A Looming Storm: Trump’s Far-Right Cabinet And The Fragile World Order

By

-

November 14, 2024

Life in Tajikistan feels worlds apart from the Pakistani political obsessions of London. Here, surrounded by diplomats and military personnel from around the globe — Americans, Iranians, Arabs, East Asians, Turks, British, and even Indians — I find myself in conversations that stray far from the perpetual whirlpool of Pakistani politics I experience in London. The recent US election, however, dominates every exchange, casting a palpable tension over gatherings as diverse as the COP 29 climate summit in Baku to Remembrance Sunday ceremonies here in Dushanbe. Even as the Quetta railway station blast by the Majid Brigade was briefly lamented, the prevailing question remained: What does Donald Trump’s return mean for global order? Trump’s impending impact looms more significant than ever in these hallowed moments of commemoration, between reflections on security challenges and climate disasters.

Trump’s second administration appears to be building itself on the same volatile cocktail that marked his first, but this time, the ingredients are more concentrated and far less restrained. His inner circle, now stacked with hardcore far-right loyalists, strategists, and billionaire disruptors, presents an unprecedented blend of isolationist populism and aggressive nationalism. Unlike his first term, where he was occasionally tempered by conventional Republicans like Reince Priebus and Rex Tillerson, Trump has surrounded himself with ideologues who share his disdain for the “deep state”. Elon Musk leads this charge, whose vision of “efficiency” in government echoes Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp”. However, Musk’s concept of “efficiency” is sharpened not in public service but in corporate boardrooms, where employees are disposable, and profit is king. Applying this mindset to governance is akin to dousing the fragile ecosystem of democratic institutions in gasoline, striking a match, and calling it progress.

As Trump prepares to take office once again, this brand of populism threatens not only America but the very fabric of global stability.

In foreign policy, Trump’s administration has taken a markedly radical turn. Marco Rubio, the hawkish senator expected to become Secretary of State, represents a faction within Trump’s team that views diplomacy with Iran as appeasement. Rubio’s hardline stance could bring the US back to the days of “maximum pressure”, a strategy that alienated allies and pushed Tehran closer to nuclear capability during Trump’s first term. Memories of Qasem Soleimani’s assassination by a US drone in 2020 still reverberate in diplomatic circles, especially now, with Iran allegedly plotting retaliation against Trump himself. With Rubio at the helm, we could see renewed hostilities and an even more precarious balance of power in the Middle East, where Tehran’s reach stretches through volatile proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, and beyond.

Then there is the Israel-Palestine dilemma. Trump’s first term saw him make unprecedented moves that emboldened Israeli expansionism, from recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to supporting Netanyahu’s right-wing agenda. By sidelining Palestinian aspirations, he set off a spiral of radicalization and despair that has only deepened. In his second term, Trump’s disregard for the Palestinian plight could empower Israel to pursue annexation in the West Bank. This move would erase the possibility of a two-state solution and ignite violence on an unprecedented scale. Netanyahu, buoyed by Trump’s return, is likely to push for a “new Middle Eastern order”, a vision that ignores the voices of millions of Palestinians. With Elon Musk advising on “government efficiency,” there is a risk that the US approach to this conflict will become a streamlined process of elimination — one that considers Palestinian hopes as collateral damage in the pursuit of strategic realignment.

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

Yet, not just the Middle East stands on a precipice. Trump’s cabinet choices have signaled a renewed aggressive stance with China, an approach reinforced by his pick for National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, an outspoken critic of Beijing’s expansionist policies. With Trump’s trusted advisor, Robert Lighthizer, likely to reprise his role as Trade Representative, we may see a return to the tariff wars that strained global markets. While tariffs play well domestically, they destabilize global supply chains and increase costs — a risk the world can hardly afford during a fragile post-pandemic recovery. This administration’s preference for isolationist policies, intertwined with nationalist fervor, could erode the alliances that have held the global order together since the mid-20th century.

Also read: Triumph of Populism: What Trump’s Win Means For World Order

What is most disquieting, however, is the policies and ideology underlying them. Trump’s return is a beacon for far-right groups worldwide, from European ultra-nationalists to Latin American populists, who see in him a blueprint for governance that prioritizes loyalty over competence. This is governance as domination, a model that sees democratic institutions as hindrances to be subdued rather than pillars to be strengthened. Under Trump’s banner, populism has evolved from an electoral strategy into a philosophy of power — one that treats oversight as obstruction and views dissent as disloyalty.

Musk’s concept of “efficiency” is sharpened not in public service but in corporate boardrooms, where employees are disposable, and profit is king.

In environmental policy, Trump’s choice of Lee Zeldin as an EPA administrator epitomizes his administration’s deregulatory zeal. Zeldin, an ardent opponent of ecological protections, appears set to dismantle regulations for short-term economic gains. At a time when climate change wreaks havoc across the globe, such short-sightedness borders on irresponsibility. The COP 29 climate summit in Baku, where Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif emphasized his nation’s plight as a climate victim, underscored the global need for cooperation. Yet Trump’s administration signals an inward turn, one that threatens to sideline environmental justice for immediate profit, leaving vulnerable nations like Pakistan to endure most climate catastrophes without adequate support.

Ultimately, Trump’s second term is not just poised to disrupt policy — it threatens the stability of the global order itself. With a cabinet rooted in racial nationalism, hostile foreign policy, and corporate pragmatism, Trump’s administration is gearing up to govern with ruthless efficiency that views alliances as dispensable and international cooperation as a hindrance. This is not America, which shaped the post-World War II order; it is America, which is willing to sacrifice the principles of unity and peace for a facade of strength.

The rise of populism, amplified by Trump’s return, is not just an American problem. It is a global issue that blinds voters in democracies worldwide, from Washington to Warsaw. The enthusiasm surrounding his return underscores a dangerous shift: an emotional allegiance that overshadows critical thought and rational analysis. As Trump prepares to take office once again, this brand of populism threatens not only America but the very fabric of global stability. And if history is any guide, the repercussions will extend far beyond his term, echoing through fractured alliances and emboldened authoritarianism for years to come.

Trump 2024: Implications for ASEAN, AUKUS and the Indo-Pacific Strategy

By

Waqas Abdullah

-

November 13, 2024

0

Previously, ASEAN nations had been able to balance relations with both the US and China. However, a more assertive US strategy could strain ASEAN’s policy of neutrality, especially as Trump’s administration potentially encourages stronger US-aligned nations such as Singapore and Vietnam to embrace AUKUS and US policies, while other countries, like Cambodia and Laos, remain closely aligned with Beijing.

Stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, the Indo-Pacific region has become the stage of intense Great Power competition. Donald Trump’s recent victory is likely to heighten this competitive dynamic. During his election campaign, Trump emphasized a strong “America First” stance, advocating for reasserting US influence in regions critical to American interests, including the Indo-Pacific. His administration, in its first term, was notably proactive in bringing America back into a dominant position, with a major emphasis on countering China’s growing influence. His return could rekindle this agenda, intensifying US military and strategic engagement across the region. Noteworthy developments in this landscape include the AUKUS and selected ASEAN nations, given their strategic roles in the region.

Trump’s recent remarks have hinted at expanding AUKUS’s influence to address not just security but also broader diplomatic and economic engagements.

AUKUS, a security agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, aims at enhancing defense capabilities, including nuclear-powered submarine technology. Trump’s re-election could signify renewed US focus on AUKUS, potentially driving greater military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and technological compatibility. Statements coming from the Trump team suggest that a bolstered AUKUS alliance will act as a direct countermeasure to China. Trump’s recent remarks have hinted at expanding AUKUS’s influence to address not just security but also broader diplomatic and economic engagements, positioning it as a pivotal component in the Indo-Pacific strategy.

