe Turbay, at a campaign rally in Bogota. The eruption of violence raised fears of a return to the darker days of previous decades, of assassinations and bombings.

The image of Donald Trump shaking hands with Ahmad al-Sharaa, Syria’s current leader, in Riyadh is one that, until recently, would have seemed unimaginable. Al-Sharaa, once on the U.S. most-wanted list with a $10 million bounty for information leading to his capture, now stood alongside Trump to discuss Syria’s future. This meeting, along with Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Syria, raises a fundamental question: Is America’s war on terror a principled, genuine fight—or a tool serving Washington’s shifting political interests?

A Puzzling Encounter
Trump’s meeting with Ahmad al-Sharaa during his highly publicized Middle East tour sparked regional and global astonishment. Al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, was the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, a group the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization in 2013, offering $10 million for information on him. Following the meeting, Trump announced plans to normalize relations with Syria’s new government and lift sanctions, calling it an opportunity for a “fresh start” for the war-torn nation. This shift stands in stark contrast to the 2013 U.S. stance, when Jabhat al-Nusra was a prime target in the global war on terror.

The White House defended this move as pragmatic, citing al-Sharaa’s role in toppling Bashar al-Assad and his apparent moderation as the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebranding intended to distance the group from its al-Qaeda past. Yet the image of Trump shaking hands with a former most-wanted figure—especially in light of past U.S. actions—was deeply unsettling.

The Soleimani Paradox: A Tale of Selective Justice
To understand the implications of Trump’s meeting with al-Sharaa, we must revisit the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani played a central role in fighting ISIS, particularly in Iraq and Syria, where his forces aided local militias in retaking territory. Despite this alignment with U.S. priorities, the Trump administration ordered his assassination via drone strike in Baghdad, justifying it by citing his support for groups like Hezbollah and alleged threats to U.S. interests.

The contrast is stark: Soleimani, who battled ISIS and extremist groups, was killed; al-Sharaa, once the head of an al-Qaeda affiliate, is now a diplomatic partner. This contradiction suggests that U.S. counterterrorism policy is less about eliminating extremism and more about advancing strategic interests. Soleimani’s death disrupted Iran’s regional influence—a long-standing U.S. objective—while al-Sharaa’s new role aligns with Washington’s aim to stabilize post-Assad Syria without direct military involvement.

A History of Convenient Alliances
Trump’s meeting with al-Sharaa is not an anomaly but part of a broader pattern in U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, the U.S. supported Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets—some of whom, like Osama bin Laden, later formed al-Qaeda. In the 1980s, Washington backed Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, despite his clear record of atrocities, because Iraq served as a counterweight to Tehran.

In 2025, Trump’s Middle East strategy mirrors this tradition. His visit to Saudi Arabia—where he signed a $142 billion arms deal and emphasized confronting Iran—underscored a focus on strengthening allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel while selectively engaging former foes like al-Sharaa. The lifting of sanctions and talk of normalization signal a pragmatic shift, prioritizing stability and economic opportunity over old terrorist designations. This realpolitik approach aligns with Trump’s deal-making rhetoric, such as his readiness to negotiate with Iran—if it abandoned its nuclear ambitions and support for “terrorism”—even while threatening “maximum pressure.”

The Mask Slips from the War on Terror
America’s war on terror, launched after 9/11, has long been portrayed as a moral struggle against extremism. But the meeting with al-Sharaa exposes its instrumental nature. By engaging with a former terrorist leader, the U.S. reveals that its “terrorist” labels are often temporary, shifting when political or economic interests arise. Trump’s handshake with al-Sharaa sends a message to regional players: the U.S. is willing to overlook past crimes for strategic gain—a signal that may encourage other groups to pursue legitimacy through cosmetic political changes.

By contrast, the assassination of Soleimani shows the other side of that coin. His killing wasn’t just about counterterrorism—it was a strategic blow to Iran, a regional rival. Soleimani’s forces played a key role in defeating ISIS in Iraq, yet the terrorist label overshadowed his contributions to a shared objective.

A Policy of Expedience
The photo of Donald Trump shaking hands with Ahmad al-Sharaa is more than just a diplomatic snapshot—it’s a window into the dual nature of America’s counterterrorism policy. When a former al-Qaeda commander is embraced as a partner, but a general who fought ISIS is eliminated by U.S. drones, the message is clear: terrorism is a label used for convenience, not conviction. It reveals a truth the West rarely admits—principles become negotiable when interests are at stake.

