Home Blog

Pakistan and India Engage In A Rare Conversation at SCO Summit

17 hours ago

ISLAMABAD – In a significant yet discreet diplomatic engagement, Pakistan and India held an extraordinary meeting during the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, a rare interaction amidst the long-standing tensions between the two neighboring nuclear powers.

Reliable sources confirmed, “This interaction, initiated by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, saw Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar having conversation during a luncheon session at the summit.”

Also read: SCO Summit: It’s Time For Indo-Pak Stalled Dialogue To Resume

The dialogue took place against a backdrop of strained ties, with both countries harboring deep-rooted grievances over a range of issues, including the Kashmir dispute, and accusations of supporting cross-border militancy.

The meeting, though not officially pre-scheduled, garnered attention due to its potential implications for the frosty ties between the two countries.

The two South Asian nations have experienced limited diplomatic contact in recent years, with a notable cooling of relations-following India’s revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in August 2019.

According to diplomatic sources, the brief meeting between Dar and Jaishankar was arranged following a request from the Indian side. As a result, Pakistan’s Foreign Office adjusted the seating arrangements to enable the interaction during the SCO summit’s luncheon event. The meeting, though not officially pre-scheduled, garnered attention due to its potential implications for the frosty ties between the two countries.

Sources close to the event revealed that Dar and Jaishankar engaged in a conversation, but the contents of their discussion remain undisclosed. A lack of transparency surrounding the dialogue has fueled speculations in political circles and media about what was discussed, and whether it could mark a shift, however small, in the diplomatic dynamics between Islamabad and New Delhi.

Also read: Unravelling Globalization: Put Your House In Order. Don’t Put All Eggs In One Basket

In this scenario, some analysts view the engagement as a possible opening for dialogue between the two countries, particularly given the recent geopolitical shifts in the region.

The Indian external affairs minister’s request for the meeting could indicate a willingness from New Delhi to explore diplomatic avenues, despite the persistent hostilities.

After attending the SCO summit, Jaishankar returned to India without issuing any statement about his interaction with Dar, leaving many questions unanswered.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office has also refrained from sharing details.

The interaction comes amid a turbulent period in Pakistan-India relations. Since the 2019 Pulwama attack, followed by India’s airstrikes in Balakot, the two countries have maintained a hardline stance against each other. The abrogation of Article 370 by India, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, further deepened the diplomatic rift, leading to a suspension of trade and downgrading of diplomatic ties.

Diplomatic engagements, such as the one that took place during the SCO summit, are rare and often viewed with cautious optimism by observers.

The SCO summit itself served as a platform for discussions on regional security, economic cooperation, and connectivity. While the summit’s formal agenda did not include a focus on bilateral disputes, the presence of top leaders from Pakistan, India, and other member countries created an environment conducive to informal discussions on the sidelines.

For Pakistan, the summit was an opportunity to demonstrate its active role in regional diplomacy, particularly in promoting connectivity and economic integration. For India, the event provided a chance to engage with its neighbors, including Pakistan, on broader regional issues, even as their bilateral relations remain fraught with challenges.

Despite the diplomatic overture, significant hurdles remain in normalizing the relations between Pakistan and India.

The meeting between Dar and Jaishankar, though brief, is seen as significant in the context of the SCO’s broader goals of promoting dialogue and cooperation among member states. It highlighted the complexities of the regional order, where geopolitical rivalries often intersect with opportunities for collaboration on shared challenges like counter-terrorism and economic growth.

Despite the diplomatic overture, significant hurdles remain in normalizing the relations between Pakistan and India. The core issue of Kashmir remains a major sticking point, with both sides maintaining divergent positions.

Pakistan continues to call for dialogue on the Kashmir issue and insists on adherence to UN resolutions, while India maintains that Jammu and Kashmir is an internal matter and has ruled out talks under what it describes as “cross-border terrorism.”

Furthermore, domestic political dynamics in both Pakistan and India heavily influence their respective foreign policies, with leaders often using nationalist rhetoric to appeal to their domestic audiences.

Also read: Pakistan’s Zero-Sum Strategic Dilemma

This approach tends to prioritize short-term political gains over long-term regional stability. The emphasis on national pride and sovereignty in political discourse in both Islamabad and New Delhi can create an atmosphere where compromise is seen as a weakness, rather than a diplomatic strength.

As a result, the space for genuine dialogue and meaningful engagement between the two nations is significantly constrained, making it difficult to address longstanding issues and build a path toward sustained cooperation.

Experts remain divided on the significance of the meeting between the two foreign ministers. Some believe that the engagement could pave the way for further diplomatic contacts, particularly if regional security dynamics necessitate cooperation. Others, however, view the interaction as a mere diplomatic gesture with limited potential for altering the current trajectory of bilateral ties.

While the immediate outcomes of the SCO summit are unlikely to transform Pakistan-India relations, the meeting between Dar and Jaishankar suggests a recognition of the need for dialogue, even in challenging times. Whether this interaction leads to a broader thaw in relations remains uncertain, but it underscores the ongoing significance of diplomatic engagement in South Asia’s complex geopolitical landscape.

As the SCO summit concluded and the participants departed, the region — and the world — will be watching closely to see if this brief encounter can eventually lead to a more sustained dialogue between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Imran Khan: The Most Ineligible Graduate Disqualified By Oxford

Arsalan Raja

22 hours ago

The Oxford University is exposed, says a dejected supporter of Imran Khan, after hearing that her leader was not on the list containing 38 names running for the office of varsity chancellor. She goes on to say that the top British educational institution has shown that it is being controlled.

Her assertion is a fact for many others like her who see Imran Khan as a messiah who can’t do any wrong, can undo every “wrong” and can do anything like a magic. His authority isn’t limited by any law or constitution since he is the law and constitution. For them, Imran Khan himself is a miracle – someone born to change everything around him and having the powers that should be used to wipe out all the evil to replace the same with the good.

She also reminds me of a Lahore-based journalist who has somehow shifted to the US. He had said after the 2013 elections that Imran Khan should ensure investment of billions of dollars by the West in the health and education sectors of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Also read: Imagining Oxford in Chaos: The Populist Chancellor

His assertion shows a belief that the entire West is somehow mesmerized by the incarcerated PTI founding chairman’s playboy life. This insult to the developed West in particular and the entire humanity in general is enough to summarize the sordid worldview of PTI followers.

Although former chief justice Saqib Nisar had bestowed on Imran Khan the titles of Sadiq and Amin [Honest and Truthful], the Brits refused to acknowledge the same.

Hence came an attempt to make Imran Khan a global agenda and fit him into the British landscape where his former in-laws could rescue him from his current troubles which are likely to be worsened.

GOOD VS EVIL:

It is the binary of good and evil that bonds them together under the leadership of Imran Khan. Obviously, Imran Khan is the good because he is destined to cleanse Pakistan and at least the Muslim Ummah of all the corrupt elements.

Why this binary? Because Imran Khan, like any other fascist, survives on myths that are inculcated in the minds of his followers. It is the sole basis of their worldview and discourse.

The most urgent need, according to this cult, is to wipe out everyone disagreeing or opposing Imran Khan. And the reasoning behind the desire is that the good must prevail.

And since Imran Khan represents the good, everyone has united against him so that the evil can maintain their stranglehold. The Oxford University is surely the latest addition to the list.

SAQIB NISAR AND HIRED LOBBYISTS ARE OF NO USE:

But why Imran Khan failed at the very first hurdle? His criminal record.

Earlier on Tuesday, Hugh Southey, a King’s Counsel, said, “In my opinion, Imran [Khan] is unlikely to be eligible to be a candidate in light of one of his criminal convictions.”

Was his opinion necessary? Yes. Imran Khan Khan’s candidacy was examined under the Oxford University’s rules and regulations.

It makes me recall the “Project Imran” and the role played by Pakistan’s top court.

Although former chief justice Saqib Nisar had bestowed on Imran Khan the titles of Sadiq and Amin [Honest and Truthful], the Brits refused to acknowledge the same.

It also shows that the recent favorable reporting in the British press also couldn’t influence the varsity. Perhaps only because they don’t want an Imran Khan for themselves. Yes, any Third World country like Pakistan can, and even must in some cases, have one.

One shouldn’t forget what Margaret Thatcher had said while addressing a gathering of Afghan refugees on Oct 8, 1981 during her visit to Pakistan.

“You left your country because you refused to live under a godless communist system which is trying to destroy your religion and your independence. The hearts of the free world are with you — and with those of your countrymen who have stayed behind in Afghanistan.”

One of the best examples of using religion for politics and that too by a leader from the developed West in the lands far away from her home.

Certainly, maintaining culture and social norms in the parts of the world that must be ruled directly or in directly is a top priority for the powerful West. They easily get local allies who benefit from the status quo.

Meanwhile, the failure on the Oxford front follows the opinion repeatedly expressed in influential Israeli press which mentioned Imran Khan as a possible ally.

THE RELIGIOUS OBSCURANTIST:

Kapil Komireddi, in an article published in the top conservative British daily The Telegraph, described Imran Khan as a religious obscurantist, as he argued that the PTI founder is unfit to be the Oxford University chancellor.