Also read: Triumph of Populism: What Trump’s Win Means For World Order

This enhanced US engagement could lead to an increase in naval deployments, joint exercises, and a more robust American military presence across the Indo-Pacific. Trump’s focus on military strength and alliance-building means that AUKUS members will seek enhanced partnerships with regional powers, especially India and Japan. This could form an extended security network aimed at curbing Chinese influence and drive an intensified regional arms race, prompting nations, including China, to accelerate their own defensive capabilities.

Furthermore, Trump’s administration may intensify efforts to synchronize with India in this expanded Indo-Pacific strategy. As India becomes a more prominent player in regional security, AUKUS can strengthen US-India relations through increased weapons sales, joint exercises, and strategic consultations. Closer ties between India and AUKUS under Trump’s leadership are likely to challenge not only China but also the diplomatic balance within ASEAN. These shifts could prompt countermeasures from China, including an expanded military and strategic footprint in the South China Sea and surrounding areas.

AUKUS can strengthen US-India relations through increased weapons sales, joint exercises, and strategic consultations.

For ASEAN, Trump’s re-election introduces a more complex position within the regional power hierarchy. During his campaign, Trump reiterated his firm stance against China, which can press ASEAN members to align more definitively. Previously, ASEAN nations had been able to balance relations with both the US and China. However, a more assertive US strategy could strain ASEAN’s policy of neutrality, especially as Trump’s administration potentially encourages stronger US-aligned nations such as Singapore and Vietnam to embrace AUKUS and US policies, while other countries, like Cambodia and Laos, remain closely aligned with Beijing.

Economic and developmental policies are also at stake under Trump’s “America First” approach, which historically deprioritized broader economic cooperation in favor of bilateral trade gains. This shift could reemerge, placing ASEAN countries in a vulnerable position if US economic interaction shifts away once again. Without U.S. assistance, ASEAN nations may be forced to rely further on China as a primary economic partner, even while navigating heightened US pressure to support AUKUS initiatives. The resulting tensions could destabilize ASEAN unity if the Trump administration escalates its Indo-Pacific agenda.

A deeper US integration through AUKUS may increase regional tensions, with ASEAN nations potentially re-evaluating their non-alignment stance. Trump’s recent campaign rhetoric hints that this increased US presence may compel ASEAN to reconsider its diplomatic approach, either towards active conflict participation or individual member alignment with either the AUKUS or China.

A deeper US integration through AUKUS may increase regional tensions, with ASEAN nations potentially re-evaluating their non-alignment stance.

Finally, Trump’s statements suggest potential regional economic impacts tied to rising AUKUS-China rivalry, with possible trade friction, supply chain disruptions, or sanctions affecting countries trading closely with China. ASEAN members may thus intensify intra-ASEAN economic cooperation and pursue additional agreements with other Asian economies to mitigate dependence on the US and China blocs.

Trump’s return as president is likely to solidify AUKUS’s role as a security actor and increase pressure on ASEAN to delineate their alliances. The Indo-Pacific, already a zone of significant geopolitical tension, may see further polarization under Trump’s leadership, challenging ASEAN’s foundational principles of neutrality and unity. The region’s future security and prosperity will depend on its ability to navigate an increasingly divided global landscape.

How Pakistan and China Safeguard Regional Security

By

Dr. Ghulam Mujaddid

-

November 13, 2024

0

Regional Security — A strong bond between Pakistan and China means guaranteed regional security in South Asia, as both sides have common interests.

Pakistan-China relation has a long history with deep roots and strengthened over decades, as both states have built close political, trade, defense cooperation and become strategic partners. The cornerstone of this partnership is the continuously developing security cooperation that turned into one of the strongest and unchangeable factors in relations between the two states. Pakistan and China have deep rooted security cooperation interests at regional level as well as in defense and intelligence domain.

Security cooperation between Pakistan and China began in the 1950, when Pakistan was the first country in South Asia to recognize PRC. It was in the 1960s that this partnership started developing as both countries had something to fear in the same region. Pakistan’s relations with the neighboring gigantic country, India, and China’s political-diplomatic differences with Soviet Union back then helped to pave the way for a strategic partnership.

Also read: Pakistan’s Zero-Sum Strategic Dilemma

However, beginning from the Sino-Indian War of 1962, especially due to tit-for-tat behavior of India and Pakistan, these two countries saw a well-articulated policy of rolling back Indian influence in South Asia. By 1970s, Pakistan emerged as an important strategic partner of China in South Asia where military and security dimension assumed main importance.

China-Pakistan strategic partnership provides a window to South Asia, Arabian Sea and the rest of the Middle East.

The relationship was also military based because China helped Pakistan with military assistance as well as technology and strategies that were very useful for Pakistan, especially during wars against India. Several defense cooperation treaties were signed between the two countries; mutual defense training, equipment as well as strategic talks ensued. This has of course given rise to a much more intensive relationship over the years to correspond with change in the security threats in the region.

The importance of security cooperation between Pakistan and China is important strategic point of view keeping in view regional and international perspectives. China-Pakistan strategic partnership provides a window to South Asia, Arabian Sea and the rest of the Middle East. In the eyes of Pakistan, China is believed to be an effective check to India and an indispensable supplier of military equipment and services.

Pakistan has had to strive with security issues, which include India, domestic rebellions, and terrorism. Despite, these challenges, China has always been supportive of Pakistan through diplomatic means including in the international organizations. The nature of the relation is defined as the “all-weather friendship status”, which in general points at the multiple fields for cooperation.

China has been a long-time arms supplier to Pakistan where it has sent sophisticated weapons, warplanes and naval vessels.

Because of the multilayered strategic partnership, military cooperation is one of the strong points of Pakistan-China relations. Two nations have conducted many bilateral military exercises for many years, which testifies to their wellness and security responsibility in the region. These include the Shaheen series of exercises of air forces meant for improving cooperation, exchange of ideas in operations, and for building up brother sentiment.

China has been a long-time arms supplier to Pakistan where it has sent sophisticated weapons, warplanes and naval vessels. The JF-17 Thunder fighter which owes its production to Pakistan and China is another good example of the two nations’ military cooperation. This relationship has not only helped improve the strength of Pakistan’s defense but also added to the buildup of homegrown defense industry. The collaboration encompasses sharing technological capability and manufacturing of weapons, which helps Pakistan improve indigenous defense production.

One of the most important projects under the BRI, the CPEC also carries the extensive security implications as well. Although the CPEC is mainly involved in the construction of infrastructure and economic resources’ development, it is also strategic. The Gwadar Port under the CPEC is important for China’s missile by granting it access to the Arabian Sea and increases China’s reach and power in the Indian Ocean area. Despite the economic cooperation as the main theme of the Pak–Iran relations, the security aspect is especially important, especially regarding protection of the CPEC projects in Pakistan.

One of the significant features of security cooperation between Pakistan and China is counterterrorism and intelligence. The two countries are threatened by terrorist organizations and secessionist movements, hence, countering terrorism is in common interest. China has complained about the Uighur militants from the Xinjiang province inside Pakistan’s tribal areas and, on the other hand, militant groups from within Pakistan have been a threat to the security of the country.

Economic cooperation has been another main element of this partnership. At the same time, addressing each other’s concerns at the international level has been another trait of both nations’ cooperation.

To address all these issues, Pakistan and China have taken measures and increased flow of intelligence sharing between both the two countries, accompanied by increased cooperation in counter-terrorism efforts. China has outfitted Pakistan with modern surveillance gear, trained its security forces in countering extremism and has offered them professional assistance. They have also coordinated their actions in the international organizations, promoting collective approach towards fight against terrorism and extremism.

