Trump Triumph: Implications

By

-

November 10, 2024

The return of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America is a tectonic change with global implications. In what is probably the greatest political comeback in recent history, Trump overcame obstacles, legal cases, assassination attempts and massive malign campaign of trial by allegation in the American media to decisively win the November 5 presidential election.

He will probably be the first American president since John F Kennedy who is not a representative of the American security establishment or “Deep State”. He will, therefore, not follow the traditional Washington playbook on foreign policy. To understand the implications of the Trump victory, it is important to know where Trump is coming from? He is basically a businessman, a deal maker whose most famous book is the “Art of the Deal”. He is not a cold warrior and it would not be surprising if he will try to reverse the expansion of NATO and also probably retreat on the ambitious and aggressive over extended ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’ which involves cobbling alliances like QUAID and AUKUS.

He will probably be the first American president since John F Kennedy who is not a representative of the American security establishment or “Deep State”.

Trump is not an ideologue, unlike his predecessor, Joe Biden, who tried to frame a new cold war on an ideological premise of “democracy vs autocracy”. And he will not be militaristic in his vision of foreign policy which focuses on a more economy-centric businesslike approach based on his “American First” worldview. And he will not be the one to start wars or foment fighting in Asia and Europe or provoke unnecessary conflicts or confrontation.

So, perhaps, after a quarter of a century of internecine warfare, the world will be calmer, stable and perhaps even more peaceful, for starters, under a Trump Administration. The top three foreign policy priorities of the Trump administration would be ending the war in Ukraine, peace in the Middle East and coping with the competition with China.

What can Pakistan expect from the Trump administration? During the previous Trump administration, Pakistan-American relations were quite good and Pakistan got excellent vibes from his interaction with the Pakistani leadership. Soon after his election in 2016, on 30 November 2016, before his inauguration as president, Trump had a conversation with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif where he termed Pakistan as a ‘fantastic country, a fantastic place of fantastic people’. He even described Sharif as a “terrific guy” and he labeled Pakistan in that telephonic conversation as a “country which is amazing with tremendous opportunities and Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people”, adding they are “exceptional people”.

Then on July 22, 2019, Trump received Prime Minister Imran Khan at the White House. He praised Imran Khan and spoke with exuberance about US relations and Pakistan. He even took Khan on a personally guided tour of the White House residence with the First Lady proudly posing for a selfie with the Pakistan prime minister. More importantly for Pakistan’s national security interests, during that visit of Khan to the United States, Trump publicly offered, saying that “if I can help, I would love to be a mediator on Kashmir”. It also means that he was the first American President since President Clinton’s reference to Kashmir as a ‘nuclear flash point’ in 1993, who recognized Kashmir as a dispute to be resolved between Pakistan and India.

Pakistan can look forward to engage with the United States under the Trump administration which is an opportunity for a ‘reset’ in Pakistan-American relations.

However, Trump can also be erratic as before that on January 1, 2018, he tweeted about Pakistan, saying that “the United States has foolishly gave Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars during the past 15 years” and he accused Pakistan of “lies and deceit”, adding that Pakistan provides “safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan”.

Pakistan can look forward to engage with the United States under the Trump administration which is an opportunity for a ‘reset’ in Pakistan-American relations. For too long, Washington has viewed Pakistan through the prism of geopolitics, either the Afghan war or relations with India or Pakistan’s strategic partnership with China. Pakistan is located in a region which is vital for US interests, with relationships with countries key to American strategic interests, notably, China, Iran and India. So, this region will remain pivotal to US interests, and so will Pakistan, being the only Muslim nuclear power playing a proactive role.

Firstly, Islamabad needs to accept a new reality that the Pakistani diaspora is now a factor in Pakistan’s emerging relations with the US, which can and will influence Washington’s perspective on the country, including domestic politics. The Pakistani diaspora views on Pakistan domestic politics, today are at variance with those of the government and the establishment, especially on the issue of Khan. This should not diminish or undermine the role of the diaspora as a significant factor, or even as a force multiplier in influencing policy in Washington and promoting Pakistan-America bilateral ties in different areas, particularly economy, trade, investment and education.

Secondly, Pakistan’s officialdom also needs to focus on a robust, proactive high gravitas engagement with Washington that include promoting interests of the Pakistan state and the people, not any person, party or a regime alone. The areas of engagement can include trade, technology, investment, regional economic connectivity, cooperation in counter terrorism and Pakistan’s important role as a “Muslim Middle Power”, located in one of the most strategic parts of the world which has a unique possibility to engaging both the East (China) and the West (US) with an experienced track record of confidence, communication and understanding.

Pakistan’s officialdom also needs to focus on a robust, proactive high gravitas engagement with Washington that include promoting interests of the Pakistan state and the people, not any person, party or a regime alone.

Thirdly, Pakistan should also show strategic clarity in engaging with the United States, separating the ‘red lines’ for our foreign policy and national security, from the areas of convergence listed above. The ‘red lines’ for Pakistan include:

Pakistan’s nuclear/missile program
Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir and Palestine
Pakistan’s relationship with China/CPEC
Pakistan’s refusal of any use of its territory to destabilize Iran
Pakistan’s rejection of any attempt to impose Indian hegemony.

