 In a highly unanticipated move, the Taliban, you know, overran the country of Afghanistan, invaded the capital Kabul, the president, Ashraf Ghani, had to flee and have now redeemed the country from Afghanistan to the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan. We're inviting Mr. Paul Ijume, an international affairs analyst, to analyze what really is happening in that part of the world. Good morning, Mr. Ijume. Thank you, Alita. Thank you for having me. So we've had debates about the United States' involvement in Afghanistan politics and security for a long time now. And there's been talks about them pulling out, withdrawing all the troops, you know, from the Trump era to now that Joe Biden is president. People are blaming Biden for the crisis in Afghanistan because he eventually saw the pullout of the troops in the US. Do you think Joe Biden is to blame? So I don't think so. I think what informs your international affairs or international relations or policy abroad, you know, grows from internal dynamics. What is there is that it's no longer, you know, it's no popular having American troops, particularly those whose children die and whatever. So there has been this fixation to get the troops back. That is one. Two, there are elections coming and so on and so forth. And then to complicate that matter, President Trump will seem to have handed President Biden a poison, China's. There is really nothing he can do here. If he decides that already the announcement has been done and then the plan has been, you know, put in place for the withdrawal of troops. So if he now goes against that, he will leave with the consequences. Now he has followed it. There are also consequences. And one of the consequences perhaps you said, you said it wasn't anticipated, is that there has been what you call failure of intelligence. If America, by going to Afghanistan, like they have gone to Iraq and other places, was a mass miscalculation of failure of strategy. This one is a combination of both. Afghanistan has become a combination of both failure of strategy and failure of intelligence. Strategy because when they went there, it appears that there was no plan about aftermath. What do you do after the Taliban's were disloyal 20 years ago? Okay. So I want us to take a look at the person who is now the president of Afghanistan. His name is Mullah Berda. Now President Trump had released Berda from prison in 2018. It was one of the negotiations that he had with the Afghanistan government, you know, when they were trying to broker a peace deal. And when we look at what's happening here in Nigeria, how prisoners seem to be released. I mean, terrorists seem to be released and forgiven and saying they have repented. Do you think that it's something that could happen here in Nigeria when we look at the Berda situation? It's always a risky affair negotiating with extremists because you never can trust them. That is the problem they have, problem of trust. How can you, because some of them do not restrain rationally. They are driven by ideology, by driven, whether it is religious or whatever. And so to extremism, the point that these are supposed to be people preaching Islam. But this is the extremist version of Islam. The ones that will not concede any rise to women and then against education and so on. We proud Muslims, we tell you, are not going with this group of people. So that tells you that is the extremist view that is being, is the issue. So now negotiation, like I said, is a risky business. You how can you trust a people that will not respect human rights, because that is what it is. Will you trust a people that will go against the norms of democracy, the principles of democracy? Will you trust people that will bring rules that will marginalize the set of the sections of the society? That is the issue. Now to be able to talk about radicalization, there is radicalization and legalization. Now they are talking as if the Taliban are now saying they are born again, they have changed. But I was reading, I was looking at a report about now asking a reporter, I think with CNN, a woman to cover her face, you must cover your face. But to tell you, even when they are saying in one hand they are saying, well, they are now ready to be, to liberalize. But at the same time, they had a line, principles are still with them. It is whether a leopard really can change the spots. And that is the problem. So when they negotiate, whether it's in Afghanistan, whether it's in Nigeria, it is tricky. It is a risky business. But it has to happen. I mean, what do you do? You can continue to fight. Now they have been achieved for 20 years. And they come back to the ground zero, you know, from where they started. So you have to negotiate to see how far you can go to bring this report to reason, to see that the world will be better when the government is inclusive. When the government is not meant to be, but when there is justice. All right, Mr. Jamed, certain things I want to also ask. First of all, I think, you know, like you speak on, you know, how this can influence other terrorist groups across, you know, the, you know, the world. Here we are dealing with Boko Haram and Aiswab. There's also Ashabaab in Kenya and other places. So how do you think that the events in Afghanistan may influence these other terrorist groups across the world? That's one. Second question is, what do you think must be done to fight Islamic extremism? Because we can do all and say all and fund, you know, built infrastructure here and there and what not. But there is a, these are a group of people that place religion and their beliefs in their religion above every other thing, and that includes above humanity itself. So what do you think must be done across the world to combat or reduce extremists, Islamists? It seems to be a problem that the world itself is having to, would have to deal with. Yes. There are two layers to it at the national level and then the international level. But let me also make the point that extremism is not limited to Islam. Yeah, but there are- No, it's not. You know, I agree with you, Mr. Ajima, but what we are currently dealing with across the world is the Islamist extremism. We're not seeing violence from any other religion. Okay. We may not see violence, but there are also some very insidious and dangerous policies and, you know, practices associated with some religions that should not be tolerated. So I do not want us to now begin to isolate them. I want us to deal with them. If we're dealing with extremism, it has to cut across if it is religion, whether it is by Christians, whether it's the Buddhists or whatever, must be condemned for whatever, for what it is. And let us, you know, what happens is that these people will tell you that they are- They can read their own version of whatever it is they are doing, of philosophy. Remember that Johnstown in America some time ago, very far back, where people- You had a mass suicide of- You have cults, people who follow a particular person, that they lionize and then they worship as their own. And then whatever they tell them, that is what they do. That is also extremism and to be condemned. So while we are dealing with the Jihadists, whether it's ISIS, whether it's the Al-Qaeda, El-Shabaab and all that, it is dangerous. And then we have said, look at it from the macro and the micro level. The micro level is the national level, where you now have- Because at times these things grow and is extended. If you do not catch it or nip it in the board nationally, that is now when it grows and then brings all the- becomes hydrated. So at the