Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Home Blog Page 121

The Struggle For Dominance in Sudan

11

Sudan has been grappling with a power struggle between two key army generals, Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Lieutenant General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemeti. Both al-Burhan and Hemeti have been vying for supremacy and control over Sudan’s political and economic landscape, with significant implications for the country’s future.

Al-Burhan was appointed as the head of the Transitional Military Council (TMC) following the ouster of former President Omar al-Bashir in 2019. The TMC was established to oversee the transition to civilian rule, but it was criticized for its heavy-handed tactics and for failing to deliver on its promises of democratization. Al-Burhan has been involved in efforts to stabilize the political situation in Sudan and has sought to improve the country’s relationship with regional and global powers, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The battle for supremacy between al-Burhan and Hemeti has been characterized by a range of political, economic, and security initiatives.

Hemeti, on the other hand, is the leader of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group that was previously known as the Janjaweed. The RSF has been accused of committing human rights abuses and has been involved in a number of conflicts and military operations in Sudan and neighboring countries. Hemeti has been involved in efforts to promote economic development in Sudan, particularly in the agriculture sector, and has sought to improve the RSF’s relationship with regional and global powers, particularly China and Russia.

The battle for supremacy between al-Burhan and Hemeti has been characterized by a range of political, economic, and security initiatives. One of the key issues in the power struggle has been the question of democratization and civilian rule in Sudan. Al-Burhan has been involved in efforts to promote democratic reforms and has pledged to hold free and fair elections in the future. Hemeti, on the other hand, has been accused of suppressing opposition groups and promoting authoritarianism.

The power struggle between al-Burhan and Hemeti has had significant implications for regional and global powers involved in Sudan. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been supportive of al-Burhan’s efforts to stabilize the political situation in Sudan and promote economic development.

Another key issue in the power struggle has been the question of economic development in Sudan. Both al-Burhan and Hemeti have been involved in efforts to promote economic growth and development, particularly in the agriculture sector. However, there have been concerns about corruption and mismanagement in the implementation of these initiatives, as well as questions about the role of external powers, particularly China and Russia, in Sudan’s economic development.

The power struggle between al-Burhan and Hemeti has also had significant implications for regional and global powers involved in Sudan. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been supportive of al-Burhan’s efforts to stabilize the political situation in Sudan and promote economic development. China and Russia, on the other hand, have been supportive of Hemeti’s efforts to improve Sudan’s economic relationship with external powers.

The power struggle between al-Burhan and Hemeti has also had significant implications for security in Sudan. The RSF has been involved in a number of conflicts and military operations, and there have been concerns about the role of the RSF in promoting stability and security in the country. The involvement of external powers, particularly China and Russia, in Sudan’s security landscape has also raised concerns about the potential for conflicts and tensions.

Despite these challenges, there have been some efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation between al-Burhan and Hemeti. For example, the two generals have met with representatives of the African Union and the United Nations to discuss the political situation in Sudan and the need for a peaceful transition to civilian rule. There have also been efforts to promote economic development and regional integration in Sudan, including through the establishment of a free trade zone with neighboring countries.

The lack of coordination and cooperation between the two generals, as well as the involvement of external powers with differing interests, has created a complex and volatile political landscape in Sudan

However, the power struggle between al-Burhan and Hemeti remains a significant challenge for Sudan’s future. The lack of coordination and cooperation between the two generals, as well as the involvement of external powers with differing interests, has created a complex and volatile political landscape in Sudan. The power struggle has also contributed to ongoing political instability and economic challenges in the country, which has struggled with corruption, poverty, and conflict in recent years.

One of the key challenges in the power struggle between al-Burhan and Hemeti is the question of accountability and justice for human rights abuses committed by the RSF and other security forces in Sudan. There have been widespread reports of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and sexual violence, committed by the RSF and other security forces in Sudan. The lack of accountability for these abuses has contributed to ongoing tensions and instability in the country, as well as to a lack of trust in the transitional government.

In order to address these challenges, there is a need for a coordinated and inclusive approach to promoting stability, democracy, and economic development in Sudan. This will require the participation of a range of stakeholders, including political parties, civil society organizations, and regional and global powers. It will also require a commitment to accountability and justice for human rights abuses, as well as a commitment to promoting dialogue and cooperation between different political factions and interest groups.

There is a need for a greater focus on promoting regional integration and cooperation in Sudan. Sudan is strategically located at the crossroads of Africa and the Middle East, and there is enormous potential for regional integration and cooperation in the country.

Finally, there is a need for a greater focus on promoting regional integration and cooperation in Sudan. Sudan is strategically located at the crossroads of Africa and the Middle East, and there is enormous potential for regional integration and cooperation in the country. This could include efforts to promote trade and investment, as well as to address common challenges such as terrorism, transnational crime, and climate change.

In conclusion, the power struggle between al-Burhan and Hemeti in Sudan is a significant challenge for the country’s future. The lack of coordination and cooperation between the two generals, as well as the involvement of external powers with differing interests, has created a complex and volatile political landscape in Sudan. However, there are opportunities for promoting stability, democracy, and economic development in the country through inclusive and coordinated efforts that prioritize accountability, justice, and regional integration. By working together, Sudan can overcome its challenges and build a more prosperous and democratic future for all its citizens.

Breaking the Ice: Pakistani Foreign Minister’s Visit to India for SCO Meeting

5

The foreign ministers’ meeting comes ahead of the SCO leaders’ summit scheduled for July in New Delhi. India’s government hosted the foreign ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in the coastal city of Goa for two days on the 4th and 5th of May. India currently chairs the eight-member group, which was established in 2001 and seeks to foster collaboration on security and development in Asia. The SCO is a political and security bloc in Asia whose members are Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

The meeting provided a platform for Pakistan to build on existing bilateral relationships with other SCO members and to establish new ones. In addition, the meeting also served as a means to express solidarity and cooperation amongst the SCO members.