“Those who remember Khan as a cricketer or the dim-witted tabloid fodder in 1980s have missed his mutation over the past two decades into a religious obscurantist.”

Komireddi described Imran Khan’s candidacy as “a measure of his contempt for Oxford and the world – intellectual, political, cultural – that created it”.

“His invocation of freighted catchwords like diversity and inclusivity to burnish his pitch is a reminder that this genre of charlatanry has a long and wretched pedigree.”

On the other hand, the Beltway and Grid, an advocacy group, earlier said Imran “Khan’s election would also raise serious ethical concerns for Oxford, particularly regarding his alignment with the university’s values of academic freedom, gender equality, and human rights.”

Everyone knows he is Taliban Khan who not only promotes extremist views but also supports terrorist groups.

DESPERATE FOR JAILBREAK:

Imran Khan has been languishing in Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail and is desperate to get out of it. It’s not just the corruption charges but also the planning and execution of May 9 attacks that make him vulnerable to conviction in the related cases.

At the same time, the court martial proceedings against Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed – the former ISI chief – mean a link is being established between the two, which can lead to Imran Khan’s military court trial.

Therefore, an organized effort has been visible through the repeated use of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government resources to storm Islamabad and Punjab. These attempts, which didn’t produce the desired results, were aimed at putting pressure on the government and the establishment to get the incarcerated PTI founder out of the prison.

It is very much clear that the Oxford University candidacy was also part of a wider scheme to make the imprisonment of Imran Khan an international issue and garner sympathy. But the plot has backfired, as his views on critical social and political issues as well as actions are now subjected to scrutiny in world press.

Moreover, it is the PTI leadership which now stands divided, as they seem busy in “who is the most loyal servant” contest while also making efforts to protect themselves from any government action and legal consequences.

But the most interesting, or even entertaining part for some, is the way the very cult produced to demonize and attack others is going after the PTI leadership. Why? The failure to get their beloved leader released from the prison. The available PTI leaders are traitors for them.

NOTHING IS WORKING:

Neither the past judgments issued by Pakistan’s top courts nor the organized campaign to target the state institutions while inciting violence launched with the elements sitting outside the country has served the purpose. That’s why all eyes are on Oct 25 so that Chief Justice Faez Isa leaves the office and the top judiciary can be used in a manner similar to the 2016-21 period.

But a determined Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and Shehbaz Sharif-led coalition government have come up with another plot which will make the already filed petitions – as well as those which may come up later – useless. The planned Federal Constitutional Court through the proposed 26th Amendment is certainly against their will and plans.

So, the current sole focus is to make the proposed constitutional changes controversial through a media campaign led by the “YouTuber Corps” and the chosen lawyers.

However, what Pakistan and over 240 million people really need is the accountability of those orchestrating the May 9 botched coup. Otherwise, mobs and terrorist will keep challenging the state at their will.

Will Afghanistan Eliminate Terrorist Groups Within The Country?

Dr. Zukun Lyu

2 days ago

The Moscow Format Consultations on Afghanistan has recently released a joint statement that has categorically demanded the de facto authorities in Afghanistan to take immediate and verifiable actions with a view toward meeting existing obligations under international law.

And as part of the said responsibilities, it has called upon Afghanistan to eliminate terrorist groups within the country. The consulted states, including several regional players, stressed the need for the Afghan Interim Government (AIG) to avoid any use of Afghan territory for terrorist activities against neighboring countries and other states of the region.

This call for action is not just a suggestion, it is a necessity which Afghan government needs to pay attention to in order to find ways how to better stabilize internal situation and improve it foreign policy internationally.

These countries have kept reasonable politico-security relations with the Taliban, though, their patience is wearing thin due to heightened security threats.

This joint statement is somewhat new phase of the international discussion on the status of Afghanistan. It has a representative support of Russia, Iran, China, and Central Asian States, which have become the direct victims of evolving terror threats emanating from Afghanistan. These countries have kept reasonable politico-security relations with the Taliban, though, their patience is wearing thin due to heightened security threats. Yet, these nations are not shy in demanding that the AIG must take practical actions to dismantle the networks of terrorists at home.

Such advices given by the Moscow Format to the AIG makes a lot of valid timing sense. The AIG, under the custody of the Taliban, has to understand that their failure to adhere to these consultations mean deeper isolation of Afghanistan from the global community.

Afghanistan is reeling through tough economic and social crisis and the lack of attention to demands of the regional powers might shut the doors to cooperation in terms of economic development, diplomacy and assistance. For the Taliban to grasp, the current state of affairs whereby terrorist organizations can have a foothold in Afghanistan is not just security perilous for the entire adjoining region but is inimical to Afghanistan’s growth as well.

Among the issues that currently exist in Afghanistan, there is a problem of appearance of different terrorist groups which include ISIS-K in particular; this group has already done several catastrophic attacks not only in Afghanistan but also in other countries.

The Taliban though have control over most of the country, they are unable to rein in these groups primarily. Other international players, especially Russia, Iran and China see these actors as posing a direct security threat to the region’s stability. For example, the situation in Afghanistan is already causing repercussions in Central Asia: governments of the region are more and more concerned with the infiltration of militants across the borders.

Other international players, especially Russia, Iran and China see these actors as posing a direct security threat to the region’s stability.

At the same time, the Taliban must also respond to its internal problems related to policy, governance, and human rights issues with individual freedoms of the Afghan people and the rights of women and girls, especially the right to education. Taliban that came to power since then have actively restricted women’s rights and freedoms, closed schools to women and limited the activity of women in other spheres under the pretext of religion. These actions have received aggressiveness from other countries and the international world, including Muslim dominated countries asserting to the Taliban, to embrace progressive policies.

In the best interest of the nation of Afghanistan, the AIG needs to ensure that terrorist organizations push their agenda further and make the country a terror central again. The memory of Afghanistan used as a base for the September 11 terrorist attacks has not yet faded from the international political memory.

The international community, especially other world regions, does not want Afghanistan to return to a situation where terrorist groups can act without restraint. The AIG needs to go on the offense and ensure these groups are suppressed; this is to show the world and its willingness to foster peace and security to its people as well as to neighboring states.

Similar to many other countries around, Pakistan, as one of the important actors in the region and an old friend of Afghanistan, has called on the AIG to respect the international practices and aim at achieving the necessary peace and cooperation in the South Asian region. Therefore, stability in Afghanistan is in Pakistan best interest since insecurity and terrorism in Afghanistan always affects the Pakistani territory.

Also read: TTP: An Emerging Global Terror Threat

Islamabad wants the AIG to follow international laws and norms because the stability of Afghanistan is crucial in the region. Therefore, Afghanistan has the honor and duty to respect all its obligations and cooperate with other countries so that the foundation for increased diplomatic activity and economic improvement that is essential for the country’s stability can be laid.

The declaration was made after consultation with regional powers and it is clear for the Afghanistan government that the world is waiting for action to eradicate terrorism.

The AIG should also ensure its behaviors respect its international obligations. Afghanistan cannot afford to be a producer of insecurity and conflict because it will hurt the neighbors and will slow down the development process in Afghanistan as well. The country is still dealing with the effects of a long period of civil war and with such prevailing insecurity the country will definitely be worse off. For this reason, Afghanistan’s leaders must understand the role of investment in the support of peace Rather than contributing to insecurity that poses a great threat to not only relations but also economic advancement.

Summing up, one can define the enhancement of the Moscow Format Consultations on Afghanistan as a defining process for the AIG. The declaration was made after consultation with regional powers and it is clear for the Afghanistan government that the world is waiting for action to eradicate terrorism.

This government led by the Taliban has to seize this opportunity to show to the regional and international community that Afghanistan is safe for investment and its resources can complement that of the region. Otherwise, the nation can face a further isolation, economic difficulties, and conscious instability.

Meanwhile, it may be possible to get the international recognition and help, including genuine economic and political support in the light of concerted attempts at internal reactive as well as proactive governance and security. The decision is now on Afghan’s authority, and the effects of their decisions will determine the fate of Afghanistan and the neighborhood in the coming years.

Pakistan’s Zero-Sum Strategic Dilemma

Engineer Khurram Dastgir Khan

2 days ago

Hosting the SCO summit highlights a strategic dilemma that Pakistan’s fragility is forcing it to face earlier than most, just as it did in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The dilemma is whether Pakistan can avoid the zero-sum game between a superpower and a rising power in grips of Thucydides’ trap.

Many strategic traps await Pakistan where it might be forced to choose between urgent needs and long-term imperatives. To list a few: Ukraine, Israel-Iran war, wider US sanctions on Chinese technology amid ongoing US-China trade war, Taiwan and the South-China Sea, and an India-China war in Ladakh.

Thirty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, geopolitics has returned with a vengeance.

As the first quarter of the 21st draws to a close, the international milieu is Antonio Gramsci’s observation writ large: “The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born.” The post-World War II arrangement is no more. Thirty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, geopolitics has returned with a vengeance.