Bargaining dynamics of commitment-based strategic interaction resources determine the security cooperation of Pakistan and China. These two countries have active diplomatic relations and meet at very high levels to unresolved issues of defense and security.

Economic cooperation has been another main element of this partnership. At the same time, addressing each other’s concerns at the international level has been another trait of both nations’ cooperation. China actively defends and supports Pakistan decisions and actions on the international arena at the United Nations. China has provided diplomatic support to Pakistan in disputes with India such as the former issue over the territory of Kashmir. On the other hand, Pakistani has stood for China’s concerns such as the South China Sea issue and the Taiwan issue.

Can Environmental Crisis Lead India And Pakistan Towards Climate Diplomacy?

By

Huma Rehman

-

November 12, 2024

0

Climate Diplomacy — Air quality is worsening in cities of India and Pakistan amid climate change and higher levels of pollution.

India and Pakistan have had tense and occasionally antagonistic ties for many years. In parallel, the worsening environmental crisis producing a poisonous air is forcing the two neighbors to face their common fate and responsibility regarding the climate. This led to an opportunity for engagement between India and Pakistan under the banner of climate diplomacy. In the context of unavoidable climate change challenges, bordering states are bound to address the issue.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11 till November 22, 2024 is a crucial event for states to address global warming. EU scientists have reported that the average global temperature anomaly for 2024 is 0.16 degrees Celsius warmer than 2023, marking the first year the planet is over 1.5 degrees Celsius hotter than pre-industrial period, smashing the warming limit set at the landmark Paris Agreement a mere nine years ago. Besides global warming, atmospheric carbon density due to air pollution is another serious issue, which appears in cold weather.

Pollution in northern India and eastern Pakistan increases every winter when an eerie yellow haze covers the skies. This is due to a combination of farmers burning agricultural waste, coal-fired power plants, traffic, and windless days. IQ Air, which monitors worldwide air quality, reported that in one area of Lahore, which is home to over 14 million people, the air quality index surpassed a record 1,900 in October 2024. That is over six times the amount deemed harmful to health. It is clear the toxic air is making people sick.

Since September, falling temperatures, changing atmospheric conditions, and domestic emissions have severely affected Lahore and New Delhi, with air quality indices (AQI) frequently surpassing 300 micrograms of PM2.5, fine particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or smaller. That is far above the limit of 100 micrograms of PM2.5 which is considered acceptable.

Recently, in the early hours of November 1, according to live data monitored and compiled by IQ Air, a Swiss climate group, New Delhi was the most polluted city in the world with 585 micrograms of PM2.5 in its atmosphere, closely followed by Lahore, which recorded 240 micrograms of PM2.5. Lahore’s air quality index (AQI) has surpassed the 1000 mark in November 2024, ironically above 300 considered hazardous. A large swath of the entire Punjab province is now suffering. Multan’s AQI is crossing the limits.According to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Air Quality Index (AQI), a value of 50 or below indicates good air quality, while a value above 300 signals hazardous. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines say the average concentration of PM2.5 level should be below five.

The issue is trespassing when the poor air quality in Delhi frequently trades places with Lahore, the most polluted city in the world hitting hazardous air quality levels above 500 micrograms. Both sides of Punjab are getting affected immensely. However, warmer, breezier weather helped to mitigate the smog.

In the grave situation, the extreme pollution prompted Lahore officials to close primary schools for one week and place restrictions on any smoke-related activities including barbecue restaurants, motorcycle rickshaws, and construction activities. The effects of breathing polluted air lead to an increased risk of a host of diseases, including lung cancer, stroke, and heart disease, according to the World Health Organization. Experts say India’s air pollution is so bad that smog could take years off the lives of hundreds of people.

Air quality worsens in the winter because colder and drier air traps pollution, rather than whisking it away, as warm air does. The beginning of winter also coincides with the stubble-burning season, a time when farmers intentionally set fire to crop debris to clear their fields, sending smoke billowing in the skies.

To mitigate this challenge, both India and Pakistan have tried to clamp down on the practice, but it is still widespread and needs practical steps. In October, India’s Supreme Court condemned the governments of India’s Punjab and Haryana states for failing to crack down on illegal stubble burning. Local officials claim they have reduced the practice significantly in recent years. Pakistan’s Punjab is providing subsidized super-seeders to farmers to offer alternative methods for disposing of crop residue.

The solutions are clear, even if not necessarily easy to implement for developing countries. Broadly, the real-time solution is to transition to cleaner energy sources across all sectors and implement effective management of crop waste, which requires significant investment and a major shift in public behavior.

On the political side, Pakistan Punjab’s chief minister indicated starting a dialogue with her Indian counterpart for a joint effort to tackle deadly air pollution, which has encircled cities on both sides of the border. Punjab’s Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz stated “This is not just a political issue, this is a humanitarian issue.” It is also emphasized by a statement that “the winds don’t know there’s a border in the middle.”

This climate crisis can be seen as an opportunity for India and Pakistan to engage and address this challenge. Climate change is globally recognized as an existential threat to the planet and all life systems. Diplomacy has been used as a tool for states to address geopolitical issues and resolve contentious matters through negotiated agreements.

However, while recognizing the necessity of multilateralism like the Paris Agreement, it is equally significant to acknowledge the need for strengthening bilateral cooperation that can promote dialogue and confidence, thereby contributing to regional stability. Cooperative and coordinated mechanisms are an investment in future peace and crisis management between and among states that share borders and are connected by land, air, and water.

The 23rd SCO Summit: Pakistan’s Path to Progress

By

Fatima Mazhar

-

November 12, 2024

0

SCO Summit — By successfully hosting the SCO summit, Pakistan projected itself as an important regional player.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – comprising some of the most influential international actors such as China, Russia, and India – accounts for approximately 40% of global population as well as a large part of the world’s economy. It is at the SCO summit where representatives of these Eurasian nations discuss important matters like regional connectivity, economic cooperation, and security.

In his statement as the meeting’s chair, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif urged that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) should be expanded.

The SCO Summit 2024 provided Pakistan with a vital opportunity to develop its economy and strengthen diplomatic stature by improving multilateral ties and establishing itself as a significant regional player. It has enabled Pakistan to market its position as a regional trading hub, especially through Gwadar Port, which would be used for linking Central Asia with global markets.

In his statement as the meeting’s chair, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif urged that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) should be expanded. India, which has always been critical of the BRI, may view this expansion as a tool through which China aims at extending its strategic reach into South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Therefore, New Delhi can go for developing its own infrastructure initiatives to counter this. Since these countries are already engaged in political rivalry, therefore, it may hamper economic progress of the organization in general and in Pakistan more specifically.

Since the world we are living in is interconnected and interdependent, therefore, it is important to establish good economic ties with regional players in general and immediate neighbors in particular.

Pakistan is an agrarian country and our farmers are suffering a lot due to the massive cost of production. Through the SCO summit, Pakistan will tap into modern farming technologies, strengthen its agricultural export potential, and enhance food security by promoting agricultural trade agreements with countries such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. By collaborating with these two nations, Pakistan’s agrarian sector can get a significant boost.

As far as trade is concerned, the SCO members seem to cooperate with one another except for India and Pakistan. Pakistan’s trade with India is conditional to India’s will.

Pakistan should position itself as a regional technology hub and take up this opportunity to encourage investments in IT startups and infrastructure. Similarly, the other SCO members like the Central Asian Republics can use digital platforms to have an easier access to markets in China, Russia and Europe.