What is most commendable is also the graceful and dignified role of the American leadership in the smooth and peaceful transition after a divisive political campaign, which should be an example for Pakistani politicians stuck in never-ending political warfare. Trump calling for “healing of wounds”, Kamala Harris graceful accepting defeat and President Biden calling for “lowering of the political temperature” and the Pentagon boss, General Austin, publicly proclaiming the United States administration will “stand ready to carry out the policy choices of its next commander-in-chief and to obey all lawful orders from its specific chain of command”.

A number of analysts both in Pakistan and the US have been asking me how I was confident and consistent since the past one year in predicting the victory of Trump in the American Presidential election. I gave three reasons for my consistent view that President Trump will prevail politically. The first quality in any politician is courage and ability to survive and surmount difficulties. In this regard, Trump demonstrated resilience, despite the highest number of cases in American history against any former president. He reminds of an inspiring quote of President Richard Nixon: “You do not lose when you are defeated, you lose out when you quit”. Trump didn’t quit!

Secondly, throughout this four-year period after he lost to Biden on November 5, 2024, Trump did not give up, he retained his popular base and his message resonated not only with his base, but also a larger chunk of the American population that ensured his victory on 5 November, giving him not only the electoral college, but also five million plus popular votes more than his rival. Finally, the alternative to Trump was weak, whether Biden or Harris with a poor track record and an inability to craft a message for the American people that how they would be better or different than Trump.

At the end, when Trump asked persistently from the voters “whether you are better today or before”, the answer was predictable and Trump was able to promote the perception that he would be a stronger and decisive leader at a time when Americans themselves have lost confidence in their own institutions in the context of a turbulent and transformed world.

Russia’s Strategic Pivot to Africa

By

Chiara Cacco

-

November 10, 2024

0

It is a new age of relations for Russia and Africa in the sphere of foreign relations. Yet, contrary to the Cold War structure of regional affiliation, the two partners now have a more complex relationship. It has now changed into a search for gains at the political, economic and even cultural levels, leaving aside ideological differences. Speaking of the relations between Russia and Africa, one can observe that this is one of the new important branches of the new geopolitics, on the one hand, indicating the growing role of Africa, and on the other, the shifting preference of Russian foreign policy.

The current relations between Russia and Africa can be traced back to the Soviet Union which supported different African liberation movements. The Soviet Union extended economic and armed assistance and the ideas assistance for the countries that struggled with colonialism. The so-called ‘Soviet Model’ of anti-colonial resistance was influential in Africa and leaders of several African states had close relations with Moscow. But with the breakup of Soviet Union in 1991, Russia’s involvement in Africa decreased as Moscow concentrated in revamping economical and politics internally.

The current relations between Russia and Africa can be traced back to the Soviet Union which supported different African liberation movements.

However, Russia has resumed active cooperation with African countries in recent years, as it considers Africa as its sphere of interest and is trying hard to challenge the domination of Western countries in African affairs. Russia’s renewed engagement with Africa is in pursuit of improving its international status and building new friendships within the context of the multipolar world. This type of partnership is less and less defined in terms of ideologies, but in terms of vital concerns that are of interest to both: economic, political and cultural.

The economic cooperation is one of the main spheres in this regard. Indeed, Africa with all its natural resources, population growth and unlocked markets make the continent a destination for Russia. Moscow has been very eager and proactive in seeking to establish cooperation through investments in different fields of the economy such as mining, energy, agriculture and property development. Russia’s professionality in the exploration of natural riches blended by the African affordability of petroleum, gas and minerals make Africa and Russia an economic synergy.

Russia is viewed as a relevant player on the African markets interested in the development of energy infrastructure of the African states. The companies like Rosatom are already engaged in construction of nuclear power plants in Africa so that it can successfully meet the energy demand of the continent in the time to come. For instance, Russia and Egypt signed a deal to build the nuclear power plant and is a flagship project of the economic relations between the two countries.

Apart from energy, Russia is also interested in Africa’s agriculture, considering the ability of the continent to feed the world. Among consumer countries, key agricultural imports like wheat are already vital for several African states. Russia in its role as grains supplier in the international market has fostered its root in the African countries that are struggling with food insecurity. This economic integration is also assisting in the stabilization of food market in Africa, which the Russian agricultural sector is more than happy to harness.

Another aspect of cooperation between Russia and African nations is the political solidarity which may put the African continent against the West. Most African nations have become sensitive to the bilateral and multilateral pressures from the West on political and economic reforms. Therefore, they have welcomed the Russian policy of non-intervention in the continent’s affairs. The strategy of Russian involvement in Africa is based on the principles of non-interference and recognition of sovereignty and equality, which is an attempt to become a friendly partner who does not interfere in internal affairs and support coups d’état.

Africa wants to maintain relations with Russia on the strategic level despite politically and economically complicated relations.

On the multilateral level, Russia and Africa both support a system of five or more sovereign centers of power in the contemporary world. Both sides have voiced dissatisfaction with the present international order dominated by the Western states. Russia, and African nations are partnering in the United Nations globally and in the BRICS grouping – comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – to change the nature of governance structures and exert a more substantial impact in the international system.

This growing political convergence is evident, for example, in the African position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Even though most countries in the West have advocated for the isolation of Russia through condemning over invading Ukraine and imposing of sanctions on Moscow, most African countries have taken the middle ground in this crisis. Thus, this pragmatic approach proves that Africa wants to maintain relations with Russia on the strategic level despite politically and economically complicated relations. It also fits into Africa’s general policy of preserving friendships with major world players without becoming a side to a conflict.