As the Middle East enters a new chapter, the world watches and wonders: Is America’s war on extremism truly about security—or just another move in a geopolitical chess game for regional and global dominance?

Taliban government to follow Pakistan’s move to designate ambassador to Kabul as tensions between the two nations ease.

Afghanistan has welcomed an upgrade in its diplomatic ties with Pakistan, signalling an easing of tensions between the South Asian neighbours.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on Friday said the charge d’affaires stationed in the Afghan capital, Kabul, would be elevated to the rank of ambassador, with Afghanistan’s Taliban government later announcing its representative in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, would also be upgraded.

A charge d’affaires serves as an embassy’s chief of mission in the absence of the ambassador.

“This elevation in diplomatic representation between Afghanistan [and] Pakistan paves the way for enhanced bilateral cooperation in multiple domains,” the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted on X on Saturday.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan welcomes the decision of the Government of Pakistan to upgrade the level of its diplomatic mission in Kabul to that of an ambassador.

In reciprocity, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will elevate the… pic.twitter.com/ZY1S5TexAR

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Afghanistan (@MoFA_Afg) May 31, 2025

Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi is due to visit Pakistan “in the coming days”, the ministry spokesman, Zia Ahmad Takal, said.

Only a handful of countries – including China – have agreed to host Taliban government ambassadors since their return to power in 2021, with no country yet formally recognising the administration.

Pakistan is the fourth country to designate an ambassador to Kabul, after China, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. Russia last month said it would also accredit a Taliban government ambassador, days after removing the group’s “terrorist” designation.

For the past few months, relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have been rocky over security concerns and a campaign by Islamabad to expel tens of thousands of Afghan refugees.

Islamabad says armed groups which launch attacks inside Pakistan use Afghan soil. Kabul denies the allegation, saying such violence is Pakistan’s domestic problem to handle.

However, Foreign Minister Dar on Friday said relations between the two nations have improved since he visited Kabul last month. Last week, he also met Muttaqi and their Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, during a trilateral meeting in Beijing.

Following that meeting, China said it will “continue to assist with improving Afghanistan-Pakistan ties”.

In the wake of the recent India-Pakistan confrontation, Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s timely diplomatic mission to four friendly nations—Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan—has emerged as a significant step towards reinforcing Pakistan’s regional partnerships and showcasing its commitment to peace, cooperation, and brotherhood in a tense geopolitical climate. This carefully planned visit not only strengthened Pakistan’s ties with these brotherly nations but also sent a clear message to the world: Pakistan is not alone. It is backed by sincere, strategic, and spiritual allies who value peace, justice, and shared destiny over narrow national interests or short-term economic gains.

Each stop on this visit carried great symbolic and strategic significance. It reinforced bilateral trust, enhanced political understanding, and laid the groundwork for deeper cooperation in trade, defense, energy, culture, and regional integration. At the same time, it highlighted Pakistan’s diplomatic maturity and moral high ground in contrast to India’s aggressive and isolating approach.

Turkey: Brothers in Arms and Spirit

The first leg of Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s journey began in Ankara. The bond between Pakistan and Turkey is not transactional—it is historical, emotional, and spiritual. During the India-Pakistan crisis, Turkey extended its full and unwavering support to Pakistan. This support was not just political—it was moral, diplomatic, and deeply rooted in a shared sense of justice and historical brotherhood.

Turkey’s role in standing by Pakistan during the confrontation with India was instrumental in boosting Pakistan’s position internationally and deterring further Indian aggression. The people of Turkey, as always, remembered the sacrifices of Muslims in the subcontinent during the Khilafat Movement, and once again, Turkish hearts beat in unison with their Pakistani brothers.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s firm statements and diplomatic engagement during the crisis showed the world that Pakistan is not isolated. During the visit, both leaders reaffirmed their mutual commitment to strengthen cooperation in defense, trade, and strategic coordination. They emphasized joint efforts to combat Islamophobia, promote regional stability, and work for greater unity within the Muslim world.

Key Takeaway: Turkey’s support during the confrontation and the outcome of this visit reaffirmed the deep, unshakable brotherhood between the two nations. New trade and defense initiatives were discussed, and Turkey’s continued role in regional diplomacy was applauded.

Iran: A Neighbor’s Role in Pursuit of Peace

The second stop was Tehran, where Prime Minister Sharif met Iranian leadership in a warm and constructive environment. As neighboring Muslim countries, Pakistan and Iran share a border, a cultural affinity, and a common vision for regional peace. They also share a history of facing similar geopolitical pressures, especially from the Western world.