Pakistan is an agrarian country and our farmers are suffering a lot due to the massive cost of production.

By working in the aforementioned aspects, the collaboration among the member states of SCO can be possible in the security domain as well. SCO’s collective counterterrorism strategy through Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) will help Pakistan improve its internal security by collaborating and utilizing intelligence from China and Russia. For Pakistan, this seems not only a security imperative but also an opportunity to strengthen regional cooperation. It seems to be the way through which Pakistan can gain trust, especially of its immediate neighbors where collaboration on counterterror has always been a big issue. By strengthening collective security, there are increased chances of addressing the security concerns of SCO member states.

Meanwhile, the functional approach suggests that the collaboration in the areas of high politics like security and political dialogue can be achieved by working in the areas of low politics. It is a bottom to top approach. Moreover, Pakistan’s performance in SCO will improve the chances of the country becoming a member of other organizations like BRICS.

By strengthening collective security, there are increased chances of addressing the security concerns of SCO member states.

Although all the member states attended the SCO summit in Islamabad, the participation of Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on behalf of India was a significant development. It was for the first time in 10 years that an Indian external affairs minister visited Pakistan. New Delhi was concerned that Pakistan might strengthen its relations with China, Russia and CAR in its absence. Refusing to attend the summit would have isolated India within the group. Moreover, maintaining ties with China and Russia is also important for India. Therefore, India decided to attend the annual event.

At the same time, Pakistan was able to show its role as an active and responsible member of the SCO and increase its diplomatic visibility by hosting Indian external affairs minister at a high-profile meeting. This gave Pakistan a chance to demonstrate its leadership in regional multilateralism and was especially beneficial in light of the current tensions in South Asia and Middle East.

In a nutshell, hosting the SCO 2024 Summit in Pakistan gave the nation ae perfect opportunity to make show itself as a significant player in Eurasian geopolitics and an emerging economic center in linking South Asia with Central Asia and beyond. This proved to be an excellent occasion for Pakistan, under its visionary leadership, to leverage the summit as one of the important steps toward realizing long-term regional stability and increasing global influence.

Transforming Indonesia’s Defense Capabilities

By

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Munir

-

November 12, 2024

0

Indonesia Defense Forces — Indonesia is located astride major maritime channels and is thus integral to the Indo-Pacific region.

The world’s largest archipelagic country, Indonesia is located astride major maritime channels and is thus integral to the Indo-Pacific region. Since Indonesia require the modern defenses to counter the diverse conventional and non-conventional threats to its enormous maritime jurisdiction, the issue of drawing a strategy in the context of the contemporary political transformation for the 21st century arises. It is for such reason that the modernization of Indonesia’s defense cannot simply revolve around the capability to procure new equipment. Instead, it involves the formulation of a security concept that needs to be military, political and economic in nature.

Geographically, Indonesia is situated at an important position in view of the pattern of trade and power play across the globe. It is located at the junction of the Indian and Pacific oceans, a region that accounts for about one third of the global seaborne trade. The controlled waterways of Malacca, Sunda and Lombok are very important channel for the international fleet that transport a large portion of the world’s crude oil and products. Having said that, Indonesia being located at the crossroads of Asia Pacific region and keen to promote trade, any upheaval in the country could well affect the world trade adversely, hence, its defense forces are vital for both national and regional security.

Indonesia’s military is known as Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI). They mainly depend on outdated weapons and equipment’s; most of which were acquired during the Cold War period.

It identifies threats on all fronts that Indonesia must deal with. Classical challenges include sovereignty issues especially in the South China Sea combined with non-traditional ones which like piracy, terrorism and cyberwarfare. These threats call for enhanced defense structure that would adequately cope with the various threats. Indonesian needs defense modernization to safeguard independence and dominion over the region.

Indonesia’s military is known as Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI). They mainly depend on outdated weapons and equipment’s; most of which were acquired during the cold war period. Outdated equipment has been a tradition with the TNI, resulting in it often not having the operational preparedness or capability to deal with the emerging threats. For example, the Indonesian Air Force has had problems with outdated fighter planes and few air defense systems; the Navy needs an update because their fleet is old and does not adequately defend Indonesia’s large territorial waters.

Most importantly, Indonesia has faced a long-standing problem of inadequate funding limiting its defense modernization process. The fact is that the activity in this area has gradually increased only in recent years, but compared to other countries of the region, for example China or India, the budget simply hardly reaches the required level. The budget constraint makes difficult the choices to do improvements of existing equipment’s, acquisition of new technologies, and personnel necessities.

In addition, the growth and limitations of production and having to rely heavily on foreign suppliers for development of modern weapons form part of the challenges of the Indonesian defense industry.

Modernization of Indonesia’s defense forces has been in the progress in the recent years. The government has begun various programs that seeks to improve on the capacity of the TNI regarding the procurement of modern assets and the establishment of an efficient and competitive Indonesian defense industry.

The MEF program is one of the components of this modernization push, which was launched in 2010. It also provides a perspective to guarantee the Indonesian military has a minimum of the level force capability is needed to protect the country’s security strength efficiently.

During the MEF program, Indonesia has committed to buying new fighter jets, submarines, and naval ships. For example, the purchase of the Sukhoi Su-35 fighter aircraft and the Chang Bogo-class submarines that are built in South Korea are part of the efforts to build the capacity of both the Air Force and the Navy. Also, in the framework of the modernization plan, it also presupposes the update of the combat capabilities of the Armed Forces with high-tech artillery and armored vehicles. These acquisitions are supposed to enhance the weightage and mobility of the TNI so that it can effectively address current security threats.

One of the key ingredients of Indonesia’s defense modernization concept was the buildup of an independent domestic defense industry. The government of Indonesia has realized the fact that it is vulnerable with its over reliance of its suppliers and its policy to establish a strong industry producing top notch equipment has gained merit. In this connection, the government has offered incentives in form of the promotion of the joint venture and technology agreements with overseas defense manufacturers.

One of the key ingredients of Indonesia’s defense modernization concept was the buildup of an independent domestic defense industry.

On the aspect of building the domestic defense industry there is also the question of outsourcing jointly with domestic enterprises to develop small arms, ammunition and other vital elements of the military equipment. State-own company, namely PT Pindad is already involved in developing out home-grown weapon systems while state-owned company of PT PAL Indonesia is involved in constructing navy vessels such as frigate, submarines, etc. In this regard, increased self-sufficiency and reduced costs of equipment procurement are of interest for the domestic economy as well as the emergence of new workplaces, motivated by the development of a potent national defense industry in Indonesia.

In the process of acquiring new equipment for its armed forces, Indonesia also aims to boost its cybersecurity structures, analytical and spying capabilities. The emergence of cyber threats is a particularly dangerous problem in the context of national security, and Indonesia has become a frequent victim of cyber incidents in the recent years. However, to address this challenge, the government seeks to enhance the capabilities in relation to cyber security by creating BSSN, the National Cyber and Encryption Agency that will protect infrastructure and information.

Indonesia is also deploying ISR systems to improve the awareness and situational of the countries in the region. Purchase of UAVs and better radars will give TNI fresh information in particular intervals, enhancing effectiveness of their decisions. These are essentials for new technologies acquisition to update the Indonesian defense force ability and capability to respond to the existing threats.

Optimizing Indonesia’s defense is not only limited to the enhance the military capabilities but also to enhance regional cooperation and relationship. In the ASEAN, Indonesia is an active member of the organization’s security related capacities including the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting and the ASEAN Regional Forum. Furthermore, Indonesia has also increased it defense cooperation with important partners which include United States of America, Australia and Japan. Since then, many of these partnerships have led to cooperation in military exercise, training exercises, and technology sharing or sale which provide a comprehensive boost in Indonesia’s defense strengths. Through forging of good diplomacy and military ties, Indonesia will be in a better position to comprehend the various security issues within the Indo-Pacific region.