In addition to economic and political interactions, cultural and educational relations are also gradually being improved between Russia and Africa. In the past, the USSR had accommodated many thousands of African students who received scholarships and the chance to study at Soviet universities. And Russia is now hosting more and more African students with aspirations in pursuing courses in medicine, engineering, and technology.

Sharing of ideas or skills is another approach to forging a mutual understanding. The relationship between Russia and Africa have grown through the graduates from Russian institutions who go back to their home countries and advocate for closer relations between Russia and Africa. Furthermore, a close cultural relationship is being developed thanks to the Russian centers of culture in Africa and the African cultural activities in Russia.

Trump Second Term: What It Means For Allies And Foes

By

Uroosa Khan

-

November 9, 2024

17

The election of Donald Trump as the next US president has shifted the dynamics of domestic and foreign policy in the United States. His re-election means the world will see Trump executing the policies that characterized his first term. He comes along with a cocktail of nationalism and protectionism which has the potential to jolt the way in which US home affairs are run as well as its place on the global stage.

People worldwide had followed the contest between Trump and Kamala Harris. Many Democratic Party supporters, particularly among women and minorities, wanted to ensure that Trump did not return to the White House. Still, the American voters chose Trump in a reaction to the economic policies adopted by President Joe Biden.

His promise to slash spending on foreign aid, end the Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and finally make America’s interests rather than international responsibility a priority again attracted the voters.

The race underscored that the foreign policy issues were not of pressing concern to the Americans whose own economic woes and apprehensions over immigration dominated the ballot. This shift seems to fit in an even larger trend of preferring internal stability over international influence. Hence, the “America First” agenda resonated with them in these circumstances. His promise to slash spending on foreign aid, end the Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and finally make America’s interests rather than international responsibility a priority again attracted the voters who considered the recent US foreign policies a failure.

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

Domestically, Trump is expected to further cement his nationalist and protectionist position, a hallmark of his first term. His policy focus on the economy will be protection of America’s industry with new tariffs and trade restrictions, largely against the Chinese items. As far as immigration is concerned, he will focus on curtailing entry into the United States, an issue that has been projected as the reason behind unemployment as well as a social burden. Yet another potential impact of Trump’s policies will be deregulation in every sector, leading to weakened environmental requirements and low levels of government role.

Perhaps, the most obvious winners in the context of a second term for Trump are the American businessmen, especially tech giants, manufacturers, energy providers and agriculturists. This is primarily because his policy agenda calls for tax cuts and lower levels of strict regulatory barriers. Most of the people within the corporate circles consider Trump’s strategy a panacea for reenergizing domestic production and thus reducing dependency on imports, especially from China. It attracts the middle-class and working-class Americans as well, promising economic expansion and, hence, more jobs and industrialization.

During the Biden administration, tensions have been mounting between the US and the Arab world, especially the Gulf States, on matters related to energy and human rights. His renewed emphasis on Iran’s nuclear deal and focusing more on aspects of human rights put him at loggerheads with long-standing Middle Eastern friends, namely Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps, the most obvious winners in the context of a second term for Trump are the American businessmen, especially tech giants, manufacturers, energy providers and agriculturists.

On the other hand, Trump has been historically warmed towards the Arab monarchies, marked by full support for Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And this approach may signify a realignment of US-Middle East relations during his rule. Trump’s re-election may be accompanied by stronger ties with the Arab nations, especially those wanting stability and security guarantees.

Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine war has been a contentious issue in US foreign policy. The Biden administration provided billions of dollars in financial and military aid to Ukraine, which became controversial in the United States, with people arguing why foreign aid should be prioritized over domestic needs. In his campaign, Trump promised to put an end to the war by negotiating directly with Kyiv and Moscow. To many Americans, Trump’s stance to slash financial support to Ukraine strengthened the belief that the American taxpayers’ dollars could be better directed towards the pressing national needs, in complete contrast to Biden.

However, the most salient feature of Trump’s foreign policy template, which may prove decisive for the US allies in Europe, is his position on NATO. Trump has often criticized NATO while arguing that other member countries should bear greater burden to finance the defense structures. It means his second term is going to squeeze the NATO allies even further in terms of finances. A strategy on these lines will eventually lead to a diminished United States engagement in European security – a scenario being viewed by NATO allies with some fear as to whether they need to pump in more defense spending and enhance their capabilities. A diminished US engagement will upset the NATO cohesion and make the European countries turn towards new alliances or fortify regional security structures on their own.

The most salient feature of Trump’s foreign policy template, which may prove decisive for the US allies in Europe, is his position on NATO.

At the same time, policies with regards to China will revolve around continuation of trade war and restrictions in terms of technology in a manner that would further slow the economic and technological ascent of China. This is his administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy to counterbalance China’s influence, especially in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea, bonding more with the likes of Japan, India, and Australia.

In his second term, Trump may further impose economic sanctions on Chinese companies, limit Chinese investments in American technology sectors, and support regional allies to contain Beijing’s influence.

Meanwhile, while framing China as a competitor of the United States, the Trump administration will make defense collaboration with the Indo-Pacific countries stronger. His stance on Taiwan is expected further strain the Sino-US relations if he decides to provide symbolic support to Taipei.

However, Trump’s anti-China policy can face some resistance within the United States from those American businesses that rely on Chinese market, which may cause frictions between domestic economic interests.