One major milestone of the conference was the attendance of Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, which marked the first visit to India by a Pakistani foreign minister since 2011. The SCO Foreign Minister meeting in Goa 2023 provided Pakistan with an opportunity to strengthen its ties with the SCO members and to promote a policy of constructive dialogue and engagement among all the SCO members. Pakistan also gained the opportunity to present its point of view and to share its perspectives on international issues and regional security challenges.

Founded in 2001, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization does not include any country from the Western world. It is also unique because it tries to balance relationships between countries that otherwise do not see eye to eye, such as India and China or India and Pakistan. Many observers regarded this as one of the most difficult visits to Pakistan since the relationship between the two neighbors is as close to rock bottom as it has been in years. It was anticipated that the visit can be only regarded as attendance of the conference rather than attaching high hopes of some ice breakage between the two rivals. However, the visit signals the stakes Pakistan attaches to not just multilateralism but also the SCO as a key geopolitical arrangement in Asia.

The two South Asian rivals historically have had a difficult relationship, especially over Kashmir along with LOC violations and Indus Water Treaty issues. Pakistan has vigorously protested the Modi government’s unilateral decision in August 2019 to revoke Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted Indian-administered Kashmir partial autonomy. The current visit also had the baggage of last December’s heated cross-arguments between Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and his Indian counterpart, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, in New York City at the United Nations. The Indian foreign minister called Pakistan the “epicenter of terrorism”, which Bhutto-Zardari countered by calling Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi the “butcher of Gujarat”, referring to his time as chief minister of that state when religious riots in 2002 killed nearly 2,000 people in which most of them were Muslims.

The SCO has emerged as a platform for promoting mutual understanding, security, and development through constructive and mutually beneficial cooperation.

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan asserted that Pakistan strongly believes in and fully adheres to the principles of mutual trust, equality, respect for cultural diversity, and the pursuit of shared development enshrined in the original “Shanghai Spirit.”

He further added that since terrorism continues to threaten global security let’s not get caught up in weaponizing terrorism for diplomatic point scoring. He especially commended the role of China in bridging differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two countries that are also associated with the SCO. And emphasized that it’s only when great powers play the role of peacemaker, we can unlock the potential of peace while paving the way for greater cooperation, regional integration, and economic opportunities for our peoples. While commenting on the security threats emanating from Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover, Zardari said the situation has added “new complications” to global security and called on the international community to “meaningfully engage with the Afghan interim government”. “A united international community can compel the authorities to demonstrate their will and help build their counter-terrorism capacity for the security of Afghanistan, the region and the world at large,” he added.

The Pakistan foreign minister, adding that the menace of terrorism requires a collective approach by all SCO member states remarked that “Terrorist groups within Pakistan are cooperating among themselves more than we are as the international community,” Zardari’s comments come a week after Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar during a press briefing in Panama said that it is “very difficult” for India to engage with a neighbor that practices cross-border terrorism. Though the rigidity from the Indian side leaves less space for a possibility of dialogue over pending issues neither it brought any change in the status of diplomatic relations between the two, yet SCO summit in India provided a platform for Pakistan to assure it not only its members to but to the international community as a whole that Pakistan is committed to multilateralism and continues to play a leading role at all international forums, including the United Nations, for forging friendly relations among nations and supporting the peaceful settlement of longstanding international disputes. “There couldn’t be a more powerful indication of the importance that Pakistan attaches to the SCO than my presence here in Goa,” the Pakistani foreign minister added.

Africa Is At The Heart Of The Brics Global Mission

4

The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have been working together since 2006 to promote global cooperation and development. Africa has been a key part of the BRICS global mission, as the continent has tremendous potential for growth and development. The BRICS nations have recognized this potential and have been working to promote trade, investment, and development in Africa.

Africa has a population of over 1.2 billion people and a combined GDP of over $2.5 trillion. It is a young and dynamic continent, with a growing middle class and a fast-growing consumer market. Africa is also rich in natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals, and agricultural land. These resources have the potential to fuel the continent’s growth and development, and the BRICS nations have recognized this potential.

One of the key ways in which the BRICS nations have been working to promote development in Africa is through trade and investment. China has been the most active in this regard, with investments in infrastructure, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing. Chinese companies have invested billions of dollars in projects such as the Mombasa-Nairobi Railway in Kenya, the Standard Gauge Railway in Tanzania, and the Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway in Ethiopia.

India has also been active in promoting trade and investment in Africa. The country has a long history of economic and cultural ties with Africa, dating back to the days of the Non-Aligned Movement. India has been investing in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, education, and renewable energy. Indian companies have invested in projects such as the Tanzania-Zambia Railway and the Lake Victoria Water Supply and Sanitation Project.

Brazil, Russia, and South Africa have also been active in promoting trade and investment in Africa. Brazil has been investing in sectors such as agriculture, energy, and mining, while Russia has been investing in infrastructure and energy. South Africa has been investing in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The BRICS nations have also been working to promote regional integration in Africa. This has been done through initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which was launched in 2018. The AfCFTA aims to create a single market for goods and services in Africa, which could boost intra-African trade and increase the continent’s competitiveness.

The BRICS nations have also been working to promote peace and security in Africa. This has been done through initiatives such as the BRICS Plus mechanism, which includes countries such as Egypt, Kenya, and Senegal. The BRICS Plus mechanism aims to promote dialogue and cooperation on issues such as peace and security, economic development, and cultural exchange.

BRICS nations have also been working to promote sustainable development in Africa. This has been done through initiatives such as the New Development Bank (NDB)

In addition to these initiatives, the BRICS nations have also been working to promote sustainable development in Africa. This has been done through initiatives such as the New Development Bank (NDB), which was established in 2014. The NDB aims to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects in the BRICS nations and other developing countries. The bank has already approved loans for projects such as the Lesotho Highlands Water Project and the Durban Rapid Transit System.