What one never foresaw happening in one’s lifetime has come to pass: the decline of the United States as a harbinger of modernity, champion of human rights, and simultaneously the possessor of the greatest hard as well as soft power. No more. The United States is exhausted by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, weakened economically by slow growth, challenged technologically, and emasculated diplomatically by poor leadership.

The United States is not in the driving seat in the Middle East and is being edged out in Ukraine, the South China Sea, and in the arena of new technology.

Increasing US domestic production of oil and gas in the last decade has reduced its dependence on as well as its interest in the Middle East. The United States has been unable to impede, let alone stop, Israel’s genocide of nearly 42,000 Palestinian civilians, women and children in Gaza. A truth sits exposed amidst the rubble in Gaza: The United States is not in the driving seat in the Middle East and is being edged out in Ukraine, the South China Sea, and in the arena of new technology.

“Pax Americana is no more,” suggests former senior Chinese official He Yafei. The declining United States faces a China whose rise is fueled, some say, by the inexorable trends of globalization and technological change. “The dominant narrative in China,” writes Elizabeth Economy, “is that the shift in the balance of power is already well underway.”

Globalization and technological change are not the only fuels for rise of China. In its bid for global supremacy, China is wielding its own soft power. It has demonstrated for four decades that economic prosperity can be achieved without democracy and civil rights. This is a model that most elites of the developing world find attractive.

China’s rise is aided by 21st century developments. Social media is a wrecking ball for liberal democracy. The US-inflated scarecrow of terrorism has lost air. Russia’s ground invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 — the first such action since the Second World War — has stirred ghosts of the two world wars in the 20th century.

Our long-term interests lie with a rising China, not with the declining United States. Yet the challenge is to avoid the zero-sum game of with us or against us.

Pakistan faces a Gramscian dilemma of its own. Ever since September 1953 — when Gen Ayub Khan offered the US Undersecretary of State that “our army can be your army if you want us”— the principal factor driving Pakistani statecraft has been the need for foreign aid to defend militarily against a hostile India and to prop up recurrent authoritarian regimes. This was as true for support against the Soviet Union in the 1960s as against Al Qaeda in the 2000s.

The foreign policy that emerged has been composed of four strands intertwined: a love-hate alliance with the US, a patron-client relationship with Gulf countries strengthened by a common alliance with the US, a limited friendship with China until 2015, and uneasy relations with Afghanistan and Iran.

The United States ended its latest engagement with Pakistan in 2013 and maintained the façade of an alliance until its departure from Afghanistan in 2021. Despite conferring “major non-NATO ally” status to Pakistan in 2004, the United States failed to provide any substantive, visible support to Pakistan beyond the transaction of Coalition Support Fund in return for two military bases, intelligence cooperation, and provision of ground (GLOC) and air lines of communication (ALOC) by Pakistan for two decades.

The decades-long Pak-China relationship, on the other hand, has been positive, consistent, yet limited until CPEC was signed nine years ago. CPEC deepened a strategic friendship into an economic partnership. Even after CPEC, however, Pakistan’s balance-of-payments crises have kept it tethered to West-based international financial institutions and thereby vulnerable to the influence of a near-hostile United States.

Pakistan thus faces a Gramscian dilemma of its own. It is caught between its historic alliance with the United States and immediate economic interests on one side and, on the other either side, its precipitating long-term strategic interests as the globe fractures along the China versus the West.

What does the government need to do? First of all, learn what not to do.

Pakistan requires complex and skillful statecraft to avoid this binary. Our long-term interests lie with a rising China, not with the declining United States. Yet the challenge is to avoid the zero-sum game of with us or against us. Read India’s playbook. Despite a plethora of defense, strategic, and economic agreements with the United States, designation of “net security provider” in the Indo-Pacific, and membership in the anti-China ‘Quad’, India maintains relations simultaneously with Israel as well as Iran, with Russia as well as the West, and a massive trade deficit with China.

What does the government need to do? First of all, learn what not to do. The list is long: avoid the temptation of megaphone diplomacy; not speak until absolutely necessary; not harangue diplomats; not appoint lackeys to positions demanding proficiency; and not abuse foreign policy as grist for the domestic political mill.

How to walk the non-zero-sum tightrope? Begin with reviewing and analyzing Pakistan’s interests ruthlessly by “fitting foundations to the ground on which they rest” as J L Gaddis recommends. This means deepening the strategic as well as economic relations with China and rebuilding bridges quietly with the US and Europe.

Revamp skillfully, patiently, and discretely our relationships with our benefactors and create relationships with future friends in Africa, South America, and East Asia. Create a dialectic between foreign relations and security. Make a sustained effort to open and connect the region economically. Reinvent the Foreign Office as a 21st organization that carries economic interests, democratic values, and instantaneous global communications as part of its DNA. Last but not the least, provide adequate resources to the diplomats to do their job.

This challenge requires a political and military leadership that can think and conduct statecraft in “time, space, and scale” simultaneously. It is time for Pakistan to raise its capabilities to its foreign policy aspirations, and wield statecraft to safeguard our democracy and bring prosperity to our impoverished people.

Imagining Oxford in Chaos: The Populist Chancellor

Dr Shama Junejo

3 days ago

Imagine a distinguished professor at Oxford University penning a critical piece on the university’s newly-appointed chancellor, Imran Khan, serving a jail sentence in Pakistan. Within hours, the professor is bombarded by online harassment – not from Britain’s academic peers but from Imran Khan’s fervent Pakistani supporters. A digital mob floods social media and university inboxes, outraged at the audacity to criticize their leader. ‘How dare he critique Khan!’ Thousands of emails attack the professor’s academic integrity and personal life.

Imran Khan has repeatedly aligned himself with regressive forces, most notably resettling the TTP from Afghanistan into Pakistan and declaring Osama bin Laden a martyr.

This scenario isn’t far-fetched. During his political career in Pakistan and now as he campaigns for Oxford’s chancellorship, Imran Khan’s supporters have demonstrated the power and peril of unchecked populism. Imran Khan, who is currently incarcerated on corrupt practice charges, has turned his political movement into a global cult, weaponizing social media to silence critics and push his narrative of victimhood. But when we look at the broader picture, one must ask: Can Oxford afford to invite this level of chaos and disruption into its academic environment?

Also read: Imran Khan, Extremism, Social Fragmentation And the Only Alternative

Imran Khan’s candidacy also raises significant concerns about the role of populism in global academia. He has overwhelmingly dominated social media discussions in this race for Oxford’s chancellorship, overshadowing other respected candidates like Sir William Hague, the former Conservative Party leader; Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party heavyweight and former European Commissioner; Elish Angiolini, a prominent Scottish legal figure; and Jan Royall, a senior Labour peer and former Leader of the House of Lords.

His campaign is not about qualifications or a vision for the university; it’s about leveraging populist support to drown out opposition. This is exactly how populist leaders gain control – by overwhelming the discourse, sidelining merit and expertise, and turning public institutions into political battlegrounds.

Imran Khan’s candidacy also raises significant concerns about the role of populism in global academia.

Can Oxford afford to become the next victim of such tactics?

Then there is his chequered past in academia. Imran Khan once served as Chancellor of the University of Bradford from 2005 until 2014, a controversial tenure. Despite holding the post, he regularly missed key university events, including graduation ceremonies. In February 2014, the University of Bradford Union proposed his removal due to his ongoing absences, prompting Imran Khan to announce his resignation, effective November 30, 2014, citing political obligations in Pakistan. However, the reality was far grimmer – his commitment to the role had long been questioned. How can Oxford expect him to fulfil his duties when past performance clearly shows disinterest?

Oxford, an institution of profound academic heritage, has nurtured some of the brightest minds and upheld values of integrity, independent thought, and reasoned debate. Imran Khan, on the other hand, represents the exact opposite. His candidacy is not a reflection of academic excellence but a testament to his populist ambition. And while his followers might see him as a hero, his legacy tells a different story. His populist appeal in Pakistan was built on incendiary rhetoric, divisive tactics, and the undermining of democratic institutions. The problem becomes even clearer when you examine his political history.

Imran Khan has repeatedly aligned himself with regressive forces, most notably resettling the TTP from Afghanistan into Pakistan and declaring Osama bin Laden a martyr in his National Assembly speech. His disturbing remarks in support of the Taliban – calling their oppressive governance a step towards “breaking the shackles of slavery” – speak volumes about his worldview. How can someone with such views be entrusted with leading an institution like Oxford, which stands for freedom of expression, gender equality, and intellectual liberty?

Furthermore, Imran Khan’s views on women’s rights are deeply troubling. He has openly suggested that women’s clothing is a factor in sexual harassment, a regressive stance that has no place in the leadership of an institution that has consistently advocated for women’s education and empowerment. Oxford has been a pioneer in championing gender equality, and electing someone like Imran Khan would send a chilling message about the university’s commitment to these values.

The real danger lies in how his populist movement operates. His supporters do not just support him; they aggressively campaign against anyone who dares criticize him.