The first Trump presidency also saw a first: the diplomatic approach it adopted on the North Korean issue, resulting in a meeting with Kim Jong-un. There may be renewed direct negotiations and a continued expression of an economic reward in exchange for a denuclearization pledge from North Korea. No one is in a position to determine the outcome of Trump’s unconventional approach to tackle North Korea in case he decides to repeat the same. Whereas prior administrations have adopted a more collective approach with respect to the North Korea policy, Trump is unique in his strategy of emphasizing more on one-on-one negotiations rather than collaborative pressure through the international community.

Maintaining his current suspicion towards the region due to the ever-increasing closeness with China, Trump can even make the Pak-US relations strained.

Previously, Trump’s relationship with Pakistan was defined largely by the United States’ decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and how Islamabad played a strategic role in supporting peace efforts. This time round, his government is expected to be more alienated while focusing on counterterrorism, thus reducing the US footprint in South Asia. Maintaining his current suspicion towards the region due to the ever-increasing closeness with China, Trump can even make the Pak-US relations strained. However, his transactional behavior may revive cooperation if both sides realize that it is a mutually beneficial deal, be it counterterrorism or economic investments.

There is no doubt that Trump’s second term will negate the cooperative framework for international cooperation and seek bilateral agreements that serve the American interests. His skepticism of multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization, is well-known. This leads us to two possibilities: a decrease in US funding or withdrawal from some agencies. It may also involve climate change, arms control and trade agreements.

In global conflicts, Trump may use a deal-oriented approach that will minimize US military involvement. His willingness to mediate high-profile disputes – like the Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine conflicts, reflects his “hands-on” and “deal-oriented” foreign policy. This approach will enable Trump to focus on his “much-vaunted record” of his first term, emphasizing that he is a diplomat who avoids wars. But it could also indicate selective actions, whereby all other wars are disregarded because they are not relevant to the immediate US interests.

Given that Trump stands for the “America First” slogan, the US will see a recalibration of its relations with various nations. The idea is to have US domestic interests ahead of international responsibilities. His posture towards China and Russia, and unconventional North Korea approach form the bottom line of a shift that revolves around a transactional foreign policy instead of multilateralism. Although the promise to stop the wars may please the frustrated American voters, it will cause an increased unpredictability for the US allies, thus weakening the US influence and redefining the patterns of international power structures.

As Trump’s administration becomes even more protectionist and nationalist at home, the US it presents to the world can become more complicated, dividing people within and abroad. Such reorientation by the US in complex international relations will force profound shifts toward greater global tensions, trade issues and security concerns. There will be a long walk on this unpredictable path under the leadership of American diplomacy for the US allies and enemies alike.

UN Fails To Stop Armed Conflicts Due To Structural Flaws

By

Muhammad Binyameen Iqbal

-

November 8, 2024

0

More than a year has passed and the United Nations has failed to stop the Palestinian genocide by Israel. Tel Aviv launched war on Gaza after the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, breaking all its previous records of war crimes. Israel has extended its military operations across the region by launching strikes in Yemen, Syria, and Iran, and now focusing on a ground invasion of southern Lebanon which has created concerns about the possibility of a broader conflict engulfing the Middle East, raising fears of a widespread war.

In the process, new-born babies, children, women and men are being slaughtered. Israel has killed over 43,000 people and over 101,000 people wounded by in Gaza so far. However, the world, especially the UN which was created to safeguard human rights, has been ineffective in taking action against the Israeli brutalities. In fact, the UN has failed to fulfill the promise of preventing military conflicts in the world following the footsteps of its predecessor, the League of Nations.

The dream of Woodrow Wilson to preserve global peace through the League of Nations failed with the outbreak of World War II.

The League of Nations, established in 1919 after the end of World War I, was meant to stop the bloodbath caused by the wars in the world to save precious human lives. But its failure led to World War II which resulted in unprecedented destruction in every sphere of life.

After the end of World War I, the League of Nations was heralded as a beacon of hope for the peace and security. However, its structural limitations did not help preventing future armed conflicts for which it was created. The dream of Woodrow Wilson to preserve global peace through the League of Nations failed with the outbreak of World War II. Millions of people were killed and countless cities were destroyed.

Due to its utter failure, the League of Nations was finally dissolved after the war and the United Nations, its successor came into being, taking the responsibility of protecting the world from wars. The UN vowed to resolve the international disputes peacefully to prevent the globe from another world war. It was heralded as ‘an instrument for keeping the future world free of war’. But even after 79 years of its formation, World War III is practically knocking on the doorstep after the unceasing conflicts of Palestine, Ukraine, South China Sea, Kashmir and others, in which major powers of the world are involved directly or indirectly.

It has been 79 years since the creation of the United Nations but its role has been indistinguishable from its predecessor. Shortly after its creation, the UN failed to settle various disputes like Palestine and Kashmir. It also couldn’t prevent armed conflicts including Korean war, Arab-Israeli wars, Vietnam, USSR and US invasions of Afghanistan, Gulf wars, Indo-Pak wars and Iran-Iraq war as well as the civil wars in Yemen, Syria, Libya and other places. The UN didn’t do anything to punish the US for invading Iraq which it termed an illegal attack, showing how powerless the world body is.

The United Nations was not even successful in preventing the deadliest episode of bloodshed on European soil till then after WWII when Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered leading to the Srebrenica genocide in the Bosnian War (1992-1995). The UN failed to safeguard Srebrenica, a declared safe zone area. Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council assisted Serbs in the massacre of Bosnians. It would not have happened if the UN hadn’t ignored the requests for help from the Bosnians. The notion of collective security was torn apart by the permanent members of the Security Council as they did nothing meaningful to stop the genocide.