The BRICS nations have also been working to promote sustainable development through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI aims to promote sustainable infrastructure development along the Belt and Road countries, including several African countries. The BRI has the potential to promote sustainable development in Africa, by financing projects such as renewable energy, water management, and sustainable agriculture.

However, there are also challenges to the BRICS global mission in Africa. One of the biggest challenges are the lack of infrastructure in many parts of the continent. This makes it difficult to transport goods and services, and it increases the cost of doing business. The BRICS nations have recognized this challenge and have been working to address it through investments in infrastructure projects such as ports, railways, and highways. However, more needs to be done to address this challenge, as infrastructure remains a major constraint on Africa’s growth and development.

The BRICS nations have recognized this challenge and have been working to address it through investments in infrastructure projects such as ports, railways, and highways.

Another challenge to the BRICS global mission in Africa is corruption and governance. Many African countries rank poorly on the Corruption Perceptions Index, which measures perceptions of corruption in the public sector. This can make it difficult for investors to do business in Africa and can undermine efforts to promote sustainable development. The BRICS nations have recognized this challenge and have been working to promote good governance and transparency in their investments in Africa. However, more needs to be done to address this challenge, as corruption and governance remain major obstacles to Africa’s growth and development.

A third challenge to the BRICS global mission in Africa is the lack of access to finance. Many African countries lack access to affordable finance, which can make it difficult to finance investments in infrastructure, energy, and other sectors. The BRICS nations have recognized this challenge and have been working to address it through initiatives such as the New Development Bank and the China-Africa Development Fund. However, more needs to be done to address this challenge, as access to finance remains a major constraint on Africa’s growth and development.

Despite these challenges, the BRICS nations remain committed to their global mission in Africa. They recognize that Africa has tremendous potential for growth and development, and they are working to promote sustainable development in the continent. By investing in trade, investment, infrastructure, regional integration, peace and security, and sustainable development, the BRICS nations are helping to unlock Africa’s potential and promote a more prosperous and equitable world.

In conclusion, Africa is central to the BRICS global mission. The continent has tremendous potential for growth and development, and the BRICS nations have recognized this potential. By investing in trade, investment, infrastructure, regional integration, peace and security, and sustainable development, the BRICS nations are helping to unlock Africa’s potential and promote a more prosperous and equitable world. However, there are also challenges to the BRICS global mission in Africa, such as the lack of infrastructure, corruption and governance, and the lack of access to finance. These challenges need to be addressed if the BRICS nations are to achieve their global mission in Africa and promote a more prosperous and equitable world.

The Security Situation in Afghanistan Requires Enhanced Pak-US Relations

0

The security situation in Afghanistan has been a cause of concern for many years. Since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the country has been embroiled in conflict and instability. The Taliban, which was ousted from power, has made a comeback in recent years, and the security situation in the country has deteriorated. The situation has led to calls for increased Pak-US relations to address the security challenges in the region.

Pakistan and the United States have a complicated relationship. The two countries have had a history of cooperation and conflict. However, both countries have a shared interest in stabilizing Afghanistan. Pakistan shares a long border with Afghanistan and has been affected by the conflict in the country. The instability in Afghanistan has also created a safe haven for militants who have carried out attacks in Pakistan.

Pakistan shares a long border with Afghanistan and has been affected by the conflict in the country. The instability in Afghanistan has also created a safe haven for militants who have carried out attacks in Pakistan.

The United States has been a key player in the region for many years. The US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was aimed at dismantling al-Qaeda, which had used Afghanistan as a base to plan and launch the 9/11 attacks. The US has also been involved in efforts to stabilize the country and promote democracy and human rights.

The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in recent years. The Taliban, which was ousted from power in 2001, has made a comeback and now controls significant parts of the country. The Afghan government, which is backed by the US, has struggled to contain the insurgency. The situation has led to calls for increased Pak-US relations to address the security challenges in the region.

Pakistan has been accused of supporting the Taliban, which has been a source of tension between the US and Pakistan. The US has accused Pakistan of providing a safe haven for the Taliban and other militant groups. Pakistan has denied the accusations and has said that it is doing everything it can to promote peace and stability in the region.

Increased Pak-US relations could help address the security challenges in Afghanistan. The two countries could work together to promote peace and stability in the country. Pakistan could use its influence with the Taliban to encourage them to engage in peace talks with the international community on human rights. The US could provide support to Pakistan in its efforts to promote peace and stability in the region.

The US and Pakistan could also work together to address the issue of cross-border terrorism. Pakistan has been affected by terrorist attacks carried out by militants who have used Afghanistan as a base.

The US and Pakistan could also work together to address the issue of cross-border terrorism. Pakistan has been affected by terrorist attacks carried out by militants who have used Afghanistan as a base. The US could provide support to Pakistan in its efforts to secure its border with Afghanistan and prevent militants from crossing into Pakistan.

The security situation in Afghanistan has far-reaching implications for the region and beyond. The instability in Afghanistan has created a safe haven for militant groups, which could threaten the security of the entire region. The US has recognized the importance of stability in Afghanistan and has been involved in efforts to promote peace and stability in the country. However, the US has also acknowledged that it cannot achieve this goal alone and that it needs the support of its allies and partners in the region.

Pakistan has a critical role to play in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan. Pakistan has a long history of relations with Afghanistan, and its relationship with the Taliban has been a source of tension between Pakistan and the US. However, Pakistan has also been affected by the conflict in Afghanistan and has a shared interest in promoting peace and stability in the region.

Increased Pak-US relations could help address the security challenges in the region in several ways. First, the US and Pakistan could work together to promote peace and stability in Afghanistan.