EU Foreign Policy: Diminishing Political Influence In Middle East

By

Waqas Abdullah

-

November 11, 2024

0

The EU foreign policy is lacking effectiveness in international sphere, especially in Middle East. Although being a neighbor of the region and having historical connections, the EU has slowly but steadily lost political influence which it used to wield. Recently, it has been losing the influence much faster. When it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the hesitance indicates the general EU weakness in Middle Eastern affairs. In the past, the EU was engaged with the region, participating in both peacemaking and in giving the support economically.

However, the bloc potency was reduced by the US-led peace process following the Oslo process, basically marginalizing the EU, UN and Russia. The US alone has continued to monopolize on this process, with a strong strategic partnership with Israel. In this format, the EU influence has been limited most of the time. The reason is simple: Washington makes sure that the Quartet – comprising the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia – only plays a symbolic role in negotiating and exerting pressure on Israel.

The EU in recent years has been experiencing an increased representation of far-right movements and the ascendance of leaders who are skeptical of the EU project.

Meanwhile, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally attended a recent EU-GCC summit, the first ever between the two organization, which was held just days before the BRICS annual meeting. It shows that Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS, has assessed that the European power remains of immense value. Nevertheless, the EU is still unable to assert an influential political role in Middle East.

The EU’s weakened presence in the Middle East reflects broader challenges to its foreign policy. The erosion of the EU’s influence is part of an overarching decline in its global standing, impacted by both internal economic strains and external geopolitical dynamics. Economic growth in the EU has been slow, with high inflation and immigration pressures adding further complexity. Competing NATO-related defense obligations, particularly in light of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, have stretched resources, reducing the EU’s capacity to focus on interventions in the Middle East and beyond.

Escalation of violence after the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 and the military actions carried out by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon has brought the unity in Europe’s Middle East policy under stress. At first, the Europeans demonstrated solidarity with Israel, but soon they had two different viewpoints, as the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu intensified operations in Gaza.

With the Middle East conflict escalating, more significant evidence of heinous acts of mass killings and destructions, the EU members could not agree on a coherent intervention strategy. Most EU countries like Hungary and Austria opposed the possible move, some leaders like EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell openly called for sanctions on Israel. In response, Israel’s government banned Borrell from entry.

Also read: France’s Strategic Gamble To Regain Clout In Middle East

But this lack of unity is visible in other areas too. In 2023, Palestine gained formal recognition for the first time from three European countries – Spain, Ireland and Slovenia – even though the EU giants such as France, Britain, or Germany did not do so. Specifically, Germany has continued to support Israel regardless of the many complaints arising from the actions in Gaza. While individual countries like Italy and France have ceased the supply of defense equipment to Israel, the EU does not have a collective plan on how to approach the US to stop Israel’s attack. The very fact that the EU depends on Washington’s cooperation in Ukraine policy also undermines its influence over the Biden administration.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally attended a recent EU-GCC summit, the first ever between the two organization, which was held just days before the BRICS annual meeting.

The EU’s longstanding financial support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has often been cited as a point of engagement in the region. However, financial contributions alone have not translated into meaningful political leverage or influence over Israel, underscoring the limits of EU’s role. Some EU members, including Spain and Ireland, continue to advocate for Palestinian rights; yet, this advocacy remains largely symbolic without substantial impact on the bloc’s overall foreign policy stance, especially as major players like France and Germany avoid formal recognition of Palestinian statehood.

At the same time, the EU also has to face adversity across the wider Middle East region. These actions were sometimes slow and often ineffective, for example during the Syrian civil war or the Arab Spring. Moreover, the enhanced role of China and Russia is also factor in reducing the EU’s effectiveness as a political player. Currently, Europe also lacks the capability to involve in regional conflicts without a mass deployment of armed forces.

When comes to internal dynamics, the EU is witnessing slow economic growth, higher inflation rate, immigration issues and growing pressure in defense because of the NATO-related budget issues thanks to stretched resources.

On the other hand, the EU in recent years has been experiencing an increased representation of far-right movements and the ascendance of leaders who are skeptical of the EU project. Hungary’s Viktor Orban, and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni – who are prone to prioritizing nationalism over integration – may be changing the EU’s future. This change has led to the decline of the possibility of a coherent common EU foreign policy towards Middle East.

Some of the European countries like Ireland and Spain have been promoting the rights of Palestinians, producing strong reaction from Israel. For instance, Israel has now decided to cut ties with UNRWA.

The war in Gaza has exposed the weakened status of EU, showing that only the United States can stop Israel. It also makes Middle East more and more unstable. This trend is in complete contrast to the past when the European nations were able to pass the Venice Declaration of 1980 and remained instrumental in the Oslo Accords of 1990s.

Europe is one of the most prosperous regions in the world and has still been playing an active role in economic development of Middle East. However, the EU’s diminishing political role in Middle East means a vacuum has been created and other actors are ready to fill that.

Trump 2.0 World and Sheikh Hasina’s Sinking Boat in Bangladesh

By

Saleem Samad

-

November 11, 2024

0

Bangladesh Chief Adviser has described the Awami League of ousted authoritarian leader Sheikh Hasina as exhibiting "all the characteristics of fascism". He reiterated that Bangladesh would not seek the exiled leader's extradition from India before the International Crimes Tribunal's verdict, where she has been accused of crimes against humanity.

Just days after Donald Trump won a landslide victory in the US presidential election, Ambassador Humayun Kabir, a credible commentator on foreign affairs, said in an interview with an independent newspaper Prothom Alo that the bilateral relationship with Bangladesh and the United States will not be sailing in troubled water, as expected by ousted Sheikh Hasina’s loyalists.

“I do not foresee any major changes in US-Bangladesh relations,” the former diplomat said confidently.

He also said that unlike in South Asian countries, American foreign policy does not change after a change of government, whether the Democrats or Republicans win the election.

The disgraced Awami League and its exiled leader Sheikh Hasina were upbeat about Trump. They had an impression that his winning would help Hasina return to power, who is living in exile in Delhi.

It is very rare for an incumbent regime in US polity to engage in witch-hunting of loyalists of the previous government or opposition political party. This unfortunately is very common in South Asia’s revenge political culture.

Dr Muhammad Yunus, Bangladesh’s interim government’s chief adviser, has congratulated Trump on his election as the new US president, expressing optimism for strengthened bilateral ties and future cooperation.

Anyway, as reported on social media the disgraced Awami League and its exiled leader Sheikh Hasina were upbeat about Trump. They had an impression that his election victory would help Hasina return to power, who is living in exile in Delhi.

Also read: Awami League Believes A Victorious Trump Will Bring Back Hasina

The Awami League loyalists believe that Trump, who lauded Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “good friend” and in a condemnation of “the barbaric violence against Hindus, Christians…in Bangladesh”, would lend moral support to Hasina to return to power with the Indian help.

US President-elect Trump, who will be sworn in January 2025, painted Bangladesh under Dr Yunus as if the country is “in a total state of chaos.”

Promptly, Shafiqul Alam, press secretary to the chief adviser, said that Trump was provided wrong information on the contentious religious minorities issue after the interim government took charge in early August.

Meanwhile, Michael Kugelman – a South Asia expert, particularly focused on Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan – said US-Bangladesh relations experienced a reset this year.