When India escalated tensions with Pakistan, Iran quickly offered to mediate—a noble and thoughtful gesture that Pakistan welcomed. Tehran’s effort to prevent further bloodshed reflected Iran’s maturity as a responsible regional actor. Unfortunately, India rejected the offer and chose to pursue aggression instead, leading to a dangerous escalation.

Despite India’s hostility, Iran stood firm in advocating peace and dialogue. Prime Minister Sharif’s meeting with Iranian leaders focused on enhancing border security, trade connectivity, and energy cooperation. Discussions also covered regional developments and the role both nations can play in promoting stability in Afghanistan and the broader Middle East.

Key Takeaway: Iran’s sincere efforts for peace were appreciated by Pakistan. The visit reinforced bilateral ties in trade, border management, and energy cooperation, and set a tone for greater regional coordination in times of crisis.

Azerbaijan: Strategic Ally, Loyal Friend

The third destination was Baku, where a deeply significant and emotional welcome awaited the Pakistani delegation. Azerbaijan and Pakistan share an extraordinary relationship grounded in shared religion, culture, and history. Both nations have stood shoulder to shoulder on every major issue—be it the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or the Kashmir dispute.

Azerbaijan vocally supported Pakistan during the confrontation with India, dismissing diplomatic pressure and economic blackmail. The visit highlighted the two countries’ strategic convergence, and both leaders committed to expanding ties in defense, energy, and connectivity.

The highlight of this leg of the tour was the trilateral summit between Pakistan, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. This landmark meeting was a symbol of Islamic unity and mutual support. The three nations discussed deeper integration in areas such as trade, technology, security, and cultural exchange. It was a bold display of a united front of Muslim nations determined to support each other and promote peace and justice globally.

Key Takeaway: Azerbaijan’s rock-solid support for Pakistan and the trilateral summit marked a new era of cooperation. It emphasized the rise of new regional alliances based on trust, respect, and shared values.

Tajikistan: Heart of Central Asia, Partner in Progress

The final stop was Dushanbe, where Prime Minister Sharif met with Tajikistan’s leadership. The visit reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to deepening ties with Central Asian states, particularly with Tajikistan—a country linked to Pakistan by geography, religion, language, and shared challenges.

Pakistan and Tajikistan have long enjoyed warm relations, but the visit added renewed momentum to bilateral cooperation. Both leaders discussed expanding trade routes, especially through Gwadar and Central Asia, improving energy connectivity, and strengthening cultural and educational exchanges.

Tajikistan’s support for regional peace and dialogue aligned closely with Pakistan’s vision. The two countries also explored opportunities in hydropower, climate resilience, and people-to-people contact.

Key Takeaway: The visit to Tajikistan strengthened Pakistan’s vision of regional connectivity. It highlighted the strategic importance of Central Asia and reaffirmed that Pakistan is a gateway for the region’s economic growth and stability.

India’s Punitive Response: A Miscalculation?

India’s reaction to the support extended by Turkey and Azerbaijan to Pakistan was sadly predictable. New Delhi announced punitive measures targeting both nations in trade, tourism, and diplomatic relations. This was an attempt to coerce them into silence and dissuade others from supporting Pakistan.

However, this strategy has already shown signs of failure. Turkey and Azerbaijan, guided by principles, did not succumb to pressure. They chose friendship, morality, and shared destiny over economic convenience. Their leaders made it clear: they stand with Pakistan because it is right, not because it is easy.

This tactic is not new for India. It previously attempted to punish the Maldives for not aligning with its foreign policy goals. It urged Indian tourists and businesses to boycott the island nation. Yet, the Maldivian economy remained stable and even grew stronger with support from new partners. The world is watching and learning that using economic pressure to silence moral voices rarely works.

Will India harm Turkey and Azerbaijan? It may try—but it is unlikely to succeed. Both nations have resilient economies, strong alternative partnerships, and, above all, moral clarity. Their alignment with Pakistan is a principled stance, not a temporary convenience. Their message is clear: friendship cannot be bought or bullied.

A Vision for the Future

Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s visit came at a critical moment in the region’s history. The India-Pakistan confrontation risked igniting a broader crisis. But Pakistan chose dialogue, solidarity, and diplomacy. By visiting these four friendly nations, the Prime Minister demonstrated Pakistan’s peaceful intent and diplomatic strength.

Short-term outcomes include:

Stronger bilateral ties and renewed political trust.