The US and Pakistan have been working to improve their relationship in recent years. The two countries have held high-level talks on a range of issues, including security cooperation. The US has also provided military and economic assistance to Pakistan to help it address its security challenges. Increased Pak-US relations could help address the security challenges in the region in several ways. First, the US and Pakistan could work together to promote peace and stability in Afghanistan. Pakistan could use its influence with the Taliban to encourage them to engage in peace talks on different issues.

Second, the US and Pakistan could work together to address the issue of cross-border terrorism. Pakistan has been affected by terrorist attacks carried out by militants who have used Afghanistan as a base. The US could provide support to Pakistan in its efforts to secure its border with Afghanistan and prevent militants from crossing into Pakistan.

Third, increased Pak-US relations could help address the issue of regional connectivity. Pakistan is a key player in the region and has been involved in efforts to promote regional connectivity. The US could provide support to Pakistan in its efforts to promote regional connectivity, which could help promote peace and stability in the region.

In conclusion, the security situation in Afghanistan requires increased Pak-US relations. The US and Pakistan have a shared interest in promoting peace and stability in the region, and increased cooperation between the two countries could help address the security challenges in the region.

Nuclear Ambitions of North Korea

0

North Korea has been conducting missile tests for many years, which have drawn significant international attention and concern. The country’s missile program has been a major point of contention between North Korea and other nations, particularly the United States and its allies. North Korea has conducted a variety of missile tests, including tests of short-range, medium-range, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In recent years, North Korea has made significant progress in developing ICBMs that could potentially reach the continental United States. These missile tests have drawn international condemnation and led to various sanctions and diplomatic efforts aimed at curbing North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. However, North Korea has continued to conduct tests, indicating that it is unwilling to give up its nuclear ambitions.

North Korea has conducted a variety of missile tests, including tests of short-range, medium-range, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In recent years, North Korea has made significant progress in developing ICBMs that could potentially reach the continental United States.

The situation on the Korean peninsula remains tense, and there is ongoing concern about the potential for military conflict. International efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the issue continue, but progress has been slow. North Korea has been determined to develop its nuclear program and missile capabilities. Recently, the country has increased its aggressive behavior with more frequent tests and inflammatory language, often launching projectiles into the ocean and warning its enemies that future missiles could be aimed at them.

The greatest threat posed by North Korea is its nuclear arsenal. The country’s Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un, has threatened to use it “anytime and anywhere.” A cautious estimate by researchers at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, North Korea has already assembled 20 to 30 nuclear warheads and has enough fissile material to build 45 to 55 nuclear weapons. Other estimates suggest that North Korea may already have more than 100 nuclear weapons. This year, Kim has repeatedly called for the country to increase its nuclear weapon production exponentially.

North Korea has been using its missile tests to showcase its diverse range of warhead carriers. These include low-altitude cruise missiles that can be guided to attack nearby targets, as well as ballistic missiles that are launched high into the atmosphere and can travel thousands of miles at hypersonic speeds. North Korea has also tested unmanned underwater attack drones that it claims can carry a nuclear warhead and trigger a “radioactive tsunami.” These tests are used by Pyongyang to perfect the technical aspects of its projectiles. Although North Korea often claims that its missile launches are in response to perceived aggression by the US or South Korea, these tests usually only result in more military drills by these allies. In turn, North Korea responds with even more tests in an ongoing cycle of tit-for-tat displays of strength.

Diplomatic efforts seem to be out of reach as North Korea remains steadfast in its pursuit of nuclear ambitions. North Korea updated its nuclear doctrine and declared that there would be no denuclearization, negotiation or bargaining even if international sanctions were lifted.

On New Year’s Day, Pyongyang kicked off 2023 with the launch of a short-range ballistic missile into the East Sea. In February, North Korea displayed a grand exhibition of military equipment, revealing 15 missiles, including their latest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the “monster missile” Hwasong-17. Analysts noted the presence of solid-fuel ICBM canisters, enabling North Korea to launch the missiles more quickly than with traditional liquid-fueled ones that require refueling. In mid-February, North Korea launched its first ICBM of the year, the Hwasong-15, from Pyongyang International Airport. Launched at an upward angle, it reached an altitude exceeding 3,500 miles and flew for approximately 66 minutes. During testing, North Korea launches its ICBMs at high angles to prevent hitting other countries. However, in an actual attack, the missiles would be launched at lower angles to optimize their trajectory and reach their targets. It is still uncertain if these missiles can withstand the high-stress and high-temperature conditions of re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere during real combat. SRBMs were fired from North Korea’s western front and landed in the East Sea. In response, South Korea sanctioned four individuals and five entities associated with North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs. North Korea also reported firing four Hwasal-2 cruise missiles from Kimchaek in Hamgyong Province, located in the east. This occurred just one day before joint exercises between the U.S. and South Korea began in the Korean peninsula. According to Pyongyang’s central news agency, the missiles flew 1,240 miles in figure-eight trajectories over the East Sea.

In March, North Korea increased its missile testing. Kim and his daughter watched as six short-range missiles were fired toward the sea off North Korea’s west coast during wargames. State media reported that Kim was “greatly satisfied” with the drills and the troops’ ability to “confidently” demonstrate their readiness for “actual war.” In March South Korea and the U.S. were set to conduct large-scale military drills. In apparent protest, North Korea fired two cruise missiles from a submarine in the East Sea on the eve of the exercises, showcasing its amphibious launch capabilities.

North Korea continued its protests by firing two more SRBMs from its west coast. The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command stated that the launches highlighted the “destabilizing impact” of North Korea’s missile programs.