Imran Khan’s current legal troubles also make him an unfit candidate for the role. He is in prison in Pakistan, convicted of corrupt practices and misuse of state funds in what has been termed the Toshakhana case, where he was found guilty of profiting from state gifts. His supporters might claim he is the victim of political vendettas, but the legal realities are far less kind. The man is embroiled in controversy and any university that associates itself with him risks being dragged into a political quagmire.

The real danger lies in how his populist movement operates. His supporters do not just support him; they aggressively campaign against anyone who dares criticize him. A recent example in Pakistan saw his followers not just protest but attack state institutions when he was arrested. It’s not hard to imagine the same tactics being applied to Oxford – an online army that descends on any academic or faculty member who questions their chancellor’s integrity. For an institution that thrives on intellectual discourse and debate, the chilling effect of such a phenomenon would be catastrophic.

Therefore, Imran Khan’s bid for Oxford University’s chancellorship is more than just a political stunt – it is a dangerous proposition for one of the world’s most respected academic institutions. His track record of supporting repressive regimes, promoting divisive rhetoric, and undermining democratic and academic institutions makes him unfit for the role. Oxford deserves a chancellor who embodies integrity, intellectual rigor, and a commitment to academic freedom. Imran Khan, with his populist cult following and troubling political history, offers none of these qualities. Instead, his election would only embroil Oxford in controversy, division, and chaos.

People Or Territories: The Question That Ukraine Is Facing

Professor Alexander Kostyuk

3 days ago

The beginning of the Cold War, the 1950s, formed the basic rules of the geopolitical game. Any war that directly or indirectly involves countries that possess nuclear weapons must be ended in a timely manner, before a direct military clash between them. That is, the war ends not when the participants have achieved their goal, but when the war has reached the rubicon, which opens a war between nuclear-armed countries.

The Korean War of 1950-1953 is worth mentioning here. At the outbreak of the war, each side aimed for military victory and further unification of Korea under the rule of the South or the North, meaning expansion of the sphere of influence of either the West or the communist USSR and China. During the first year of the war, both sides reached a rubicon in terms of the intensity of conventional warfare, and it was either the use of nuclear weapons, but President Truman did not agree to this, or the search for a political settlement of the war. The political instrument of ending the war was chosen, and it eventually ended in July 1953.

The West wants to leave the issue of the occupied territories to the political process, diplomacy, and time.

At the same time, the war could have ended much earlier, in 1951, but it lasted almost two years because of Truman’s demand that North Korean and Chinese prisoners of war be allowed to choose whether they wanted to return home after the war or not. Eventually, after President Eisenhower took office and Stalin died on March 1, 1953, the US and the USSR quickly reached an understanding and by early spring 1953, the plan to end the war was finally ready, thus preventing an irreversible military escalation between the US and the USSR.

But then the President of South Korea Syngman Rhee stood in the way of ending the war, as he did not agree to end the war without achieving the previously defined goal of unifying Korea under the rule of the pro-Western South and withdrawing Chinese troops from North Korea. The South Korean population resorted to mass demonstrations in June 1953 to prolong the war in order to achieve this goal.

According to Gideon Rose, editor-in-chief of Foreign Affairs, in his book How Wars End, there were thoughts in the corridors of the White House to remove the South Korean president from power so that he would not interfere with peace. In the end, the United States rejected this idea and resorted to peace coercion, among other things, by offering a postwar security instrument to South Korea. Hence, the United States declared its readiness to leave its army in South Korea. Coercion worked, and in July 1953, a truce was established, which, except for occasional border escalations, continues to this day.

President Zelensky cannot rationally insist on continuing the war to restore the country’s territorial integrity.

The war in Ukraine is approaching its third anniversary, which means that it is approaching the Korean War in terms of timing. As early as 2023, the Biden administration began to state quite publicly that the war in Ukraine should not cross the same rubicon as a war between nuclear powers.

Perhaps for the first time, such a statement was made in early July 2023 by White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan when he sharply rejected the idea, voiced increasingly by some Washington strategists, that Biden is overplaying the Russian nuclear threat and deterring NATO from all-in support for Kyiv. The hawks, he said, argue: “This nuclear threat is complete nonsense. Don’t worry about it at all. It’s to be completely discounted.”

Also read: The Moral Imperative Of The Collective West And The Ukraine War

Sullivan rebuffed the no-worry approach: “It is a threat. It is a real threat. It’s one we need to take seriously. And it’s one that does evolve with changing conditions on the ground.”

This was followed by President Biden’s public statement in December 2023, in which the US leader said, “We want to see Ukraine win the war. Winning means Ukraine is a sovereign, independent nation. And it can afford to defend itself today and deter further aggression”. At the same time, Biden did not mention the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity within the 1991 borders by military means, and Western leaders have consistently stated that they do not recognize Russia’s occupied territories. In other words, the West wants to leave the issue of the occupied territories to the political process, diplomacy, and time.

It is Washington that should show leadership in the West and offer reliable security instruments to Ukraine.

This statement brings us back to the events of 1939-1944, the war between the USSR and Finland, which began with Soviet aggression in late 1939 and lasted intermittently until 1944. The commander-in-chief of the Finnish army, and later the country’s president, Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, had a choice: either to continue the war for the sake of the country’s eastern territories or to end it. Continuation of the war could have resulted in the loss of state sovereignty and independence of the country, and the death of a large number of Finns. In this difficult dilemma, Mannerheim chose the lives of his fellow citizens, Finnish state sovereignty and independence. As a result, Finland and the USSR ended the war politically by negotiating and signing an armistice, and Mannerheim became a legendary hero for his military talent, political foresight, and love for the people of Finland.

Also read: A Leader Without Strategy: Collapse of USSR And Ukraine War

The West does not see it appropriate to seek a military breakthrough by Ukraine in the war, making unequivocal statements about the need for a political settlement. Reason? The West believes that Ukraine, like Finland in 1944, has won by defending its sovereignty and independence. At the same time, the West is clearly trying to force Ukraine to peace, just as it did with South Korea in 1953.

Among the tools used by the West to force Ukraine to peace are the lack of permission for Ukraine to use long-range weapons from the West to strike at Russian territory, the unwillingness of Western countries to provide offensive weapons in the amount necessary for an effective counteroffensive (here it is worth mentioning General Zaluzhny’s analytical article in The Economist of December 2022), Germany’s position on the unwillingness to provide long-range Taurus missiles, and a sharp decrease in the total amount of military assistance to Ukraine starting in the second half of 2023.

The slow movement of Western arms manufacturers to establish joint ventures in Ukraine (a process that is probably politically driven), and the reduction in overall financial assistance to Ukraine, as a result of which Ukraine seeks to compensate for the loss of external revenues by increasing taxes from October 2024), are also these tools. And don’t forget September 30, 2023, when the US $32 billion lend-lease to Ukraine expired, and not a cent of it was allocated to Ukraine.

Can President Zelenskyy rationally insist on continuing the war to restore the country’s territorial integrity in the face of the West’s growing pressure on Ukraine to make peace?

To answer this question, it is worth clarifying under what conditions the restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders would mean the end of the war. This is possible only if tensions within Russia increase, leading to its collapse or a change of government to a democratic one. The West realizes that neither the first nor the second scenario is possible now and will not be possible for many years. It is here that the West, through Biden, emphasizes to the Ukrainian authorities that Ukraine has already won the victory by defending its sovereignty and independence, and it is time for the Ukrainian authorities to make a choice between keeping people in Ukraine and further attempts to return the 1991 territories by military means, realizing that this will still not be the end of the war.

There is an opportunity to reconsider all red lines in relations between the West and Russia, and even in a broader geopolitical context involving China and countries of the Global South,

Biden’s statement in the summer of 2024, that the war in Ukraine had reached its escalation rubicon and that if it was not stopped politically, World War III was a realistic development that the West could not accept. A similar statement was made by Biden’s political opponent, Republican presidential candidate Trump in October 2024 and even before. So, Washington’s political elites are answering the question above: No, President Zelensky cannot rationally insist on continuing the war to restore the country’s territorial integrity. Therefore, coercion of Ukraine to peace will continue to gain momentum until the goal is achieved and the war is over.

What can Zelensky rationally insist on in such a difficult situation?

The experience of South Korea will not work here – the US military will not be in Ukraine either during or after the war. Washington sees no political reason for this step, but it will create a huge pretext for Russia to escalate. It is probably worth remembering the experience of Germany in the 1950s and the dilemma of Chancellor Adenauer: Germany will be united or it will be in NATO.

For Zelenskyy, this dilemma is losing its clear structure and turning into a question to be outlined in the next paragraph. Furthermore, to become united again now within the 1991 borders requires agreement and much greater Western support for continuing the war and expecting Russia to collapse or change to a democratic government in the near future. This is unlikely, if not impossible. In other words, the first part of Chancellor Adenauer’s dilemma is not an option for President Zelensky.

This dilemma of Adenauer is being transformed into Zelensky’s question: Is the West ready to invite Ukraine to NATO or use other instruments to ensure Ukraine’s post-war security and put the country on the path to recovery?