Agreements on trade, defense cooperation, and connectivity.

Unified diplomatic messages against regional aggression.

Long-term impacts may include:

Creation of a new regional bloc focused on Muslim unity and cooperation.

Enhanced regional trade corridors linking South Asia with Central Asia and the Middle East.

A more peaceful and balanced geopolitical landscape where mutual respect prevails.

A Diplomatic Triumph

Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s diplomatic tour was a message of peace, friendship, and regional cooperation. At a time when aggression could have escalated into catastrophe, Pakistan chose the path of solidarity, dialogue, and unity. The visit to Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan was not only a reassurance to Pakistan’s friends—it was a strategic recalibration of regional alliances in favor of cooperation over confrontation.

In this ever-evolving geopolitical landscape, nations that choose principles over pressure, and friendship over fear, will shape the future. Pakistan, with its four loyal partners, has taken a bold and commendable step in that direction.

Let us hope the message of this tour echoes far and wide: peace is possible, unity is powerful, and true friendship cannot be intimidated.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif visited Azerbaijan in February, and Turkiye only a month ago, in April.

Yet, this week, he was back in both countries, as part of a five-day, four-nation diplomatic blitzkrieg also including stops in Iran and Tajikistan, where Sharif will hold talks on Thursday and Friday. And he isn’t alone: Sharif is being accompanied by Army Chief Asim Munir — recently promoted to Pakistan’s only second-ever field marshal — and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar.

Their destinations might be familiar, but the context has changed dramatically since Sharif’s previous visits.

More than two weeks after a four-day standoff between Pakistan and India – during which they exchanged missile and drone strikes – diplomacy has become the new battlefront between the South Asian neighbours.

India has launched a global diplomatic campaign, sending delegations to over 30 countries, accusing Pakistan of supporting “terrorist groups” responsible for attacks in India and Indian-administered Kashmir.

“We want to exhort the world to hold those responsible for cross-border terrorism accountable, those who have practiced this for 40 years against India, that is Pakistan. Their actions need to be called out,” said Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, last week.

On April 22, gunmen killed 26 people, most of them tourists, in Pahalgam, a hill resort in Indian-administered Kashmir in the worst such attack on civilians in years. India blamed the killings on The Resistance Front (TRF), which it alleges is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based group designated as a “terrorist” entity by the United Nations. New Delhi accused Islamabad of complicity in the attacks.

Pakistan denied the allegations, calling for a “transparent, credible, independent” investigation.

Then, on May 7, India launched a series of missiles aimed at what it said was “terrorist infrastructure” in parts of Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Islamabad insisted that the missiles struck civilians, mosques and schools. More than 50 people, including at least 11 security personnel were killed in the Indian missile strikes.

This was followed by drone incursions and, on May 10, both sides fired missiles at each other’s military bases, as they stood on the brink of a full-fledged war before they agreed to a ceasefire that the US says it brokered.

Now, Pakistan, say officials and analysts, is looking to flip India’s narrative before the world — projecting itself as an advocate of peace and stability in South Asia, and New Delhi as the aggressor looking to stoke tensions.

‘We want peace’

On Wednesday, Sharif expressed willingness to engage in dialogue with India on “all matters,” if India reciprocates “in all sincerity.”

Speaking at a trilateral summit in Lachin, Azerbaijan, Sharif said trade could resume if India cooperated on all issues, including “counterterrorism.”

“I have said in all humility that we want peace in the region, and that requires talks on the table on issues which need urgent attention and amicable resolution, that is the issue of Kashmir, according to the resolutions of the United Nations and the Security Council, and as per the aspirations of the people of Kashmir,” he said.

Kashmir, a picturesque valley in the northeastern subcontinent, remains the root of conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations since their independence in 1947.

A 1948 UN resolution called for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future, but eight decades later, it has yet to take place.

India and Pakistan each administer parts of Kashmir, while China controls two small regions. India claims the entire territory; Pakistan claims the portion administered by India, but not the areas held by its ally China.

Contrasting diplomacy

But there are other motivations driving Pakistan’s diplomatic outreach too, say officials and experts.

India’s diplomatic delegations that are currently touring the world include members from various political parties, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition Indian National Congress (INC), projecting a unified stance.

In contrast, Pakistan’s current mission is led by top state officials, including Sharif and army chief Munir, widely considered the most powerful figure in the country.

The trip also reflects strategic alignment, say analysts. Turkiye, whose drones were used by Pakistan in the recent conflict, is a key defense partner.