North Korea continued its protests by firing two more SRBMs from its west coast. The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command stated that while the launches did not pose an immediate threat to its allies, they highlighted the “destabilizing impact” of North Korea’s missile programs. The second ICBM launched this year was the domestically produced Hwasong-17. North Korea claimed that the launch was intended to “strike fear into its enemies” by demonstrating Pyongyang’s ability to respond quickly to threats. Another SRBM was fired from Cholsan County in North P’yŏngan Province, which is home to North Korea’s key long-range rocket launch site. North Korean state news agencies reported that the country conducted a drill simulating a nuclear strike on a major enemy target using a missile equipped with a test warhead that simulated a nuclear warhead. South Korean defense officials reported that North Korea had launched at least four cruise missiles from its eastern Hamhung province. According to North Korean state media, these missiles were equipped with simulated nuclear warheads similar to those used in previous launches and also tested minimum-altitude flight and evasive maneuvers. South Korea and Japan detected two additional SRBMs launched from North Korea’s east coast. The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command reiterated the destabilizing impact of the tests but stated that there was no immediate threat. Japan’s Ministry of Defense and South Korea’s military detected the launch of at least one ballistic missile, prompting Japan to issue a warning over the island prefecture of Hokkaido and advise residents to evacuate or take shelter. Pyongyang claimed that it was testing a new type of solid-fuel ICBM, the Hwasong-18. The launch occurred after North Korea’s Kim expressed dissatisfaction with the U.S. flying nuclear-capable B-52 bombers over the Korean Peninsula.

Despite advances in surveillance technology, intelligence gathering on North Korea’s secretive missile program remains limited. Much of the assessment is based on extrapolation from existing combat systems. North Korea has become adept at broadcasting television footage of drills and launches that are not verified by independent third parties. As a result, there is very little understanding of what is happening within the country. However, if Pyongyang escalates its provocations, it risks revealing more about its weapon system. While they may want to demonstrate the credibility of their system, it could backfire. Any display of firepower could expose weaknesses and potential failures. Diplomatic efforts seem to be out of reach as North Korea remains steadfast in its pursuit of nuclear ambitions. North Korea updated its nuclear doctrine and declared that there would be no denuclearization, negotiation or bargaining even if international sanctions were lifted.

Legal and Diplomatic Liability for Holding G-20 Summit in IIOJK

0

The decision to hold the G-20 Summit in Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed territory recognized by the UN, is seen as an attempt to conceal the ongoing war crimes in the region by India. On April 11th, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its strong disapproval after India amended its G-20 schedule to include gatherings in Srinagar and Leh.

Pakistan condemned India’s actions as irresponsible and serving its illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions and international law.

In addition, Pakistan also denounced India’s oppressive measures against the people of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), including attempts to alter the region’s demographic composition. China has also opposed India’s plan to hold the Summit in Jammu and Kashmir and urged the “parties concerned to avoid unilateral moves that may complicate the situation.” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian emphasized the need for “settling the Kashmir dispute through dialogue and consultation to maintain regional peace and stability.”

In August 2019, the Indian government unilaterally abolished Kashmir’s special status; and divided it into two separate union territories – Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir; and Buddhist-dominated Ladakh. The move has eroded autonomy of the region and has pushed it towards de facto recognition. For the first time since then, an international event is being hosted in the region. India’s actions in the IIOJK have drawn widespread condemnation from human rights organizations. The Indian government’s imposition of a communication blackout and curfew in the region has led to extensive human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial killings, and instances of torture.

Hosting the Summit in the disputed territory is seen as a smokescreen aimed at diverting global attention away from the underlying issue of war crimes being committed by the Indian security forces in the region.

It is a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Article 32 of the Convention prohibits the use of torture against civilians in occupied territory. It states that “The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation and, medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.” Article 27 reads that “Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.”

The decision to hold a high-profile Summit in the IIOJK, known for its disputed status, has raised questions regarding New Delhi’s intentions and the ulterior motives behind the move. In tandem, the silence of the G-20 nations on the rampant human rights abuses in the region is a tragedy in itself. The lack of reaction from the international community to India’s selection of Kashmir and Ladakh as G-20 venues could be interpreted as a tacit approval of India’s decision, implying that the region is no longer considered disputed.

It is widely held that India is attempting to divert attention from the war crimes committed by its security forces in the region and present a façade of normalcy in the IIOJK through an investment conference and now hosting a G-20 Summit. It is believed that the Summit in Kashmir is a ploy to deceive the international community regarding the actual situation in the region.

The potential participation of the G-20 nations in the Summit could undermine the credibility of the UNSC resolutions; advocating for the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris, and giving credence to the Indian claims while overlooking the human rights abuses in the region.

So, before undertaking a potentially contentious path, it would be wise for the heads of G-20 states to exercise prudence.

The BJP government – fixated on Hindutva ideology, with Narendra Modi at the helm, appears determined in exploiting the G-20 Summit to advance its own geopolitical and domestic political objectives. This act is believed to be a move towards promoting the dangerous settler colonialism project, which entails the displacement of Kashmiris and the unlawful occupation of their land. The recent display of posters in Srinagar was to raise awareness among G-20 nations regarding India’s motives behind the Summit.

Pakistan expresses deep concern over India’s decision to host the G-20 meetings, particularly the events centered on tourism in the IIOJK. From Pakistan’s standpoint, this is a troubling development as it dilutes the UN’s auspices and infringes on the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people. While Pakistan has been drawing attention to the human rights situation in the region, India is attempting to counter Pakistan’s narrative on Jammu and Kashmir, projecting a sense of normalcy through the Summit. However, this approach disregards the ongoing war crimes and fails to address the underlying issue of the internationally recognized Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

Fumble of Indian Security Apparatus

0

The extrajudicial murder of Atiq Ahmed on April 15, raises a two-throng dilemma in terms of the prevalent security apparatus in the state of India as well as possible state complicity specifically when it comes to prejudice against its minorities.

Uttar Pradesh (a state where the unfortunate incident took place) has seen the deaths of more than 180 civilians in some 9000 alleged police encounters by police officials, in the past six years.