This question has an obvious addressee: the West, namely the United States. It is Washington that should show leadership in the West and offer reliable security instruments to Ukraine. One of these instruments is Ukraine’s membership in NATO. Here, it is worth considering very carefully the options of extending an invitation to Ukraine within the territories under its control. In addition, the so-called East German model with a modification may be an option – extending an invitation to Ukraine within the territories under its control, without deploying NATO troops, but with NATO weapons and using Article 5 of the NATO Charter in relation to these territories under Ukraine’s control. And, of course, those Western countries that signed security agreements with Ukraine in 2023, and there are more than 20 such countries, must properly fulfill their obligations.

This would be the best solution for Russia as well, because, as Henry Kissinger noted in January 2023, Putin, by invading Ukraine in 2022, personally erased his own red line on Ukraine’s NATO membership, which he had announced to the US Ambassador to Russia, William Burns, in 2008. Right now, in the context of the world disorder, there is an opportunity to reconsider all red lines in relations between the West and Russia, and even in a broader geopolitical context involving China and countries of the Global South, and finally correct the geopolitical and security mistakes of the West in the 1990s regarding Ukraine, which should finally get rid of its buffer zone status. It is obviously that an exact moment for the strategic dialogue with all parties involved directly and indirectly has come. Only a world security rubicon is further.

Jaishankar In Pakistan For SCO: It’s Not A Favor From Either Side

Ambassador Abdul Basit

3 days ago

India’s Minister for External Affairs Dr Subrahmanyam Jaishankar in Pakistan to attend the 23rd meeting of the Council of Heads of Government (CHG) of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In Pakistan, analysts and commentators are still trying to decipher what India’s participation in the SCO meeting holds for relations between the two countries which have been stuck in a gridlock since August 5, 2019. While some are interpreting Jaishankar’s presence in Islamabad as a good augury for bilateral relations, others do not seem to be very impressed or optimistic about prospects.

By keeping itself away from the summit in Islamabad, India would have conveyed a message that it is treating the SCO the same way as it does SAARC.

In Pakistan, we have the habit of creating unnecessary hype, especially when it comes to our relations with India. As he stated before he arrived in Islamabad, Jaishankar is not here for a bilateral meeting. He is here to attend the SCO summit as he did in October last year in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic. Both Pakistani and Indian premiers never attended the CHG’s meetings. Unlike the other SCO member countries, we are parliamentary democracies. Accordingly, our prime ministers would attend the Council of Heads of State meetings which is the highest decision-making body of the SCO.

Let us be very clear. India has not done any favor to Pakistan by being present in Islamabad. SCO is an important organization, and by keeping itself away from the summit in Islamabad, India would have conveyed a message that it is treating the SCO the same way as it does SAARC. India had no other option but to attend the summit as Pakistan attended the SCO foreign ministers meeting in Goa, India, last year.

Also read: Pakistan-India Super Normalization? Not So Fast

Nor did Pakistan do any favor to India by inviting Prime Minister Modi. This is how things are in the SCO. Pakistan could not have invited India’s foreign minister or vice president of India to the CHG meeting. It was the prerogative of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to nominate anyone to represent India in Islamabad. And the obvious choice was Jaishankar given the vexed nature of India-Pakistan relations.

As for any possible breakthrough, chances are slim as neither country has proposed a bilateral meeting on the sidelines. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar would have opportunities to shake hands with Jaishankar and exchange pleasantries. Anything happening beyond this is looking difficult at this stage, if not impossible. A meeting would take place only if the two countries have been in touch on the back channel and discussing how to break the deadlock as a meeting without any proper spadework would likely create more problems than addressing the issues at hand.

As for any possible breakthrough, chances are slim as neither country has proposed a bilateral meeting on the sidelines.

Pakistan can ill-afford to agree to resume talks under the framework as contained in the lopsided Ufa Joint Statement of 10 July 2015. India’s unilateral and illegal actions on August 5, 2019, abrogating the special status of the occupied Jammu and Kashmir, was too serious a step to be ignored by Pakistan. In my assessment, India may be willing to resume a formal dialogue process without any preconditions, for that would further undermine Pakistan’s principled position on Kashmir. Hence, I have been suggesting that engaging on the back channel would make more sense from Pakistan’s perspective than resuming formal talks. Pakistan must be certain whether or not India is ready to have result-oriented talks on Kashmir. More of the same would not work.

Some in Pakistan are still wedded to the approach of taking baby steps aimed at creating a conducive environment, enabling the two countries to subsequently address difficult and core issues like Kashmir.

I for one don’t see much merit in this approach, especially after what India did to Kashmir. There is no space left for Pakistan to continue entertaining hackneyed and tested diplomatic approaches. India’s insistence since January last year to reopen the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty is a case in point. Simply put, it would like to have a one-sided agenda pushing Kashmir to the margins. I am not sure if Pakistan can accept unilateralism in Kashmir.

The question remains if India is able to dispense with its intransigence and move from conflict management to conflict resolution.

Also read: Post-Hasina Bangladesh: Is Pakistan Up To The Task?

There is no denying the fact that peace is in our mutual interest. The question remains if India can dispense with its intransigence and move from conflict management to conflict resolution. It needs to be stressed that regional organizations such as SCO and SAARC cannot realize their potential if there are serious intra-regional disputes.

As for the SCO, India has serious issues with both China and Pakistan. It is developing its strategic partnership with the US in leaps and bounds. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that India is the only SCO country openly opposing China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Over time, India will likely become the biggest impediment to SCO activities. India cannot have its cake and eat it too. China and Russia may still like to keep India in good humor for various reasons, but they would not like to see their initiative go down the drain.

Pakistan must play its cards skillfully and patiently. “Haste makes waste”.

Israel’s Deterrence Theory Proves To Be A Failure

Muhammad Hussain Baqeri

4 days ago

On the anniversary of the Al-Aqsa Storm and after the Operation True Promise II which showed the ineffectiveness of Israel’s defense in intercepting Iranian missiles, it can now be said with more certainty that Tel Aviv’s deterrence theory has failed miserably in the given environment.

The October 7 operation – conducted by Hamas last year after breaking the Israeli defense wall and shocking the Zionist forces – produced the highest number of casualties, which was unprecedented in the history of Israel.

The deterrence theory has failed in the Middle East region, especially in Israel’s case, and it will take a long time to find an alternative.

And on the northern front, Hezbollah destroyed the defense structure of Israel in a way that the residents of the Al-Jalil region inevitably had to relocate to safer areas.

Yemeni missiles also occasionally bypassed the Israeli air defense and entered the lands occupied by Israel.

It was said that Ibrahim Aqeel, the martyred commander of Hezbollah, was planning to enter the Galilee region and carry out an operation similar to the Al-Aqsa Storm. If such a statement is true, it means that Israel no longer has a safe place, and its terrain and skies are open to the Axis of Resistance.

The Israeli regime spent many years adopting the latest technological achievements of the United States and the West as well as the use of costly equipment and weapons.

With the presence of the Iron Dome, the David Sling, and the Arrow 3, they believed that it could intercept any short-range and long-range projectile.

Israeli authorities saw and arrogantly ignored the measures that were being taken by the Axis of Resistance, like digging tunnels and stockpiling weapons. They thought that their complex defense system had created a sufficient and complete deterrence for Israel’s safety.

However, things have changed.

By examining the actions of the resistance axis and especially the Operation True Promise, it has been determined that all of Israel’s security measures on the ground and in the air, as well as advanced communication and telecommunication technologies, have not prevented heavy strikes deep into the occupied land.

It seems that the military commanders, angry at the inefficiency and poor performance of these defense systems, have received a clear message that no place in Israel is safe anymore, and their strategic deterrence has failed.

The Israeli regime spent many years adopting the latest technological achievements of the United States and the West as well as the use of costly equipment and weapons.

Israel’s aggressive behavior in recent weeks should be analyzed in this framework:

So, Tel Aviv intends to announce that if Israel is not safe, then the entire Middle East should not be safe either.

How? By activating various fronts – West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq – as well as increasing the operations deep in Syria and intensifying aggression against Gaza, and also creating a front with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The current situation is proof of a new arrangement intensifying tensions and disturbing the region’s geostrategic balance.

Also read: Netanyahu Is Dragging Everyone Into War

The continuous Israeli bombings in various countries of the region now threaten not only the Middle East but the whole world.

Many countries in West Asia are now worried about the spread of war and getting into unwanted conflicts. This issue is clearly raised by Abdul Fattah Al-Sisi, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, King Abdullah II, the Gulf Cooperation Council leaders and others.

The uncertainty about the future of Gaza, Hamas, ceasefire, the two state solution and Lebanon along with the situation in the West Bank are threatened due to the expansion of Israel’s insecure activities. As a result, the fate of not only the Middle East but also the whole world is unknown.

The world is waiting every day for the surprises of this devastating war. The collapse of Israel’s deterrence theory and the heavy losses – especially wasting billions of dollars to counter the cheap resistance-oriented missiles – it suffered has brought the regime’s aggression to its peak. In fact, Israel had been taken out of its deterrence lock.

The Abrahamic Accords are meaningless without Saudi Arabia’s participation, and the Saudi leaders are unlikely to join these until the idea of the two states is finalized.