“Pakistan’s defense cooperation with Turkey is especially deep,” said Christopher Clary, assistant professor of political science at the University at Albany.

“Evidence suggests several Turkish-origin systems were used in this recent clash, with varying levels of effectiveness, so there is much to talk about between the two,” he told Al Jazeera.

Khurram Dastgir Khan, a former federal minister for foreign affairs and defence, is part of a Pakistani delegation set to visit the US, UK and EU headquarters in Brussels next month.

He said the current trip by Sharif, Munir and Dar is at least partly about highlighting Pakistan’s capacity to wage a modern war against a larger adversary. “There is immense interest in how Pakistan fought the recent war,” Khan said.

“There are countries deeply interested in learning the details, what capabilities Pakistan used and what Indians had,” he added.

“This opens new strategic possibilities for Pakistan’s defence forces to provide training to others. We are battle-tested. This makes us highly sought after, not just in the region but globally.”

Pakistan relied heavily on Chinese-supplied weaponry, including the fighter jets and the missiles that it deployed against India, and the air defence systems it used to defend itself from Indian missiles.

Post-conflict narrative battle

Though both countries claimed victory after the conflict, the battle over narratives has since raged across social media and public forums.

Pakistan claims to have downed six Indian jets, a claim neither confirmed nor denied by India, while Indian missiles penetrated deep into Pakistani territory, revealing vulnerabilities in its air defenses.

India has also suspended the six-decade-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a critical water-sharing agreement that is vital to Pakistan.

Recently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged Pakistanis to reject “terrorism.” “Live a life of peace, eat your bread or choose my bullet,” Modi said, during a speech in India’s Gujarat state.

He also criticised the IWT as “badly negotiated,” claiming it disadvantaged India.

Muhammad Shoaib, an academic and security analyst at Quaid-i-Azam University, said Modi’s remarks reflected “ultra-nationalism” and were targeted at a domestic audience.

“The Indian diplomatic teams won’t likely focus on what Pakistan says. They will only implicate Pakistan for terrorism and build their case. Meanwhile, the Pakistani delegation will likely use Modi’s statements and international law regarding the IWT to bolster their arguments,” he told Al Jazeera.

Khan, who is also a senior member of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), the ruling party which premier Sharif belongs to, said the upcoming diplomatic mission that he will be part of will focus on issues like India’s suspension of the IWT.

“Our fundamental point is that Pakistan seeks to maintain lasting peace in South Asia, but three major hurdles are posed by Indian aggression,” he said.

The first, according to Khan, is “Indian-sponsored terrorism” in Pakistan, in which, he claimed, more than 20 people have been killed over the past four years. India has been accused by the US and Canada of transnational assassinations. In January 2024, Pakistan also accused India of carrying out killings on its soil. India denies involvement. Pakistan also accuses India of backing separatist groups in its Balochistan province — again, an allegation that India rejects.

“The second point is India’s utterly irresponsible suspension of the IWT,” Khan said.

“Pakistan has rightly said that any step by India to stop our water will be treated as an act of war. This is something that can bring all the region in conflict and I believe that if India acquires capability to divert waters in next six to ten years, and tries to do so, it will lead to a war,” Khan warned.

The third issue, Khan said, is Pakistan’s concern over India’s “status as a responsible nuclear power”.

In the past, New Delhi has frequently cited the nuclear proliferation facilitated by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, as evidence that Islamabad cannot be trusted with the safe management of its nuclear weapons.

But in recent days, India’s internal security minister, Amit Shah — widely viewed as the country’s second-most powerful leader after Modi — has confirmed that India used its homegrown BrahMos missile against Pakistan during the recent military escalation.

The BrahMos – developed with Russia – is a supersonic cruise missile capable of Mach 3 – three times the speed of sound – and a range of 300 to 500 kilometers. It can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads and be launched from land, air, or sea.

Khan, who served as defense minister from 2017 to 2018, warned of “unimaginable consequences” from using such weapons.

“Once the missile is in the air, you cannot know what payload it carries until it hits the target. This is very, very irresponsible,” he said. “India has already shown recklessness when it mistakenly fired a missile into our territory a few years ago.”

Khan was referring to an incident in March 2022, when India fired a BrahMos “accidentally” in Pakistani territory, where it fell in a densely populated city of Mian Channu, roughly 500 kilometers south of capital Islamabad.

India at the time acknowledged that accidental launch was due to a “technical malfunction” and later sacked three air force officials.