It began after Bangladesh’s election last January, when US President Joe Biden sent Hasina a warmly worded letter, expressing “my sincere desire” to co-operate in a wide variety of spheres, after many months of bilateral tensions in the lead up to an election that the State Department would categorize as not free or fair.

In a hurry, Hasina sank her ‘Boat’ (the party’s election symbol). And political observers explain that it would be a herculean task to salvage the capsized boat in the years to come.

Obviously, Hasina ignored Biden’s warning. She went ahead to hold a flawed parliamentary election for the third consecutive term. The reset truly took off after the mass movement against Hasina last monsoon that brought Yunus to power. The State Department quickly issued a statement saying it “stands ready to work” with Bangladesh’s interim government, says Kugelman.

When she fled, she did not leave any message to her party leaders and members, who were left behind to face the wrath of the Interim Government. In a hurry, Hasina sank her ‘Boat’ (the party’s election symbol). And political observers explain that it would be a herculean task to salvage the capsized boat in the years to come.

Dr Yunus, like the US government, had been critical of Hasina’s illiberal and anti-democratic policies, writes Kugelman, the Director of the South Asia Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Netra News, an investigative journalism portal based in Sweden.

However, Trump’s election campaign “Make America Great Again” in his recent social media broadside against Bangladesh should be viewed against the backdrop of US electoral politics, he opined.

Meanwhile, a verified Facebook of Awami League announced observing Shaheed Noor Hossain Day on 10 November, who was killed in police firing in a 1990 student movement during the military rule of Gen Hossain Mohammad Ershad’s (1982-1990). Less than a month later, dictator Gen Ershad was toppled and imprisoned for corruption.

The Awami League announced at a protest rally at Noor Hossain Square in the capital Dhaka to eliminate undemocratic forces (the interim government of Dr Yunus) and restore the democratic system.

A purported audio message (which could not be verified independently) of Hasina urged the protesters to hold the portrait of Trump. Police detained scores of people having Trump’s poster.

Law enforcement crackdown against Awami League with Trump signs has drawn flak from Trump’s supporters on Twitter (X) handle @TrumpUpdateH. It says: Bangladesh police arrests Trump supporters for celebrating Trump’s victory.

Dr Yunus’ office also in a press release has made a rebuttal of the news stories in Indian media regarding the crackdown on Trump supporters in Bangladesh.

Dr Yunus in an interview with the British newspaper Financial Times said there is ‘no place’ for Hasina’s ‘fascist’ party in Bangladesh’s politics.

There have been no arrests or crackdowns on the Trump supporters, said the chief adviser’s media wing on Sunday night.

The government has vowed to prevent the Awami League protest. The statement described the Awami League as a “fascist party” and added that the political outfit would not be allowed to hold any gathering anywhere in Bangladesh.

Earlier, Dr Yunus in an interview with the British newspaper Financial Times said there is ‘no place’ for Hasina’s ‘fascist’ party in Bangladesh’s politics.

Also read: Hasina Is Toast, But Will There Be An Election in Bangladesh?

The inventor of “Banking the Poor” described the political party (Awami League) of ousted authoritarian leader Hasina as exhibiting “all the characteristics of fascism”.

He reiterated that Bangladesh would not seek the exiled leader’s extradition from India before the International Crimes Tribunal’s verdict, where she has been accused of crimes against humanity.

The FT writes that political rivals and human rights groups have accused the Awami League of rigging at least three elections (2014, 2018 and 2024), carrying out extrajudicial killings, and politicization of state institutions during Hasina’s 15-year tenure (2009-2024).

The students who toppled Hasina from power have been demanding to ban the Awami League. The government has already banned the student’s wing Chhatra League for mobilization of armed vigilante “Helmet Bahini” during the Monsoon Revolution.

While the government is debating whether the party should be temporarily suspended from politics, required to reform, or banned entirely.

Regarding the democratization process of the country, the government is in a fix on how to justify when a free, fair, inclusive election is held to form a political government.

India is officially yet to accept that the people of Bangladesh have toppled Hasina’s government.

The 84-year-old Nobel peace prize winner speculates that the Awami League might disintegrate, but stressed that its fate would not be decided by his interim administration as it was “not a political government”.

Any decision on whether Awami League could participate in a future election would be decided by a “consensus” of political parties themselves, he told FT. “They have to decide their political space.”

On the other hand, Awami League’s cyber warriors, loyalist intellectuals, journalists and expatriate Bangladesh nationals have been arguing that after Hasina fled to India, she is still recognized as Prime Minister of Bangladesh by New Delhi.

Also read: India Wavered And Wobbled, China Prevailed

This prompted South Block in New Delhi to explain the status of Hasina. “We have repeatedly said that she (Sheikh Hasina) is a former Prime Minister, that is where it stands,” Ministry of External Affairs spokesman Randhir Jaiswal told the journalists in New Delhi last week.

However, India is officially yet to accept that the people of Bangladesh have toppled Hasina’s government. It could be understood from the striking feature of Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s statement in the Lok Sabha (the Lower House of the People) on August 6 (the following day Hasina fled to New Delhi) – a complete failure to mention the Awami League government’s egregious violation of human rights, and the killings of over 1,000 students and maimed nearly 30,000 people in 36 days of July and August.

Jaishankar began setting up a context for the people’s uprising saying that there had been “considerable tensions, deep divides and growing polarization in Bangladesh politics” since the January election. “This underlying foundation aggravated a student agitation that started in June this year,” he told the Lower House. “There was growing violence, including attacks on public buildings and infrastructure, as well as traffic and rail obstructions. The violence continued through the month of July.”

The minister’s statement does not hint that Hasina’s government reacted with overwhelmingly excessive force against students, and police opened fire on protesters with live rounds, writes Tanim Ahmed in an independent newspaper The Daily Star.

Since the Indian external affairs minister glosses over the former government’s brutality, it appears to paint the anti-government movement behind Hasina’s fall with a nefarious intention from its genesis — which fits into the Awami League’s narrative — that this was a movement fomented by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Jamaat-e-Islami or even external forces such as the US.

In fact, BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami took advantage of what turned into a bloody anti-government campaign and publicly supported the student movement.

In a contradiction to the philosophy of Chanakya (375–283 BCE), an ancient Indian master of diplomatic strategy, the debacle created by South Block was putting all eggs in one basket of Hasina.

Back to Jaishankar’s statement, when he says, “Events took a very serious turn.” His deliberate disregard for brewing tension among Bangladeshis, Awami League’s intolerance for dissent and telltale signs of the Hasina regime turning into a classic autocrat show a rather myopic and oversimplified Indian take on what is happening in Bangladesh.

Jaishankar’s articulate and witty tête-à-tête with journalists or at discussion panels around the world convincingly demonstrates that he lacks the caliber to appreciate these nuances. One wonders, then, if he had not been properly briefed by his aides on what happened in Bangladesh.

Tanim Ahmed concludes that the Indian establishment had built relations with the Awami League instead of Bangladesh.

The South Block’s Look East policy was to keep Hasina in good humor and continued to support Awami League for expedience despite its faults, and in the process alienated the people of the country.

In a contradiction to the philosophy of Chanakya (375–283 BCE), an ancient Indian master of diplomatic strategy, the debacle created by South Block was putting all eggs in one basket of Hasina. When the eggs are spoiled, the damage control is not effectively working.

Today, with the ouster of Hasina and the Awami League, India is quite naturally seeing more than its fair share of criticism and a dip in popularity.

Why Pakistan Requires A Transparent Nuclear Doctrine

By

Aisha Noor

-

November 11, 2024

0

In a rapidly changing security environment of South Asia, the lack of Pakistan’s formally declared nuclear doctrine may be a strategic liability. As regional instability increases and neighboring states come up with better, formally declared nuclear doctrines, Pakistan could benefit from a transparent and explicit doctrine. It would not only serve the national interests of Pakistan, but also promote regional stability.