It is horrendous how the handcuffed brothers, Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed were gunned down amid the massive police cordon and a huge media gaggle. The brothers were killed when they came out of the hospital after their mandatory checkup required by a Supreme Court order. Atiq was already jailed in Gujarat and was brought to Prayagraj for a court hearing concerning the Umesh Pal murder case. Umesh Pal was killed on February 24, following which his wife Jaya Pal registered an FIR against the duo with 12 others. Jaya claims that Umesh was an eye witness in the murder case of MLA Raju Pal of the Bahujan Samaj Party. Raju was killed after he won by-elections in Atiq’s stronghold of Allahabad after later resigning as MLA on becoming Member of Parliament MP from the Phulpur Lok Sabha constituency, also in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.

Umesh Pal had previously registered an FIR against Atiq alleging him for his kidnapping in February 2006 for which Atiq was handed life imprisonment in March this year. It was his first conviction in some 101 cases registered against him, that are also seen as an element of political engineering against him. Atiq Ahmed denied all charges. His extrajudicial murder now showcases the rough and tumble of the state of India that has gone further astray under the government of the Hindutva-led BJP.

The overlap between organized crime and the Indian political system has garnered contempt from various spheres of influence in India with Gilles Verniers, a political science professor at Ashoka University in New Delhi, whose research has focused on electoral and party politics in Uttar Pradesh, calling it “a break-down of the very concept of the rule of law”, while talking to CNN.

“The larger significance is what this means for the rule of law and the transformation of the meaning of the rule of law from a system of justice that is supposed to follow due process and be impartial and not be arbitrary into a form of self-justice in the hand of the executive (with an implicit reference to Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath) that is fundamentally arbitrary, violent and partisan,” Verniers said.

Adiyanath has previously vowed to destroy “Atiq”, something he has achieved ostensibly. It is skeptical as to how his entire family has been chased if not gunned down in the ensuing hare and hounds, with the state not even sparing his minor sons and putting them in juvenile jails. It becomes a problem to be interrogated as to what law, national or international allows hounding the entire strata of relatives for the crime committed by a single individual.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 43/173 (endorsed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), rather stipulates an entire “Body of Principles” for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment. Principle 6, in this regard clearly envisages that “No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, following which principle 7 calls upon states to ensure compliance with the aforementioned principle. India miserably fails at both, compliance and ensuring justice, and this is something the International Community shall be taking note of.

As far as India is concerned scapegoating Pakistan for its own misgivings will only fester the state’s gullibility and populace grievance.

On one account, Uttar Pradesh presented a charge sheet before the court in which it found a reprieve in forcefully forging a linkage between Atiq and the ISI of Pakistan. The concocted charge sheet also claims that Atiq agreed to acquire weapon supplies from Pakistan via drones coming from the Punjab border. Even if this is believed to be the case, it again suggests military and intelligence failure on the part of the Indian army.

Moving forth, India is also trying to instigate skepticism and falsified rhetoric that Zigana, a gun used to kill Atiq might have come from Pakistan. While the origins of the pistol are not clear, it is pertinent to mention here that this gun costs nearly Rs. 6 lacs in India’s own underground market, as reported by Indian Express.

Hence blame-gaming Pakistan for India’s own misgivings would not do. And if any such proclamations by India bear any weight, it shall come up with concrete proof rand not merely fabricated proclamations.

World has taken an arduous journey post-2001 to counter religious-based terrorism. This is while the fascist Hindutva regime in India continues its drive to bolster state-sponsored terrorism in the region and beyond. In this case, for instance, assailants were seen chanting ‘Jaisheri Ram’ or ‘Hail Ram’. India therefore needs to understand, analyze and address its own foiled security fabric and systematic misgivings (against minorities) that continue to fester and inflict the entire region, in return.

The Ascendance and Subsequent Decline of Kurdish Dominance in Iraq

0

Despite the KRG’s noteworthy accomplishments over the last 30 years, its unrelenting pursuit of economic independence has only helped to deepen internal conflicts and a corrupt system of government while shifting its reliance from Iraq to Turkey and from foreign assistance to oil income. The power balance that formerly favored the KRG is now changing in favor of Baghdad as Kurdish divisions widen and security in the rest of Iraq improves. Since the vote, disagreements have occurred between the ‘Regional States’ leaders on their positions in Iraq and strategies for reviving the region’s struggling oil industry.

As an oppressed ethnic minority, the Kurds in Iraq have always felt fundamental suffering as they fight for autonomy. By preserving Kurdish rights, the rulers of Kurdistan won acceptance. Nevertheless, this revolutionary image was supplanted with democratic legitimacy during the first Gulf War and the 1992 elections. The Kurdistan Regional Government was established as a consequence of the elections, which also officially ushered in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party as political parties. Since that time, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), both of which are currently led by members of their second and third generations, to be specific, have each been closely linked to a particular family.

In fact, between 2004 and 2014, the KRG successfully tapped into post-invasion prospects to achieve economic development. The capital, Erbil, had its area more than double due to the development boom at that time. According to the KRG, ethnic cleansing’s “Anfal campaign” in 1988 devastated 65 percent of Kurdistan’s rural districts.

Two international airports were developed by the KRG in Sulaymaniyah and Erbil by 2005, deregulating the area’s isolation and allowing it to trade with the rest of the globe. The Iraqi government did not start enforcing this rule for foreign travelers until 2021.

Two international airports were developed by the KRG in Sulaymaniyah and Erbil by 2005, deregulating the area’s isolation and allowing it to trade with the rest of the globe. The Iraqi government did not start enforcing this rule for foreign travelers until 2021. Public employment programs in their entirety have decreased unemployment, but foreign workers have mostly filled the skilled labor need. Additionally, the Investment Law of 2006, which gave investors benefits including property ownership, tax exemptions, and profit repatriation, assisted the KRG in luring significant amounts of local and international funding. Over 3,000 international businesses are now registered in the area. The KRG is home to 42 consulates and maintains 14 representative offices across the globe.