Ceasefire holds, but tensions linger

While the conflict brought both countries to the edge of war, the ceasefire declared on May 10 has held, with troops gradually returning to peacetime positions.

Shoaib, also a research fellow at George Mason University in the US, expressed cautious optimism.

“Initiating hostilities is risky. No side wants to be seen as irresponsible. For that to break, it would take a major incident,” he said.

Tughral Yamin, a former military officer and researcher in Islamabad, noted that while diplomacy offers no guarantees, the ceasefire could last.

“India has seen that Pakistan is no cakewalk. It has both conventional and nuclear deterrence,” he told Al Jazeera. “Both sides will remain alert, and Pakistan must address weaknesses exposed in the standoff.”

Clary added that while the India-Pakistan relationship remains fragile, history suggests that intense clashes are often followed by calmer periods.

“It is reasonable for both countries and international observers to hope for the best but prepare for the worst over the next few months,” he said.

But Khan, the former minister, questioned Modi’s comments, after the military crisis, where the Indian PM said that any attack on the country’s soil would now be seen as worthy of a military response, and that New Delhi would effectively cease to draw any distinction between Pakistan’s military and non-state armed groups.

“The new stated policy of the Indian government is to attack Pakistan even after minor incidents, without waiting for evidence. This puts the entire region on edge,” he said. “This trigger-happy policy should concern not just Pakistan, but the entire world.”

Foreign minister Wang Yi is meeting top diplomats from 11 Pacific nations in the Chinese city of Xiamen.

China is hosting a high-level meeting with 11 Pacific Island nations as it seeks to deepen ties and build what it calls a “closer” community with “a shared future” in the strategic region.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is chairing the meeting in the city of Xiamen on Wednesday.

The president of Kiribati, Taneti Maamau, and top diplomats from Niue, Tonga, Nauru, Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, Fiji and Samoa are attending.

The two-day meeting is the third such gathering, but the first to happen in person in China.

Al Jazeera’s Katrina Yu, reporting from Beijing, said the diplomats are expected to discuss trade, infrastructure development, poverty alleviation, sustainability and climate change.

“For China, this is an opportunity to extend its influence and expand economic ties at a time when the United States is showing very little interest in this region, and we know increasingly that many of those countries are more aligned on China on things like investment, infrastructure, trade and even security assistance,” she said.

Global uncertainty

The meeting comes as United States President Donald Trump’s cuts to foreign aid and the threat of tariffs fuel global uncertainty. Analysts say this has left the door open for China to step in.

“This lack of certainty makes the US a very challenging partner to work with,” said Tess Newton at the Griffith Asia Institute. “Whereas other partners including China can offer, well you know we were here yesterday, we’re here today, and we expect to be here tomorrow.”

The Chinese foreign ministry, announcing the meeting last week, said the objective of the meeting was to “jointly build an even closer China-Pacific Island countries community with a shared future”.

Analysts say that for Beijing, that translates to greater economic aid, diplomatic engagement and the pursuit of a regional security pact.

China has already signed a security accord with the Solomon Islands in 2022, a year after deploying police to the ground in the capital, Honiara, following a series of riots there.

Beijing has also sent advisers to Vanuatu and Kiribati and wants to lock in a similar pact with other island nations.

“What China is trying to do … is to insert itself as a security player and in some cases through the angle of contributing to the individual security needs of Pacific countries such as policing,” said Mihai Sora, director of the Pacific Islands Program at the Lowy Institute in Australia.

The meeting in Xiamen is “an opportunity for China” to push its goals “in its own space, on its own turf and on its own terms,” he added.

Taiwan

The topic of Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China claims as its own and lies off the coast of Xiamen, is also expected to be discussed at this meeting.

China has been gradually whittling away at the number of countries in the Pacific that retain ties with Taiwan, and in January of last year, Nauru also switched recognition to Beijing.

Taiwan now has three remaining allies in the region – Marshall Islands, Palau and Tuvalu.

Al Jazeera’s Yu said the region is of strategic, military and diplomatic significance for China.

“If you look at the region, these countries are very small, their economies are small and only one of them has a population that exceeds one million. That is Papua New Guinea,” she said.

“But the region is strategically extremely important to Beijing because it’s home to crucial shipping lanes, deep sea cables, deep sea ports and potential mineral deposits underwater. Militarily, it could be strategically important, because if there could be any conflict in the future, this area could be important in terms of launching potential forward attacks on US territory, and also US ally Australia is very close by.”