It is necessary to evaluate Pakistan’s present nuclear policies in order to comprehend the significance of a publicly stated nuclear doctrine at the present time. A counterweight to India’s conventional military dominance has always been the rationale for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.

While not much can be said about the actual nuclear posture since it is not formally declared, it has generally aligned with the principles of credible minimum deterrence. Still, there is a need to codify the nuclear policy in a transparent doctrine. The ambiguity in nuclear doctrines about deterrence creates problems, but a completely uncodified nuclear posture can be problematic in addressing crucial regional issues. It potentially leads to misperceptions in the region that may trigger nuclear warfare in the worst-case scenario.

A transparent nuclear doctrine will show Pakistan’s commitment to responsible ownership of nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, a declared doctrine could serve multiple purposes. It will clarify the country’s threshold for nuclear use, reassure the international community of Pakistan’s restraint, and communicate the state’s stance on key issues with the regional institutions.

More importantly, a transparent nuclear doctrine will show Pakistan’s commitment to responsible ownership of nuclear weapons.

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

Bringing the context in front, we see that South Asia’s security environment is quite complex and has always been troubled with rivalries. The nuclear arsenals of both Pakistan and India are not only a product of bilateral tensions, but also influenced by the actions and nuclear policies of China. China, being a major regional power, has played a part in the nuclear actions of both India and Pakistan.

Also read: Pakistan’s Zero-Sum Strategic Dilemma

For example, India, which embodies a “no first-use” policy, also leaves the potential open for preventing counterforce strikes. The advanced missile defense systems of India and the rapid modernization have prompted Pakistan to reconsider how it has designed its deterrence posture.

In response to the policies mentioned above, Pakistan has developed a suite of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs). The intention behind these TNWs is to deter conventional military attacks. One disadvantage with this policy is that it could lead to potentially destabilizing situations. For example, without a formally declared posture, India might interpret these policies as an escalation. This escalation will further escalate to a full-scale nuclear response.

If Pakistan declares a formal nuclear doctrine, one of the advantages would be the controlled articulation of circumstances under which the state is to consider the use of said TNWs. In a formally declared doctrine, the red lines that must not be crossed in order to avoid military reaction are clear. An undeclared one, on the other hand, has no such clear indication.

Rational deterrence theory suggests that there must be clear and credible policies between two adversaries in order to make nuclear deterrence effective. It is not to say that ambiguities cannot be beneficial in any regard. Ambiguities may prove to be in your favor when the aggressors are not clear about your response. But when there is excessive ambiguity in nuclear policies, the predictability of nuclear actions is affected, especially in regions that have multiple nuclear powers and historically tense relations.

For example, for Pakistan, a formal doctrine will clarify its posture as one that is built up on the idea of deterrence rather than aggression. This will provide a clear narrative to adversaries that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are intended solely to prevent aggression, and not to seek regional dominance. Moreover, it will align with the international norms and suggest that the state behavior displayed by Pakistan is responsible.

Reducing ambiguity in the nuclear policies will reduce the economic expenditure on expensive arsenal or deterrent measures.

Internationally, Pakistan’s nuclear program has been viewed with skepticism. This is partly because of the fact that we have seen historical cases of expansion in the nuclear program. This idea, combined with the undefined nuclear policies, has led countries to believe that the nuclear program of Pakistan is unreliable. On the other hand, if the ideas are clear, such as if Pakistan stands on the concept of no-first-use stance or credible minimum deterrence, Pakistan can improve its image as a more responsible nuclear state.

Moreover, the economic constraints faced by Pakistan further highlight the need for transparent nuclear policies. In recent times, the state has engaged in costly arm races. Reducing ambiguity in the nuclear policies will reduce the economic expenditure on expensive arsenal or deterrent measures. As a result, these resources can be allocated more efficiently, avoiding unnecessary expenditures.

Still, the idea of a formal doctrine does not come without challenges. There may also be internal factors like military and political that suggest that ambiguity keeps adversaries uncertain and thus serve Pakistan’s interests. Some may argue that a publicly defined doctrine might limit Pakistan when there is a need to respond to various scenarios, particularly given the sensitive situation of regional threats.

These concerns can be addressed by creating a doctrine that offers clarity on key issues, but remains flexible. For example, the operational planning may be an undeclared part of it, but it would outline the nuclear posture in a way as to avoid misinterpretation by the adversaries. The key is to maintain a sweet balance between flexibility and transparency.

A clear and measured nuclear doctrine is not just a tool for deterrence, it is a strategic asset that aligns Pakistan’s security interests with its economic realities and international aspirations.

To address the complexities of the security environment, Pakistan should consider adopting a formal, transparent, and explicit nuclear doctrine that emphasizes the following:

Strengthening Pakistan’s dedication to a reliable minimum deterrence. This would guarantee that the nuclear weapons exist solely to ensure national survival and to prevent aggression.
A “no-first-use” policy may not correspond with Pakistan’s strategic goals, although it might delineate the parameters of Pakistan’s policies without inciting regional conflicts.
Resolving to prevent an arms race by sustaining a minimum but effective deterrence capability. This would enhance the doctrine’s legitimacy while simultaneously addressing the country’s economic restrictions.
Regional and global forums that enable states to deliberate on their nuclear postures can diminish ambiguities. This conveys a message of accountability to adversaries, positioning the nuclear program as reliable and eliminating uncertainty for stakeholders.

In an increasingly complex regional security environment, Pakistan’s adoption of a transparent nuclear doctrine will signal its commitment to regional security and responsibility. Moreover, the risks of misperception and escalation can be mitigated.

Ultimately, a clear and measured nuclear doctrine is not just a tool for deterrence, it is a strategic asset that aligns Pakistan’s security interests with its economic realities and international aspirations. Keeping everything in view, the pursuit of a transparent doctrine will be considered a proactive step toward a more stable, predictable, and cooperative South Asian security environment.

Will Trump Also Shake Hands With The Taliban?

By

Ambassador Abdul Basit

-

November 10, 2024

0

Donald Trump is coming into power for four years after a hiatus of four years. His presidency, unrestricted by the burden of a second consecutive term, will likely be more consequential than his first 2016-20 term. Countries across the world are thus readying themselves for shocks and surprises. For some, Trump’s win may be a good development but many are apprehensive that his unpredictability is a recipe for more worldwide chaos. He is generally seen as his own man. He doesn’t seem to have much appetite for the cumbersome institutional statecraft. To him his instincts are more relevant and dependable.

Also read: Triumph of Populism: What Trump’s Win Means For World Order

It was on his watch that the US reached out to the Taliban leading to the Doha Agreement on February 29, 2020. The deal was upbraided by all and sundry, including the then Kabul regime, and termed as US capitulation to terrorists. Trump was clear. He wanted the US troops out of Afghanistan; he was not interested in the elusive goal of nation-building. Hence, he did not even hesitate to enter into an agreement with the Taliban militia and abandoning Afghanistan to its own destiny. The agreement literally treated the Taliban as the incoming government in Kabul as it also sought guarantees from the Taliban that Afghanistan would not become a safe haven for terrorists.

Trump was clear. He wanted the US troops out of Afghanistan; he was not interested in the elusive goal of nation-building. Hence, he did not even hesitate to enter into an agreement with the Taliban.

Trump lost the presidential election in November 2020. It was anyone’s guess whether his successor would uphold or jettison the Doha deal. Many countries, including India, tried to convince Biden against a hasty withdrawal of NATO troops. They contended that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan without the Taliban entering into a meaningful dialogue with the Kabul regime about the future of Afghanistan was a dangerous proposition as that would pull the country back into an interminable gory civil war. However, Biden remained unimpressed.