A significant regional commerce route and destination, Iraqi Kurdistan has also benefited from its strategic position and stability. The “regional government’s” top commercial partner is Turkey, which shares its only land border with Iraq with the “Kurdistan region.” About $2.5 billion in commerce was conducted between Turkey and “Iraqi Kurdistan” in 2017, accounting for nearly one-third of Ankara’s overall trade with Iraq. Likewise, Iraqi Kurdistan receives a third of Iran’s estimated $2.4 billion in annual imports to Iraq. Furthermore, the KRG-controlled border crossings are used by 50% of Iran’s exports to Iraq.

The weakness of the political parties in the area has led to disputes between the two governing dynasties in Iraqi Kurdistan in recent years. Jalal Talabani, the founder of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, passed away in 2017, and his oldest son and nephew jointly took over the party’s leadership. The cousins Pavel and Lahore Talabani fought in 2021, and the first one was able to depose the second. These internal conflicts reveal systemic flaws and a deterioration of democracy in the Kurdistan Region.

The “regional government’s” institutions were ineffective and totally equipped to handle the “economic tsunami” that started in 2014. A budget was last authorized by the “Kurdistan Region” parliament in 2012.

For instance, the “regional government’s” institutions were ineffective and totally equipped to handle the “economic tsunami” that started in 2014. A budget was last authorized by the “Kurdistan Region” parliament in 2012. Out-of-control inflation drove employment from the private sector into the public sector. By 2017, the KRG was the biggest employer in Kurdistan, paying $750 million a month to employ half of the labor force or over 1.4 million people. While the embryonic private sector is dependent on holding businesses owned or controlled by members of the two governing families of Kurdistan, corruption and incompetence have warped employment in the public sector, resulting in thousands of ghost workers, multiple positions, pensions, and unjustified retirees. The KRG’s energy industry grew more secretive and unaccountable in order to avoid showing Baghdad its cards.

The Peshmerga forces have a high level of respect and influence and have maintained strong public and political support, particularly since they joined the coalition headed by the US to fight ISIS. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party’s enormous political split, however, diminished the importance of the “Kurdistan region” as an ally of the United States and curtailed Kurdish influence in Baghdad. The number of Peshmerga combatants is still being determined with any degree of accuracy, although it is assumed to be between 160,000 and twice that amount. Masrour Barzani, the regional prime minister, stated that the Peshmerga forces had more generals than the American or Chinese armies. Since the beginning of the fight against ISIS, the US has paid the “Peshmerga” groups wages and given training in return for a commitment to bring them together under the control of the “Kurdistan Regional Government” rather than the two dominant parties. However, the PMF has signaled that it supports the KDP and PUK in their refusal to give up control of their units.

The decades of war, genocide, and neglect, post-invasion Kurdish politics have returned, but they have not been able to resolve long-standing internal conflicts. The most established institutions in the area that may sustain an independent Kurdistan are still the economy and the Peshmerga forces.

Despite the persistent narrative of the complaints and victimization of Iraqi Kurds, they have exercised tremendous authority and freedom of choice throughout the last three decades. The decades of war, genocide, and neglect, post-invasion Kurdish politics have returned, but they have not been able to resolve long-standing internal conflicts. The most established institutions in the area that may sustain an independent Kurdistan are still the economy and the Peshmerga forces. The power balance that formerly favored the KRG is changing in favor of Baghdad as Kurdish divides widen and the security situation in the rest of Iraq improves. Since the vote, there have been disagreements among “regional government” officials on visions for their involvement in Iraq and strategies for reviving the region’s struggling oil industry. This raises the question of whether the Kurdish economy should continue to rely on international assistance, oil, and budget transfers from Baghdad or if it can develop a robust economy via reform and diversification.

The Potential Effects of Saudi-Iran Détente on Pakistan’s Regional Stability

5

Recent diplomatic progress between Saudi Arabia and Iran has raised hopes for lasting peace in the Middle East. Despite years of animosity, both states have expressed a willingness to engage in talks and find common ground.

The Saudi-Iran deal could have positive implications for Pakistan, a key player in the region, which has historically managed to maintain a delicate balance between its relationships with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

While Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have enjoyed a strong bond due to shared religious and cultural interests, Saudi Arabia has also provided vital economic aid during tough times. Meanwhile, Iran shares a long border with Pakistan and has deep cultural ties, making it an important neighbor.

Additionally, the protracted hostilities in Yemen may be subject to the vicissitudes of the ameliorated relations between both states. Therefore, a new agreement, facilitated by China, for peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran recently strengthened the Yemen agreement. To reach an agreement that restores air connectivity between Riyadh and Tehran, re-establishes diplomatic missions, and strengthens economic cooperation, the foreign ministers of the two countries met in Beijing.

Recently, the erudite Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, engaged in a telephonic discourse with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, and conveyed his warm felicitations on the commendable normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, as espoused in the “Trilateral Joint Statement.” The Foreign Minister lauded the sagacious leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in this positive development.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Minister also held a telephonic colloquy with the esteemed Foreign Minister of Iran, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, and commended the resumption of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which stands as a testament to the sagacity and foresight of the leadership of both states. Furthermore, he applauded the instrumental role China played in facilitating this process, as expressed through the Joint Trilateral Statement signed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China on March 10 in Beijing.

Moreover, a plausible convergence between Saudi Arabia and Iran has substantial implications for Pakistan’s foreign policy. Should the two regional powers succeed in reconciling their long-standing animosity, Pakistan could potentially forge closer relationships with both states, founded on common economic and strategic interests.

Closer ties with KSA could generate much-needed investment and bilateral economic collaboration, while improved ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran could grant Pakistan access to Central Asia, thereby bolstering its energy security.