Moreover, Israel’s aggressive behavior in dealing with the defenseless people of the region has also put Arab countries under severe pressure, especially those which had normalized relations with Tel Aviv.

Israel currently does not make any distinction between militiamen and civilians, resistance people and ordinary people, Shia, Sunni, and Druze. The blind killings, which the Zionist regime claims to be targeted, put the leaders of the Arab countries, who are not happy with the Axis of Resistance either, in such an awkward position that they cannot remain indifferent to the war crimes committed by Israel.

Hence, the Abrahamic Accords are meaningless without Saudi Arabia’s participation, and the Saudi leaders are unlikely to join these until the idea of the two states is finalized.

Some analysts may think that Israel’s current destructive actions against Hamas and Hezbollah are part of Israel’s deterrent actions in restoring security to its land borders. How? By removing the resistance from the core of the Israeli regime in the triangle of Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. It means that the resistance would be stopped forever by destroying infrastructure and eliminating key figures. But it seems that these ideas do not match with the reality.

At least, Israel’s experiences in the 33-day and 22-day wars against Hezbollah and Gaza showed that the resistance quickly rises from the ruins. By renewing its strength and learning from the defeats, it will appear stronger and more powerful in the field.

At the same time, expanding the war in the region into a regional war is a double whammy: If it flares up, it will also involve the great powers in the conflict.

The war between Russia and Ukraine has brought the relations between the great powers to the lowest levels. Such developments make conflict resolution difficult.

At the level of West Asia, it will not only become more complex with time but also lead to a further increase in tensions between the global powers.

On the other hand, the experience of last year’s negotiations to resolve the Gaza crisis showed that the United States alone, and even with its European and regional allies, is not able to resolve regional issues. The unilateral support extended by the US and the Western to Israel under “the right of self-defense” has not only jeopardized the security of American forces in the region but also provoked protests from different countries. As a result, public opinion around the world and pressure has increased even among the American elites.

Although China and Russia have a massive presence behind the scenes of the events in the region, this does not mean that they are trying to solve the crisis. Perhaps, both countries benefit from the West’s involvement in Middle East issues.

Russia has interests in disrupting the concentration of the West in supporting Ukraine and China in disrupting the India-Israel corridor. In addition, not only the war in the Middle East has cost America and Israel billions of dollars, but also affected international transportation.

Also, the inflationary effects of this war have affected all countries and damaged the region’s foreign investments, tourism revenues, and other economic sectors.

Although separating the Axis of Resistance from each other is on Israel’s current agenda, it will not be able to restore the balance of violence to the balance of peace.

In the medium term, the Israeli regime struggles to create a strategic compromise and launch the Abrahamic Accords. Israel does not have the necessary options to maintain and guarantee the security of the corridor between India and Israel and is also unable to surrender before the Axis of Resistance.

Because the majority of voters associated with synagogues and the Israeli elites do not agree with the two states solution.

Thus, Israel no longer has a suitable solution to encourage Saudi Arabia and other countries to join the Abrahamic Accords.

Although separating the Axis of Resistance from each other is on Israel’s current agenda, it will not be able to restore the balance of violence to the balance of peace despite the severity of the destruction.

The Middle East region is now facing two completely different scenarios:

A delayed ceasefire scenario, in which the level of tension increases and sometimes the exchange of long-range fire between Iran and Israel as well as the continuation of attacks by Hezbollah, Ansarullah, Hashd al-Shaabi [Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)] and other groups may eventually force Israel to reduce the tension and accept a peace agreement by bearing heavy losses.

Tel Aviv will use everything within its power to the divide the resistance front during the opening between the ceasefire agreement and a full-scale war.

Alternatively, the region could enter into a full-scale war with the presence of United States and its Western allies, in which the Axis of Resistance attacks the American bases in the region and probably drags the Arab countries, Russia, and China into the conflict.

Despite extending absolute and unlimited support to Israel while ignoring the war crimes and genocide as well as heavy military presence in the region, the US does not want to engage in a full-scale war. The reason is simple: a full-scale war can reduce the United States’ ability to deter against to challenge posed by Iran, Russia, and China. At the same time, it may shake internal status quo in the US more than before.

However, Israel wants maximum bloodshed and destruction in the vacuum created by the US presidential election and the inaction on the part of international community.

Therefore, Tel Aviv will use everything within its power to the divide the resistance front during the opening between the ceasefire agreement and a full-scale war.

On the other hand, the resistance front still has the necessary efficiency and hidden surprises. The deterrence theory has failed in the Middle East region, especially in Israel’s case, and it will take a long time to find an alternative.

Modern Tragedy: US Sanctions Saga In A Security-Scared Environ

Dr Gulshan Rafiq

6 days ago

In the shadowy realm of realpolitik, where power and principle intertwine, the US sanctions on China and Pakistan for their missile cooperation emerge as another complex tale of state-centrism. This blends the grandeur of contemporary conflicts, rich in historical and geopolitical drama, with far-reaching consequences for the region and beyond.

To decipher the moral of these sanctions, one must consider the geopolitical landscape through the lens of literary tradition. Much like the intricate plots of Shakespeare’s tragedies, where ambition and retribution drove the fates of sovereigns, the lone superpower sanctions are a manifestation of the broader struggle for control and influence on the global stage. Shakespeare’s characters, from Macbeth’s relentless pursuit of power to Othello’s tragic descent into jealousy, mirror the underlying tensions and strategic maneuvers that define this conflict.

As the narrative of US sanctions against China and Pakistan continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in international relations.

The sanctions are ostensibly designed to curb the proliferation of ballistic missile technology, reflecting an effort to uphold the principles enshrined in international arms control frameworks like the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This initiative, aiming to prevent the spread of missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, is reminiscent of the ancient Roman quest for stability and order, a pursuit captured in Virgil’s “Aeneid.” Just as Aeneas struggles to establish a new order in a turbulent world, the US seeks to maintain a semblance of global equilibrium amidst the challenges posed by emerging missile capabilities.

China and Pakistan, however, perceive these sanctions through a different lens, one that evokes the themes of resistance and survival prevalent in both Western and Eastern literary traditions. For Pakistan, the development of ballistic missile technology represents not just a strategic asset but a crucial component of its national defense strategy, akin to the heroic efforts of ancient figures who sought to protect their realms from encroaching threats. This perspective is reminiscent of the archetypal heroism depicted in Homer’s “Iliad,” where warriors like Achilles are driven by the necessity of defending their honor and securing future. Similarly, Pakistan’s missile capabilities are viewed as a deterrent against its traditional adversary, India.

Amidst this geopolitical bait, the US-India defense collaboration emerges as a significant subplot.

China’s role in this episode reflects its own complex strategic calculus, akin to the character of the dragon in Chinese mythology – a symbol of immense power and wisdom. The dragon’s dual nature, embodying both a force of great strength and a protector of tradition, mirrors China’s position as a major global player supporting Pakistan’s defense technology. This relationship can be seen as part of a broader strategic vision, echoing the principles found in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War,” where alliances and strategic depth are vital for maintaining balance and advancing national interests. In this sense, the US sanctions challenge China’s strategic ambitions and its role as a stabilizing force in the region.

Amidst this geopolitical bait, the US-India defense collaboration emerges as a significant subplot. This alliance, often portrayed as a counterweight to China’s influence, underscores a shared vision of strategic stability and regional security. Much like the alliances in ancient epic tales – where coalitions are forged to confront common adversaries – the US-India partnership represents a renewed effort to create a new status quo in the Indo-Pacific region.

The sanctions also illuminate the broader theme of unilateralism versus multilateralism in international relations. In Shakespearean terms, they could be seen as a dramatic device, a means of highlighting the limitations and consequences of solitary actions. Much like the tragic flaws of Shakespeare’s heroes, the unilateral imposition of sanctions may not always achieve its intended outcomes.

The sanctions also bring to light the evolving nature of global diplomacy, where information warfare and economic pressures play increasingly prominent roles.

Critics argue that such measures could entrench positions and exacerbate existing tensions rather than resolve them. This perspective is suggestive of the insights found in Chinese literature, where the futility of certain struggles and the inevitability of fate are recurring themes. Du Fu, the great Tang dynasty poet, often reflected on the futility of human endeavor’s against the backdrop of larger, immutable forces, a sentiment that resonates with the current discourse on the effectiveness of sanctions.

The sanctions also bring to light the evolving nature of global diplomacy, where information warfare and economic pressures play increasingly prominent roles. In this context, one might recall the image of the classical stage, where the interplay of characters and themes was crucial to the unfolding drama. The modern stage, however, includes the digital realm, where information is wielded as a weapon and economic sanctions as a strategic tool. This transformation parallels the shift from classical to modern literature, where the themes of power and influence adapt to new forms and technologies.

As the narrative of US sanctions against China and Pakistan continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in international relations. It underscores the enduring relevance of literary themes – such as the quest for power, and the nature of resistance, within the realm of global politics. The ultimate resolution of this conflict, much like the resolution of a great literary work, will depend on the interplay of its central characters – the nations involved, and their ability to maneuver through diplomacy, strategy, and international law.