The veto power has made the UN powerless, as only the Security Council can authorize intervention to halt a conflict.

As far as the reasons behind the UN failure are concerned, these similar to that of its predecessor. Major powers were involved directly or indirectly in these wars and they prevented the UN from taking any action by using veto power, a special power possessed by the Security Council permanent members in the decision-making, also known as P5. As the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France pursue their own political, ideological, and economic interests, obstacles are created in the UN to working. Consequently, the UN faces a deadlock on how to take any concrete action for ending hostilities.

The veto power has made the UN powerless, as only the Security Council can authorize intervention to halt a conflict by putting sanctions or by sending a force comprising the UN members states. For instance, the US has been using its veto power to cover the Israeli war crimes in Gaza. The US has vetoed several UN resolutions calling to end the war in Gaza, but a single P5 member can decide if the UN should act against war crimes or not. The US even hosted and applauded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against whom the International Criminal Court is mulling over issuing arrest warrant.

Meanwhile, the UN also faces a dilemma similar to that of its predecessor – lacking a standing military force of its own that can be used to hold back the aggressor. As a result, it is helpless and cannot intervene in military conflicts. Hence, the hostile parties backed by the major powers easily undermine UN efforts to create peace. In the presence of the UN, Israel would not have continued to slaughter the Palestinians even after more than 12 months of the war.

The UN has become so ineffective that even the words of United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres have fallen on deaf ears. He repeatedly condemned Israel’s actions for killing Palestinian civilians on a ‘scale unprecedented’, but instead Israel declared Guterres as “persona non grata” and barred him from entering the country. It is because of the unconditional support extended by Washington as the Israeli lobby in the US is helping Israel to do whatever it wants.

The veto power has made the UN powerless, as only the Security Council can authorize intervention to halt a conflict.

In short, the UN cannot become an effective organization without addressing its structural flaws, otherwise, its fate might not be different from its predecessor. To address these issues, the UN needs a military force of its own and the Security Council reforms. The fact of the matter is that the P5 states will continue exploiting their veto power to pursue their interests. As neorealism prevails in international relations, there is no way the UN with its present structure can succeed in preventing military conflicts. This is the reason why the League of Nations failed in the previous century and the UN is failing presently to prevent military conflicts.

Israel is now expanding the ongoing war to the entire region after turning Gaza into ruins. Netanyahu has warned Lebanon could face destruction like Gaza. Meanwhile, Iran, a key regional player, has taken an active stance, signaling that it will not remain silent as its allies come under attack. The retaliation of Iran on October 1 by launching nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel resulted with counter-retaliatory attacks on October 26 by Israel on Iran, showing that a broader war awaits the Middle East region.

The UN must take urgent, preemptive action to halt this escalating crisis, as the conflict threatens to spread beyond the Middle East, potentially also affecting South Asia. The Security Council permanent members, especially the US, must show responsibility and act accordingly to cease this escalation. The Security Council should work together to reach a decision that can stop the Israeli war in the region. On the other hand, the international community must work collectively for an immediate ceasefire and initiate a decisive approach towards the two-state solution by which the root cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict can be tackled.

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

By

Dr Shama Junejo

-

November 7, 2024

0

While I have just boarded my second flight from Istanbul to Dushanbe, Trump has delivered his victory speech. The world has changed significantly while I was travelling from London to Istanbul, yet one thing remains certain: Trump’s re-emergence in global politics is bound to rattle the existing world order. Within hours, markets have already reacted — Tesla’s shares skyrocketing, the dollar spiking to its highest in eight years, and Elon Musk basking in a newfound glory after generously contributing $130 million to the Trump campaign.

Also read: Trump Victory Will Mean Defeat To Democracy

As Trump emerged victorious, his pledge to “end all wars” was likely to send shivers through Kyiv, while Israel couldn’t hide its satisfaction, eagerly anticipating a US foreign policy likely to pivot in its favor. He also promised to go ahead with his hardline policy on immigration, again talking about a crackdown on immigrants in the US. China, as usual, has reacted with stoic restraint, stating that its policy with the US will remain the same. But beneath that diplomatic facade, Beijing must be recalculating its strategies, knowing Trump’s hawkish tendencies on trade could resurface.

As Trump emerged victorious, his pledge to “end all wars” was likely to send shivers through Kyiv.

The dynamics of this victory extend far beyond America’s borders. In the United Kingdom, Labour’s Keir Starmer faces a transformed transatlantic relationship. The special relationship, which once revolved around shared democratic values, may now shift towards transactionalism, something Trump has always preferred.

The Pakistan-US relationship, which had grown more strategic under previous administrations, may now pivot towards a more transactional nature.

Starmer, whose Labour government has just begun, will find himself in a complex position of dealing with a US administration that prioritizes American interests with a ferocity unparalleled by recent predecessors. Starmer’s approach to social justice issues, climate policies, and his moderate stance on global affairs could clash sharply with Trump’s “America-First outlook”, a vision that has shown little regard for multilateralism. Trump’s disdain for European unity could put additional strain on the UK’s already delicate post-Brexit position, especially if he rekindles his criticism of NATO and European trade policies.

In Pakistan, where Shehbaz Sharif’s government is still grappling with internal and regional crises, Trump’s return could inject both relief and unease. Incarcerated Imran Khan’s supporters are euphoric, seeing in Trump a potential ally who could pressure Pakistan’s judiciary or government for his release. But Trump, ever the pragmatist, rarely indulges in loyalty without benefit. If Imran Khan’s cause can be leveraged to serve broader US interests in South Asia, Trump may well raise the issue. But this would be conditional, perhaps tied to Pakistan’s role in the shifting landscape of US-China relations.