Undoubtedly, enhancing bilateral relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia would yield significant economic benefits for Pakistan. As Iran and Saudi Arabia represent two of Pakistan’s principal trade partners, forging closer economic ties could potentially unlock novel business prospects for the country. Moreover, a thaw in relations between these two regional powers would facilitate the stabilization of crude oil prices, which would immensely benefit Pakistan’s energy sector.

Despite Pakistan’s traditionally dispassionate position on the conflict, the progression of cordiality between Saudi Arabia and Iran could potentially give Pakistan an opportunity to assume a more proactive role in the search for a resolution. The economy of Pakistan will benefit, however, if the relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran improve. Pakistan’s largest trading partner, Saudi Arabia, provides significant trade and investment opportunities in the infrastructure and energy sectors, particularly in Iran. For businesses and entrepreneurs in Pakistan, a more stable and cooperative relationship between these two states may open up new opportunities.

Meanwhile, given the participation of Pakistan and India in important infrastructure projects in Iran, improved relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia could benefit the region’s economic growth. One of these initiatives is the development of the Chabahar port in southeast Iran, which India has already committed to assisting as part of a larger connectivity corridor intended to reach Afghanistan and Central Asia. Similarly, another significant project that may be able to provide Pakistan with the much-needed energy security it needs is the completion of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, which is currently only partially built. Although there have been many obstacles in the way of this project’s completion in the past, such as sanctions against Iran and security issues in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, a warming of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia might make things easier.

However, if the long-standing conflicts between the two nations are not resolved, Pakistan’s security and stability may be in jeopardy. Pakistan has suffered significantly as a result of the ongoing proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen. Any intensification of hostilities between the two countries could have serious ramifications for Pakistan by escalating sectarian tensions and fanning the flames of extremism and violence.

India’s Strategic Hedging and Rapprochement with China

3

India, historically espoused neutrality in its relations with great powers. The robust evidence of this can be found in Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) during the Cold War period, India was part of which. Despite that India was categorically a part of the non-aligned 120 countries, it had also envisaged its policy to engage USSR partially, upgrading its defense through Russian technology.

The past few years have witnessed a shift in Indo-China relations, promoting cooperation in many fields.

A decade before, Indian Former Premier Manmohan Singh had ruled out the “old theories of containment” addressed at the Chinese Communist Party’s School in 2013. Singh was lauded by the audience, and received a huge standing ovation in a speech on ‘India, China-A New Era’. Later on, despite aggressive election campaigns, Premier Modi generated an amicable relationship with Beijing. The premier hosted President Xi with Red Carpet at his house in Gujrat and visited to Xi’s house in China. In the meantime, the Indian Prime Minister also visited Washington in 2014. India remained a partner with the US in its global campaign to contain China, becoming part of all US-led alliances such as Quad, etc. Such a strategic competition led to a strategic rivalry at LAC, facing standoffs at Doklam in 2017 and Galwan Valley in 2020 successively.

However, India’s trade volume with China is cascading to a historic high in the post-Galwan era. The year 2021 witnessed a 44% increase in trade crossing the benchmark of US$ 100 billion for the first time in history. Meanwhile, the trade volume surged by 8.4 % reaching $136 billion, passing the 100 billion mark for the second consecutive year in 2022.

What are the reasons behind this Rapprochement? And what impetus became a driving force to bring the fighting rivals economically close to each other? These are the specific questions, the answers to which will be explored below.

New Delhi’s approach harkens back to its historic policy of strategic hedging, an instrumental third policy option for the middle powers during a contest between great powers.

Modi’s successive governments dealt with Beijing with multipronged engagements. For instance, on the one hand, they had joined JAI-Japan, America, and India summit, while on the other joined Russia-India-China (RIC) summit at the side-line of the G20 Osaka Summit in 2019.

India affixes with China vis-à-vis the US in different Institutional frameworks. Since the day, Premier Modi took the oath, he receives an extension of the US-India Defence Cooperation agreement for ten years, and signed many defense and security-related pacts and agreements including the launch of Defence Space Exchanges in 2022 through US Space Command and India’s Defence Space Agency, Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) in 2016, and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) in 2020.

Beijing is also skeptical of India’s centrality in Washington’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, preventing the Indo-US alliance in the region. Yun Su a director of the China Program at Stimson Center noted the Chinese wariness of India in the wake of its historic influence in South Asia. He argued the interdependence in seeking interests has categorically brought the two rivals close to each other as both, are willing to expand their influence while ‘bolstering their vitality’ through Belt and Road Initiative and Modi Doctrine respectively.

India ostensibly has been having two kinds of sentiments among its community. One is the business-oriented people forging enhanced business activity between the neighbors. While others are nationalism-oriented people igniting the boycott China campaign. The former dominates over the latter causing a quick hike in trade volume, after the Galwan clashes. Moreover, even though the people in India and the political parties had protested to boycott China, the sentiment was the least economic cantered. People still believed that the campaign was more of a nationalist perspective led by the people having the least economic interests or trade with China.

India and China have realized the regional solidity of their relationship and learned the positive engagement in the wake of strategic and economic competition which has helped them to improve their trade volume.

To sum up, everything that has been stated so far, one can say that Modi’s close ally and Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar had given a prudent impetus to pursuing the third policy option of hedging which helped India to achieve its policy goals of defending its status in the US lead alliances and influence the Chinese power in the Indian Ocean Region. Meanwhile, the cooperation has helped India to pull off major diplomatic milestones such as hosting key summits of SCO and G-20.

Moreover, the Chinese emergence as a regional partner to India has helped enhance its influence globally, wielding its economic ambitions through BRI and presenting itself as a global peacemaker which helped as a driving force in its latest mediation in signing a détente between Iran and KSA. On the other, New Delhi’s improvement of ties with Beijing is a death to the US balancing strategy in the Indian Ocean Region.