As a matter of fact, even as vice president in the Obama administration, Biden had opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan which the Pentagon had reckoned was necessary to inflict a decisive defeat on the Taliban. All military calculations turned out to be wrong. No amount of “surge” could defeat the Taliban. Biden, too, was averse to embroiling the US in an open-ended commitment to nation-building in Afghanistan. Now as president, he couldn’t be expected to commit the US to this quixotic undertaking. Accordingly, it was decided to bring all the US troop in Afghanistan back home by the end of August 2021.

It is another story how chaotic the withdrawal was. At the end, it was all done in haste and haphazardly. So much so that the US had to leave behind state- of-the-art military equipment worth over $6 billion. In his election campaign, Trump repeatedly lambasted the Biden administration for its incompetence as the withdrawal process resulted in the killing of 13 US service members, wounding another 45, and killed more than 170 Afghan civilians, when the last US military aircraft left Afghanistan on 30 August.

As a matter of fact, even as vice president in the Obama administration, Biden had opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Trump might have handled things differently. Rather than pushing the Taliban to the wall by freezing Afghanistan’s assets close to $9billion and setting ill-advised preconditions for recognizing their government (as contained in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2593 of August 30, 2021 adopted under Indian presidency of UNSC), he might have preferred to engage with them not for nation-building but to counter China’s growing influence in this strategically important region.

Trump may still surprise the world as he did in his first term by reaching out to Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Besides China, we may also see tension ramping up with Iran, especially on its nuclear program and its proxies in the Middle East. US recognition of the Taliban government cannot be ruled out, for the American diplomatic presence in Kabul may be considered as vital to also build pressure on Iran. Frankly speaking, tensions in this part of the world will serve US interests well not only in the context of mounting pressure on the Iranian regime from within but also for making full realization of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) ever more difficult.

Also read: Recalibrating And Achieving Pakistan Foreign Policy Objectives

Trump and Modi will have to adjust each other tactically while maintaining broad convergence in India-US strategic objectives. And should President Putin of Russia oblige Trump on Ukraine, India will have more space to conduct its relations with Russia without facing the menace of US sanctions under the Countering of American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CATSA). We may see Russia and India expediting work on the International North South Transport Corridor in the next four years. Interesting will be to see whether or not Trump is able to create some distance between Beijing and Moscow.

Trump and Modi will have to adjust each other tactically while maintaining broad convergence in India-US strategic objectives.

From its strategic perspective, India is rightly coaxing the Taliban government to reduce its transit trade dependence on Pakistan by utilizing the Chabahar port. An Indian delegation was in Kabul recently, and, according to Indian media reports, the Taliban government was not only receptive to this suggestion but also impressed upon India to resume its development activities and invest in Afghanistan. Trump may find the Chabahar port somewhat at odds with his objectives vis-à-vis Iran. However, he may look the other way to keep China and Pakistan under pressure. A former president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, defined diplomacy as “the art of accepting the feasible in order to advance the desirable”.

Also read: Trump Second Term: What It Means For Allies And Foes

India and US may decide to establish full diplomatic relations with Kabul as has been done by China and the UAE this year. Shouldn’t Pakistan also be revisiting its by and large ineffective Afghanistan policy? Islamabad could have done far better after Kabul fell to the Taliban on August 15, 2021. Pakistan was instrumental in bringing the US and the Taliban to the negotiating table in Doha. However, Islamabad squandered a good opportunity to build on that and keep the Taliban on its side. No sooner had the ink of the Doha Agreement dried than Pakistan-Afghanistan relations became adversarial. It is high time to think of rehabilitation.

To begin with, Islamabad must consider establishing full diplomatic relations with Kabul. And sooner the better. Some would argue why should this be done unilaterally, that is, without Kabul accommodating Pakistan’s concerns on terrorism, especially vis-à-vis the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)? This is a valid point. However, those who understand the Kabul mindset would not press on this. Islamabad may be more successful in winning over Kabul by engaging them in a sustained manner rather than appearing to be condescending and resorting to coercive measures. This would never deliver results. To the contrary, continued estrangement would further compound issues between the two countries, making it harder to accommodate each other.

On its part, Kabul must also understand that by riding roughshod over Pakistan’s legitimate concerns it is not helping the situation in any manner. Our destinies are intertwined. The two countries need each other to get to grips with multiple internal and external challenges. Islamabad may take the first step to put this important relationship on a positive trajectory in their mutual interest.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

As Trump prepares to take office once again, this brand of populism threatens not only America but the very fabric of global stability.

Musk’s concept of “efficiency” is sharpened not in public service but in corporate boardrooms, where employees are disposable, and profit is king.

Trump’s recent remarks have hinted at expanding AUKUS’s influence to address not just security but also broader diplomatic and economic engagements.

AUKUS can strengthen US-India relations through increased weapons sales, joint exercises, and strategic consultations.

A deeper US integration through AUKUS may increase regional tensions, with ASEAN nations potentially re-evaluating their non-alignment stance.

China-Pakistan strategic partnership provides a window to South Asia, Arabian Sea and the rest of the Middle East.

China has been a long-time arms supplier to Pakistan where it has sent sophisticated weapons, warplanes and naval vessels.

Economic cooperation has been another main element of this partnership. At the same time, addressing each other’s concerns at the international level has been another trait of both nations’ cooperation.

In his statement as the meeting’s chair, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif urged that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) should be expanded.

Pakistan is an agrarian country and our farmers are suffering a lot due to the massive cost of production.

By strengthening collective security, there are increased chances of addressing the security concerns of SCO member states.

Indonesia’s military is known as Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI). They mainly depend on outdated weapons and equipment’s; most of which were acquired during the Cold War period.

One of the key ingredients of Indonesia’s defense modernization concept was the buildup of an independent domestic defense industry.

The EU in recent years has been experiencing an increased representation of far-right movements and the ascendance of leaders who are skeptical of the EU project.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally attended a recent EU-GCC summit, the first ever between the two organization, which was held just days before the BRICS annual meeting.

The disgraced Awami League and its exiled leader Sheikh Hasina were upbeat about Trump. They had an impression that his winning would help Hasina return to power, who is living in exile in Delhi.

In a hurry, Hasina sank her ‘Boat’ (the party’s election symbol). And political observers explain that it would be a herculean task to salvage the capsized boat in the years to come.

Dr Yunus in an interview with the British newspaper Financial Times said there is ‘no place’ for Hasina’s ‘fascist’ party in Bangladesh’s politics.

India is officially yet to accept that the people of Bangladesh have toppled Hasina’s government.

In a contradiction to the philosophy of Chanakya (375–283 BCE), an ancient Indian master of diplomatic strategy, the debacle created by South Block was putting all eggs in one basket of Hasina.

A transparent nuclear doctrine will show Pakistan’s commitment to responsible ownership of nuclear weapons.

Reducing ambiguity in the nuclear policies will reduce the economic expenditure on expensive arsenal or deterrent measures.

A clear and measured nuclear doctrine is not just a tool for deterrence, it is a strategic asset that aligns Pakistan’s security interests with its economic realities and international aspirations.

Trump was clear. He wanted the US troops out of Afghanistan; he was not interested in the elusive goal of nation-building. Hence, he did not even hesitate to enter into an agreement with the Taliban.

As a matter of fact, even as vice president in the Obama administration, Biden had opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Trump and Modi will have to adjust each other tactically while maintaining broad convergence in India-US strategic objectives.

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.