In this context, one is reminded that the pursuit of balance and stability in the global order is both a noble and challenging endeavor. The lessons gleaned from this modern saga echo through history and literature, revealing the timeless nature of the inevitable human quest for security, sovereignty, and peace. As with any great literary work, the resolution of this paradigm will shape the future course of international relations and provide insights into the evolving dynamics of global power.

Imran Khan, Extremism, Social Fragmentation And the Only Alternative

Arsalan Raja

7 days ago

A spectacular failure to achieve the ill-defined destructive goals of “Project Imran” and a frightening creation of the fascist force leading to sociopolitical fragmentation mean Pakistan is now in a vortex. The current scenario limits its ability to tackle a plethora of challenges which are already complicated by the elements associated with Imran Khan, the incarcerated PTI founding chairman.

We need to find a solution because it has been nurtured as a social phenomenon. You can’t just wait and see. Procrastination is a national habit, but this approach has always produced devastating results by worsening the state of affairs.

Also read: Pakistan Whither? Where Do We Go From Here?

So, what is the problem?

The mindset groomed and solidified into a cult called the PTI has penetrated deep into the society and the state, requiring an urgent action which is already delayed for the reasons that must be explained. It only represents either a wrong belief that the things would eventually return to normal or a strategy that society should remain divided.

Ironically, this projection of the playboy cricketer came at a time when the newscasters were forced to wear headscarves “dupatta” on their heads.

But just like any other issue or disease, treatment requires a proper diagnosis to understand its origins.

THE FANTASY:

Imran Khan was presented as a poster boy by Ziaul Haq to promote a soft image at a time when he was radicalizing the society through an unending Islamization process. Hindsight suggests Zia was absolutely right and deserves recognition for his selection – not policies and actions – as Imran Khan proved to be a wonderful choice for advocating the cause of extremists and attracting the modernized urban upper middle and middle classes thanks to the backing of elite.

Ironically, this projection of the playboy cricketer came at a time when the newscasters were forced to wear headscarves “dupatta” on their heads, while the male and female actors in dramas kept a two-feet distance between themselves on PTV – the sole TV channel at that time.

Before moving forward, an example should be shared both on a lighter and serious note since it explains why we are here. It was the same period when Michael Jackson became a global star. However, we were barred from becoming a part of this process, as Zia persisted with imposing extremist thoughts not only through laws but also formal and informal education. Our heroes were all armed and were riding a horse while we lived in the 20th century. We had no room for anything related to the good old Industrial Revolution, forget about postmodernity.

As we missed the train, we were also not ready to take advantage of the globalization triggered by the fall of Berlin Wall and the dismemberment of the USSR after the death of Zia in a plane crash on Aug 17, 1988. Oh Gosh! We have missed so many trains since August 14, 1947.

Let’s come back to Imran Khan now.

Once you are in a limelight, you obviously become an attraction. The paucity of heroes in sports, music and other performing arts meant that Imran Khan had been developed into the only choice during 1980s and 90s.

Just imagine if we had access to Michael Jackson or produced our own versions of Michael Jackson, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Emma Thompson, Sharon Stone, Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, or Meryl Streep.

Things would have been certainly different had we not faced this worst form of social engineering, as we opted for mainstreaming religious extremism.

We can find the origins of Imran Khan as a cricketer-cum-politician in the posh localities of Lahore and Islamabad.

It is in this backdrop that on March 25, 1992, when Pakistan won the ICC World Cup – an event that enabled the producers like Lt-Gen (R) Hameed Gul to cement Imran Khan’s case as a savior against the two “evils” – the Bhutto of Larkana and the Sharifs of Lahore. Afterall, Qazi Hussain Ahmed had failed miserably in the PIF (Pakistan Islamic Front) project – an attempt to replicate Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Front (PIF) – in the 1993 elections. The failure was so huge that the Jamaat-e-Islami hasn’t been unable to recover from the loss, resulting in its decline in electoral politics despite a huge boost given by the MMA – an alliance of religio-political parties formed in 2002.

THE ORIGIN:

Once you are in limelight, you are a star. In this case, Imran Khan was the only available star, as the playing field had been levelled in his favor. Thus, a romance began between the elite and Imran Khan, which was reinforced by their hate towards democracy.

That’s why we can find the origins of Imran Khan as a cricketer-cum-politician in the posh localities of Lahore and Islamabad. He met all of their conditions – an Oxford-educated man who speaks English fluently and doesn’t look desi [native] while partying with the British elite as a playboy.

And they found a natural ally in the shape of upper middle class which was a direct product of the economic system and also a beneficiary of globalization just like the elite, meaning that they had similar social and political views.

However, the circle expanded given that Pakistan’s urban middle classes, generally also have anti-democracy leanings and are religious in nature – in total contrast to the what we see in the developed world or in other developing countries.

Now, we must identify the reasons responsible for this trend.

THE EXPANSION:

Imran Khan’s influence among the paradoxical and hypocritical urban classes of all sorts is rooted in their social alienation and influence of the Islamization process. They found a messiah who represented their contradictions – modern but also a bigot, westernized lifestyles but also championing the cause of pseudo conservative cultural values, eulogizing the West for personal freedoms but also promoting fascism, calling for uprooting the system but also being its direct beneficiary, pleading the case for punishing the corrupt but also having a solid bond with the corrupt, so on and so forth.

Imran Khan’s influence among the paradoxical and hypocritical urban classes of all sorts is rooted in their social alienation and influence of the Islamization process.

It was a fascinating deal that offered everything to everyone. But again, the social alienation and the desire to become part of the affluent classes made them follow the rules and plans set by those living in the poshest of the posher neighborhoods of Lahore and Islamabad.

Also read: Address The Bullies Before They Become Frankensteins

One can’t miss the irony that the urban middle and upper middle classes – especially the professionals – complain about the corrupt system and the corrupt politicians, but are one of the most corrupt themselves. A cursory look at the FBR record will speak for themselves.

This hate towards democracy and admiration of the repressive cultural values – like Jirga and panchayat experienced by those living in rural and backward areas – for one reason or the other stem from the fact that Pakistan’s urban middle and upper middle classes are not a product of industrialization. By the time this article was being written, we are a still quasi-feudal, quasi-tribal society.

It leads us to a conclusion that there seems to be some serious problems with the educated and wealthy urban classes which are supposed to lead social transformation anywhere in the world. And the absence of a real generation gap in Pakistan’s society summarizes the state of affairs.

Yes! Pakistan has never really a generation gap, as one generation after another is transmitting the same old values and thus the same worldview to the younger minds.

Here an example should suffice. A study conducted by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) says 98.5% of the respondents had parents who are linguistically homogenous. We are not leaving the same old caste and creed practices.

And the PIDE study also show that “ethnic exogamy is more prevalent in urban Pakistan (1.9%) than rural” and “a slightly increasing trend for ethnic exogamy is observed with increasing education and income levels”.

Pakistan has never really a generation gap, as one generation after another is transmitting the same old values and thus the same worldview to the younger minds.

All these things prove why the urban educated classes prefer and admire Imran Khan who has the distinction of justifying and promoting social repression. Yes! He is the only one. Not a single political leader, and that too in mainstream politics, has ever pleaded the case for Jirga and panchayat. Not even any feudal or tribal leader had ever dared to do so in national politics.

Ask any of the Imran Khan’s supporter having an urban background about his or her views on Jirga and panchayat. He or she will endorse the leader while rejecting the very possibility of becoming part of the same cultural practices.

Someone with the same background once opined that there is nothing called forced marriage. We can list as a forced marriage only if a woman is ordered to marry against her will at gunpoint. These expert views shared by a multiple degree-holder woman are enough to explain a complete lack of knowledge about the dynamics of traditional society. It also shows what they think about the ordinary people.

Meanwhile, Imran Khan’s urban supporters also have favorable views about the Taliban.

Wait! But Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is stronghold of Imran Khan. How can one explain this phenomenon when it is the urban elite who introduced the idea of Imran Khan as the savior and others living in the cities followed the course? Doesn’t it mean the story narrated above is baseless?

No, it isn’t, unfortunately. It only reflects the wider audience Imran Khan has due to his contradictions.

THE PAKHTUNS:

You shouldn’t be surprised by the acceptance enjoyed by Imran Khan in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa because it is a result of sociopolitical process which started with the Afghan jihad in 80s.

So, here is the story. The Afghan jihad meant creation of Mujahideen and the required mindset in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – along with the parts of north western Balochistan – as the project necessitated the involvement of Pakhtuns. It required a network of large and small madrassas. Although the same exercise was repeated in other parts of the country, the mutual affiliation among the Pashto-speaking population on both sides of the border affected Pakhtuns the most.

Initially, the religious parties represented this mindset at the political level. However, years of indoctrination started weakening the nationalist forces and national political parties in the province, previously known as NWFP. But the lack of appealing leadership allowed other political parties to enter the assemblies and form governments till 1990s, as this mindset hadn’t been congealed politically so far.

However, the MMA presented the first opportunity for vote consolidation in 2002. This electoral alliance comprising religio-political parties was able to form government on its own after winning 48 out of 98 seats while five independents also joined its ranks.