national level, governments must make it a point to be inclusive, to show justice to all manner of person, and then not to be pandering to any particular religion. Look at Nigeria. Nigeria is supported by constitution, it's a secular state. But you find that by practice and some things that happen by government, it appears that maybe a particular religion is favored at any particular time. That is not correct. So it is that tendency by governments to deviate from the norm, from the principle, from the ground norm. If the constitution says that this country is secular, whatever you do, make sure that you follow that path and not favor a particular religion against the other. Then what about treatment of people? Women, you do not concern women to the kitchen or anywhere. That is fundamental human rights. Respect the rights of everybody, treat everybody equally, and then be inclusive. Let people enjoy the benefit of government. The Nigerians talk about dividends of democracy. Do you have education? Do you have water? Do you have health system? Do you have roads, good roads? Do you have hospitals? What you call the benefits that must not be given to one particular section at the expense of the other. It must go round. You must be seen to be not just fair, but be seen to be fair, to be transparent, and then show justice to all manner of people. Apologies, but how does this translate to reducing the number of people who interpret their religion in a different way and want to force their religious teachings or the interpretations of their religion on everybody? Because if you look at what the Taliban is doing or what they seem to be known for and how they seem to want to suppress women, they have different rules for women in Afghanistan. There's also the terror groups across the world that have their own beliefs. Are you saying that these things have happened and the fact that they want to enforce these beliefs and these acts of terror on everybody, are you saying that these things have happened because of the unfairness in treatment that has happened in different countries? And once again, I'm asking how do you think that their actions will influence other terror groups across the world? I had a lot of the capsules, so it doesn't become a monologue. So I remember I identified two layers, the national and then the international level. So that national level, if you now are able to put everybody in check, if there is a crime committed by any particular group, you do not show favoritism as against if for instance if one religion can be a member of any religion can do anything and get away with it while you punish the other people. You are not being fair. That is the type of thing that will happen that will now make people to say, ah, if this is what is happening, then those disaffections, those unfair treatment will now coalesce into what you call now extremism. And then they come, if you ask the Boko Haram people, they have their grouses. They will say this was what happened, this was what happened. But the government is now there to look at all every citizen and be able to dispense justice. If you do not do that check once you see any measure or any incident of extremism, you correct it at the national level or whatever complaint they have, you address it so that it does not now go international. It is the inability of correcting that national malay that now grows into, becomes a higher headed issue. And now they have, they now have coalition. So I see it with now, collaborating with Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda with Erzabab and so on and so forth because the national institution, national authority has not been able to deal with it. But once now the, what is it called, the catch has been let out of the bank. You now have now to come to international collaboration. It is no longer one nation being able, and that is the danger that if you are unable to address it or deal with it nationally, once it becomes an international concern, international problem like it is now, you now need collaborative international collaboration and partnership to deal with it. So that is what I'm saying. The government even while you are dealing with it internationally, we still have to fight it nationally. That is the only way, and it's not easy. Americans will show you, they have seen that it's not easy. Nobody, no one country can handle terrorism or jihadism or, you know, Islamic or whatever extremism that has now taken no one country, no matter how mighty you are. You need the collaboration. Americans have seen, you see what has happened, they went to Afghanistan 20 years ago, you know, blazing the special forces, driving a kind of way, using some laws and whatever. Today, they are back, it's a failure of strategy, and so everybody has to go back to the drawing board. So, Mr. Aegeme, the Taliban have threatened to topple the Afghan government once the US forces pull out. The US forces have withdrawn and the Taliban have taken over. Can we take a step back and analyze the question if there was any way the US forces could pull out without, you know, the Afghan forces, without the Taliban taking over? Well, that is what I, let's go back to when they came in. They said, well, they were there to make sure that they kept attacks, jihadist attacks against America very, very far away. It was all 9-11 incidents and so on. And so they told us they have trained 300,000 Afghan soldiers. What are they today? What has happened is that after spending close to two trillion dollars, what happened there was that it was a case of building encouraging corruption. It's all corruption because if you ask, where has that money gone? And where are the 300,000 people that have been trained? That they didn't put up a fight, but the Taliban just rolled over. So that tragedy was at the initial 40 and was never meant to succeed. And so whatever you have, if you will, you did, there will be a time that Americans must have to leave. How they have left now is not only embarrassing, but it's graceful, but has also left Afghanistan in a very chaotic state. Look at everybody wants to run away. Look at the airport. People clinging to the aircraft, trying to, everybody wants to run away from Afghanistan. Why? Because they did not take care, the issue, the strategy did not address the main problem. What is the main problem? It's about governance, about telling people, taking care of the well-being of people. They have not done that. They went there, blazing. It is not about the kind of military that you have. There is also level, not just kinetic. You have to do what you call human intelligence. You have to win the souls and mind of people. This strategy didn't do that. It just made money for people in the defense industry and then left everybody, left Afghanistan, in worse state than they were 20 years ago. All right. Apologize. Thank you very much for your analysis and for joining us this morning. We always enjoy speaking with you. Of course, we will continue to follow developments in Afghanistan and we look forward to speaking with you again. Thank you. Wow. I think we may have lost him. This is where we will be wrapping up. It's been very interesting discussions, sadly none of them for celebration, but thanks for staying with us. Don't forget to remember to catch up on any of these discussions on our social media platforms, simply at PLOS TV Africa on Facebook and Instagram. Yes, also on PLOS TV Africa lifestyle, that's our new YouTube channel and Instagram handles as well. My name is Aneta Felix. Thank you for being a part of our beautiful Tuesday. And I am Osaugi Ogbama.