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

The Pakistan-US relationship, which had grown more strategic under previous administrations, may now pivot towards a more transactional nature — aid, security assurances, or diplomatic gestures offered only in exchange for tangible returns on issues Trump values.

Trump’s unyielding support for Netanyahu in the past suggests that his policy towards Gaza will lack the subtlety or balance that a fragile situation like these demands.

Meanwhile, the ongoing war in Gaza faces a critical turning point. Israel’s visible elation over Trump’s victory is not without reason. His administration has historically aligned itself unreservedly with Israeli interests, even at the cost of alienating broader Middle Eastern dynamics.

Trump’s unyielding support for Netanyahu in the past suggests that his policy towards Gaza will lack the subtlety or balance that a fragile situation like these demands. His approach to conflict resolution has often been direct, even blunt, and this time will likely be no exception. If he decides to intensify support for Israel without pushing for a sustainable two-state solution, the flames in Gaza could be fanned further, potentially escalating into a larger regional conflict. Iran, which had cautiously watched the Biden administration’s diplomatic overtures, now faces the likely scenario of a hostile US leadership, one that views Tehran not as a partner in negotiation but as a target for containment.

Trump’s victory also puts Ukraine in a precarious position. His rhetoric about “stopping all wars” is a thinly veiled message that he intends to dial back US involvement in foreign conflicts — particularly in Eastern Europe. For Kyiv, this could mean a significant reduction in military and financial support, effectively leaving Ukraine to fend for itself against Russian aggression. Hence, the lack of immediate congratulations from Putin may be strategic, perhaps waiting to see how serious Trump is about disengagement. Trump’s insistence on putting American interests first may translate into withdrawing US support for Ukraine, leaving the nation vulnerable. Such a policy shift would not only embolden Russia but could also weaken Europe’s security architecture, emboldening autocratic regimes worldwide who see in Trump an ally for nationalist and isolationist agendas.

China, too, will be recalculating its approach, even as it maintains a carefully neutral response for now. Under Trump, the US-China relationship was marked by aggressive trade tariffs, technological restrictions, and a burgeoning Cold War mentality. And interestingly, the Biden administration too continued with this hawkish approach, resulting in imposition of record-high tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar energy equipment along curbs on chips and AI as part of the ongoing US-China trade war. How far Trump can go during his second term is yet to be seen.

Trump’s “America First” trade policy could provoke retaliatory measures from Beijing, intensifying the global economic divide.

Although Trump’s victory speech contained no direct mention of China, Beijing’s leaders will be well aware that their economic powerhouse is once again in Washington’s crosshairs. If Trump resumes his economic offensives against China, global trade could face renewed disruptions, with ripple effects in emerging economies heavily reliant on Chinese partnerships, like Pakistan. Trump’s “America First” trade policy could provoke retaliatory measures from Beijing, intensifying the global economic divide.

Yet, in the midst of this shifting landscape, perhaps the most unsettling factor is Trump’s unpredictability. A man known for his impulsive decisions, his approach to foreign policy is as volatile as it is uncompromising. He has returned to power with the backing of fervent populists, billionaires, and corporate America, who now expect him to prioritize their interests. The surge in the dollar, the rise in Tesla’s shares, and the financial windfall for Musk are all indicators of an America bracing for policies that may favor the elite over the middle class or international cooperation. With economic disparities on the rise, Trump’s America may deepen these divides, focusing on isolationist policies that ultimately risk alienating allies while emboldening rivals.

As Trump’s victory reshapes global dynamics, we are reminded of the potency of populism — a force that blinds voters to reasoned judgement, even in a country as robustly democratic as the United States. Populism thrives on promises rather than policies, drawing in voters with spectacle and sentiment, often at the cost of critical reflection.

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

In his victory speech, Trump has promised a renewed, fortified America — one that claims to lead without entangling itself in “unnecessary” alliances or conflicts. But in a world more interconnected than ever, this vision of isolation is a dangerous illusion. As global powers recalibrate, the era of Trump 2.0 has arrived, and the world must brace itself for an America that prioritizes dominance over diplomacy, pragmatism over principles, and division over unity. The world order, as we knew it, may be entering its twilight, and history will judge the repercussions of this victory.

The New Space Race

By

Shah Meer

-

November 7, 2024

0

New Space Race — During the Cold War, the US and the USSR, representing two different ideologies, were involved in the Space Race. However, the 21st Century is witnessing a three-way race, as the US, China and Russia are now competing for dominance in the space.

“Astropolitics” is defined as the political study of stars, celestial bodies, and activities in outer space. Astropolitics is dedicated to the military and commercial use of outer space and celestial bodies to extract resources from space and utilize them for the national strength of nations on Earth. Like geopolitics, astropolitics also involves a scramble for power, competing strategies, and the delicate balancing of countless resources. Hence, the new space race.

The outer space presents immense opportunities for the military field, research, technological advancement, navigation surveillance, and economy. It ensures secure communication; guides precision strikes and helps in the space-based reconnaissance. This has significantly dragged the attention of great powers. The US, China, and Russia are at the forefront of the race for dominance in outer space and intend to establish a strategic edge, marking the age of increased competition in outer space.

The race for dominance in outer space began between the United States and the former USSR during the Cold War period.