Five years of the MMA government in the province produced an environment where this mindset further flourished and started getting mainstreamed in the province.

Although the 2008 elections saw ANP leading the coalition provincial government, the Taliban terrorists targeted the party leaders and workers for their views during the period 2008-13. It is claimed that the ANP lost around 700 leaders and workers despite being in the government, as the erstwhile FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – the erstwhile NWFP renamed during the same period – faced the brunt of terrorism.

The full-fledged launch of Project Imran meant that a political force was being raised which wasn’t on the Taliban’s radar before the 2013 elections.

One of the reasons behind the MNA’s failure in 2008 was the imminent return of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to power in Islamabad. However, she was martyred before the people could go to polls. At the same time, the religio-political parties were on an overall decline in electoral politics, as they remained unable to ensure a sustainable expansion their hardcore support base.

However, the full-fledged launch of Project Imran meant that a political force was being raised which wasn’t on the Taliban’s radar before the 2013 elections. While political leaders and workers of other parties – ANP, PPP and PML-N – restricted their activities due to constant threats, the PTI was slowly allowed to fill this vacuum. In this scenario, the things reached a point when the PTI wiped out others in 2018. Another case of levelling the playing field for one and only Imran Khan.

Also read: Populism Or Fascism? How Imran Khan’s Vendetta is Shaking Pakistan

It is in this backdrop Imran Khan emerged as a leader with the full backing of the power circles. This section of the society recognized him as an individual who praised and advocated the case of those influenced by the jihad process. Imran Khan is the culmination of a process that also led to the shrinking appeal of JUI-F as Jamaat-e-Islami because of the religious symbols used by him.

THE MODEL:

In honest retrospection, one can easily see that we as a people have tried to avoid addressing the basic question: how should we deal with extremism?

This denial obviously produced an approach that pushed us towards creating an environment when anything resembling to reasoning is blasphemous. Hence, we instead of reversing the social fragmentation caused by the unchecked spread of extremist thoughts, maintain the status quo. In fact, we even allowed entities like the TLP to prop up at a time when we were engaged in fighting the TTP and other terrorist organizations.

Therefore, we still somehow find a solution in Zakir Naik – a preacher who openly advocates the views similar to that of the Taliban and Al Qaeda – as a role model. Therefore, the rise of Imran Khan was a natural consequence of the continuous process.

Societies aren’t machines that can be operated from a dashboard. Once you unleash a social force, you can’t push a button to place it back in some storage room or change it automatically.

But who could be the model?

Honest answer? The very people we regularly contact for financial assistance – Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

One doesn’t need to go into the details of how the UAE has worked over the last five decades to develop as a society which is open socially with zero tolerance for extremism.

However, the transformation of Saudi Arabia under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is even more interesting case, as he has bulldozed the forces that could hamper the process.

THE SOLUTION:

One has to admit first that the extremism has been Pakistan’s main problem which the Imran Khan factor complicated by mainstreaming a brand of politics mixing fascism, extremism and terrorism. There is no other choice but to reprioritize the goals and select a model.

After you have chosen a model, the next step is to devise a plan to achieve the objectives according to your particular ground realities. The solution in our case is painful because you cannot move forward without extracting the destructive mindset from both the society and the state.

For the long-term changes, the education system as a whole with a particular focus on curriculum needs a complete overhaul. Students must know about their geography and [actual] history as well as the modern world and the socioeconomic changes that produced the North-South divide. They require complete understanding of the historical developments, leading to the developed West.

Pakistan immediately needs is a “purge” so that elements promoting extremism and associated with the views upheld by Imran Khan are systematically removed from all institutions.

At the same time, science should be our focus, but the scientific minds need critical thinking. So, lift the blanket ban imposed on reasoning and make development of critical thinking a prerequisite for schooling from an early age.

However, what Pakistan immediately needs is a “purge” so that elements promoting extremism and associated with the views upheld by Imran Khan are systematically removed from all institutions, including media and education. The suggestion may seem harsh and unrealistic, but the fact remains that you won’t move forward unless drastic steps are not taken, as these elements would sabotage every move both at the societal and state levels.

For this purpose, one can take a leaf out of the McCarthyism or even the Stalinist Purges. The two historical examples are certainly not good ones; however, using the same techniques for a better cause is not a bad idea.

All we need is to set goals that can make Pakistan part of the global journey towards integration and progress, especially when the two Gulf States – Saudi Arabia and the UAE – are leading the unprecedented transformative changes in the region. Staying in the vicious circle would be our own choice, blaming others won’t serve any purpose. Just don’t miss another train.

12 3...130 Page 1 of 130

exploreuaeonline on Historic 26th Amendment Will Make The Federation StrongerSeptember 29, 2024
Fantastic site A lot of helpful info here Im sending it to some buddies ans additionally sharing in delicious And…
exploreuaeonline on Gen-Z: Analyzing Student Protests Around The WorldSeptember 28, 2024
I do not even know how I ended up here but I thought this post was great I do not…
Fake Mail on The Reason for the Deterioration of Niger-US RelationsMay 21, 2024
I truly appreciate your technique of writing a blog. I added it to my bookmark site list and will
Jaime R. Mullins on Examining China’s Governance: The Authoritarian LensMay 1, 2024
This blog post is packed with great content!
Williams on The Struggle For Dominance in SudanApril 19, 2024
Hi! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this…

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

The meeting, though not officially pre-scheduled, garnered attention due to its potential implications for the frosty ties between the two countries.

Despite the diplomatic overture, significant hurdles remain in normalizing the relations between Pakistan and India.

Although former chief justice Saqib Nisar had bestowed on Imran Khan the titles of Sadiq and Amin [Honest and Truthful], the Brits refused to acknowledge the same.

These countries have kept reasonable politico-security relations with the Taliban, though, their patience is wearing thin due to heightened security threats.

Other international players, especially Russia, Iran and China see these actors as posing a direct security threat to the region’s stability.

The declaration was made after consultation with regional powers and it is clear for the Afghanistan government that the world is waiting for action to eradicate terrorism.

Thirty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, geopolitics has returned with a vengeance.

The United States is not in the driving seat in the Middle East and is being edged out in Ukraine, the South China Sea, and in the arena of new technology.

Our long-term interests lie with a rising China, not with the declining United States. Yet the challenge is to avoid the zero-sum game of with us or against us.

What does the government need to do? First of all, learn what not to do.

Imran Khan has repeatedly aligned himself with regressive forces, most notably resettling the TTP from Afghanistan into Pakistan and declaring Osama bin Laden a martyr.

Imran Khan’s candidacy also raises significant concerns about the role of populism in global academia.

The real danger lies in how his populist movement operates. His supporters do not just support him; they aggressively campaign against anyone who dares criticize him.

The West wants to leave the issue of the occupied territories to the political process, diplomacy, and time.

President Zelensky cannot rationally insist on continuing the war to restore the country’s territorial integrity.

It is Washington that should show leadership in the West and offer reliable security instruments to Ukraine.

There is an opportunity to reconsider all red lines in relations between the West and Russia, and even in a broader geopolitical context involving China and countries of the Global South,

By keeping itself away from the summit in Islamabad, India would have conveyed a message that it is treating the SCO the same way as it does SAARC.

As for any possible breakthrough, chances are slim as neither country has proposed a bilateral meeting on the sidelines.

The question remains if India is able to dispense with its intransigence and move from conflict management to conflict resolution.

The deterrence theory has failed in the Middle East region, especially in Israel’s case, and it will take a long time to find an alternative.

The Israeli regime spent many years adopting the latest technological achievements of the United States and the West as well as the use of costly equipment and weapons.

The Abrahamic Accords are meaningless without Saudi Arabia’s participation, and the Saudi leaders are unlikely to join these until the idea of the two states is finalized.

Although separating the Axis of Resistance from each other is on Israel’s current agenda, it will not be able to restore the balance of violence to the balance of peace.

Tel Aviv will use everything within its power to the divide the resistance front during the opening between the ceasefire agreement and a full-scale war.

As the narrative of US sanctions against China and Pakistan continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in international relations.

Amidst this geopolitical bait, the US-India defense collaboration emerges as a significant subplot.

The sanctions also bring to light the evolving nature of global diplomacy, where information warfare and economic pressures play increasingly prominent roles.

Ironically, this projection of the playboy cricketer came at a time when the newscasters were forced to wear headscarves “dupatta” on their heads.

We can find the origins of Imran Khan as a cricketer-cum-politician in the posh localities of Lahore and Islamabad.

Imran Khan’s influence among the paradoxical and hypocritical urban classes of all sorts is rooted in their social alienation and influence of the Islamization process.

Pakistan has never really a generation gap, as one generation after another is transmitting the same old values and thus the same worldview to the younger minds.

The full-fledged launch of Project Imran meant that a political force was being raised which wasn’t on the Taliban’s radar before the 2013 elections.

Pakistan immediately needs is a “purge” so that elements promoting extremism and associated with the views upheld by Imran Khan are systematically removed from all institutions.

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.