Just like the strategically important locations on the earth, the geography of space – though unmeasurable – has some highly relevant chokepoints. The Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is crucial for early warning systems, satellite communication, and other commercial activities where the competing states aim to outmaneuver the adversaries. Beyond LEO lies the Terra region, which is important for space exploration, space debris management, and GPS navigation. One of the leading theorists of astropolitics Everett Dolman coins, “Who Controls LEO, controls Near-Earth Space; who controls Near-Earth Space will control Terra; and whosoever dominates Terra will determine the destiny of mankind”.

The race for dominance in outer space began between the United States and the former USSR during the Cold War period. Over the decades, China has taken a sheer interest in space exploration. China believes that its space ambitions aim to improve life on Earth by utilizing space resources. However, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) controls all of China’s space activities to serve the needs of national defense, military forces, and the national economy – a step indicating the extreme militarization of space.

Beijing has its space station which is fully owned, funded, and operated by China, unlike the International Space Station which is a multilateral project owned and operated by the US, Japan, Russia, Europe, and Canada.

China’s growing space program is widely supplemented by Russia’ prior experience of the space race with the US. Both countries are cooperating on various issues including rocket engines, spaceplanes, satellite navigation and monitoring space debris. Both countries have also announced a Sino-Russo lunar nuclear plant, signaling Russia’s eastward alignment and defection from the US-established norms of space exploration.

The Kremlin has been also noticed of space coercion especially after the Russia-Ukraine war and subsequent sanctions on Moscow: it stopped selling rocket engines to the US; it ceased working with Germany on a joint space program; the Kremlin destroyed one of its obsolete satellites sending space debris to ISS.

President Trump announced the Artemis program in 2017 to put the man and women on Mars again. However, President Biden tilted the program towards more commercial and military initiatives.

The increasing footprints of China and Russia in space have revived the US space ambitions. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the Americans assumed their self-proclaimed victory in the space domain against the communist threat. But the growing footprints of China and Russia have prevailed in an urge for counterbalancing strategies. President Trump announced the Artemis program in 2017 to put the man and women on Mars again. However, President Biden tilted the program towards more commercial and military initiatives.

The race in space has already begun and it is further fueled by the absence of any legally binding instrument. The conduct of geopolitics is governed by international standards, yet it is gruesome and lethal. An outlawed space will be more destructive. The space standards set during the Cold War in the shape of the Outer Space Treaty (1967), Rescue Agreement (1968) or Moon Agreement (1984) are no longer fit for the current space race and are open to several interpretational fallacies that can allow states to exceed the bounds of legal limits. Another problem with space laws is that their geography has no certain boundaries which makes it more difficult to be implemented.

Thus, the space race has begun among the great powers and has unveiled new strategic realities. To control the extreme militarization of space in tandem with its use for peaceful purposes, there is a need of an internationally recognized binding instrument that should set standards for peaceful use of the space. It should also establish practical protocols for arms control in outer space and introduce transparency standards to curtail strategic ambiguities. The instrument has to make relevant proposals for challenges such as space debris which can cause harm to satellites and other human activities. All these efforts are contingent on the cooperation among the great powers. Only through sustained cooperation, space will remain a domain of progress and security, not conflict and uncertainties.

Climate Change Is Producing More And More Climate Migrants

By

Waqas Abdullah

-

November 6, 2024

0

With environmental issues getting worse over the years, the issue of climate change-induced migration is on the rise. Global climate change causes individuals to be forced out of their homes by factors such as increased sea levels, extreme weather conditions, and competition over resources among others. The number of climate migrants, therefore, is increasing. Currently, governments and international organizations are left with key challenges of how to manage climate-induced migration since this has qualitatively shifted from a humanitarian problem to one of political and economic concern.

Climate change was traditionally defined and perceived as an environmental phantasmagoria, which is rarely prioritized compared to more pressing socio-political problems. Yet, the current scholarly research shows that not only the rate and severity of further climate-related disasters are rising, but these phenomena are also provoking the dramatic demographic shifts.

Climate refugees, like traditional refugees who target to escape violent events, are also people without legal status and rights.

Tens of millions of people are displaced from their homes to other areas that are less dangerous, within the same country or across the border. This has been seen during the flood ravaging Pakistan or the persistent droughts in East Africa where people were forced to flee their homes and appeals for assistance hit the roof.

Following these difficulties, the phenomenon of the so-called climate refugees has come to the forefront to identify people with specific necessities as a consequence of climate change. Climate refugees, like traditional refugees who target to escape violent events, are also people without legal status and rights. Persons with disability are for the most part neglected, with international law still to embrace their plight and accord them a proper place to find support. This is a glaring loophole that must be filled as soon as possible since climate induced displacement is on the rise.

This concern does not limit itself to the territory of the states experiencing the change of climates but is seen as an issue of international concern. Host nations are usually not prepared to hosting climate migrants, increasing pressure on local facilities and infrastructure. This can raise conflicts between communities and also widens the existing gap between them. For instance, competition for job opportunities, affordable houses, and other services triggered by climate migrants in already strained economic regions may help foster attempts at social conflict. This suggests that much needs to be done both at the national and international level in designing sound strategies for assisting climate migrants and host communities.

Perhaps seeing the connection between climate change and migration, the international legal systems are slowly adapting. The UN has come out very forceful on how migration considerations should form part and parcel of climate action plans. For instance, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration has AU, NATO, EU and other State parties that have pledged on tackling displacement due to climate change effects. However, the major difficulty is to translate these commitments into practical policies. Governments should join hands in developing policies that can guarantee the rights of climate change affected persons as well as get to the base of many environmental issues.

In this regard, one has to stress at socialization as the effective means to raise awareness of climate migration. Non-governmental organizations working in collaboration with local communities and governments need to come up with strategies that will help create awareness on effects or impacts of climate migrants. They can reduce the level of xenophobia and increase the level of empathy pointing that the newcomers are not a burden to the societies.

Governments ought to promote activities that will enable communities to become more climate proof so as to reduce the risk of future displacement.

Furthermore, only coordinated efforts can be dew to build causes for climate change that triggers migration. Policies that support climate smart infrastructure, climate smart agriculture and disaster risk reduction contribute immensely towards the reduction of the capacity of environmental processes to displace a certain percentage of the population. Governments ought to promote activities that will enable communities to become more climate proof so as to reduce the risk of future displacement.

Therefore, when addressing the future of climate migrants, it becomes important for the global society to respond to the challenge with urgency and responsibility. Adverse effects of climate change have led to emergence of climate migrants, a problem that calls for regional solution. Exploring the relationship of climate change and migration, stakeholders in the government, civil societies, and global organization can have a synergistic approach that will provide solutions that address the future hazards and protection of threatened groups of people and recognition of climate change refugees.

Many of the decisions that are ahead may not be comfortable, but they are necessary. In essence, climate migration is not an ancillary of climate change; it is a humanified problem that needs a humanized response. Thus, focusing on the climate migrants, the global society will be able to turn into the better and fairer world which has more ability to be effective and sustainable in presence of climate challenges than now. This is more mores so in the current global context, which is why action must be taken, knowing that the battles against climate change and on behalf of displaced populations go hand in hand.

The Rise of Minilateral Alliances: Quad As A Case Study

By

Muhammad Huzaifa Ghangla

-

November 6, 2024

0

Officially the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the Quad is a group comprising the United States, Australia, India, and Japan. All these four countries are democracies.

This insight explores the emergence of minilateral groupings, also referred as alliances, due to their cooperative nature based on mutual interests like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) in the contemporary international affairs. It highlights the driving factors shaping the development of Quad, its role in the military might of India and implications for the region. It critically analyzes the emphasis of Quad on geopolitical interests and its potential for non-traditional security cooperation.

Emerging Global Order:

The emerging global order is witnessing a new trend in international cooperation. It is a shift from formal multilateral system to an informal, selective and issue-based cooperation model, namely the minilateral alliances. The inability of the traditional multilateral framework for the global governance – United Nations (UN), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and others – to maintain peace and develop new course of actions designed in accordance with the modern security issues, made the foundation for fast and efficient structures to mitigate emerging new challenges.

Likewise, in the Asia-Pacific, it prompts a reaction in the form of an attempt to check the rise of China. Beijing’s growing power and neo-mercantilist approach have actually pushed the necessity of the emergence of more compact associations that could contain China’s actions quickly, unlike the dysfunctional multilateral organizations.[1] The exhibition of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) in the Asia-Pacific and also the most recent collaborations Australia, United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) as well as India, Israel, United Arab Emirates and the United States (I2U2), and Chip 4 are the examples of minilateral alliance.^[2]

Shinzo Abe:

The Quad’s creation was proposed by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2007 as a flexible political wing consisting of the US, Japan, Australia and India that later gained much attention as a small military coalition. Over time, the Quad has moved from a mere consultative forum to cover more strategic and defense aspects, suggesting that it may take the shape of a military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region.^[3] The Quad activities were ceased in 2008 after Australia pulled out for its concern over ties with China.^[4] However, the growing military activities of China in the Indian Ocean made Australia revive its status in Quad in 2017. The Quad revival was a new approach to its concept of security cooperation among the member countries to demonstrate the military side of the Quad.^[5]

Eventually, the US and India started joint military exercises bilaterally – the Malabar naval exercise in 1992, later joined by Australia and Japan in 2007 – has now become annual.

^[6] The Malabar Naval exercise is meant for the cooperation, interoperability, and synergy among the four navies.^[7] The drills demonstrate perspective alignment of the member states on maritime affairs and their common commitment to an inclusive and open Asia-Pacific region based on international norms.

Free And Open Asia-Pacific:

Further, the concept of ‘free and open Asia-Pacific’ (US Asia Pacific Strategy), at the core of the Quad has dramatic military connotations. Cooperatively, this phrase commonly adopted by Quad members in their official communique reasserts this group’s determination to ensure freedom of navigation in international waters, particularly China. Military preparedness, protection of the sea lines of communication and fostering maritime security are part of the Indo-Pacific strategy.

The Quad’s shift from a relatively informal strategic discussion forum to a minilateral military alliance signals the shift in security relations in the Asia-Pacific region. While Quad is not an alliance like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), still it has become relevant in the geopolitical dynamics of the Asia-Pacific region with more emphasis on military cooperation and strategic deterrence. Taking the edge in this context, India, though a swing state in the past, has increased cooperation with Quad and enhanced its military and economic capabilities for its ambitions to emerge as the hegemonic power in the region.

Implications For South Asia:

Considering the implications for the South Asian region, this changing role brings some questions and considerations to India’s regional policy desires. For India, engagement in the Quad framework is seen as a part of the country’s effort to increase its military might.^[8] The Quad aims to utilize its relations with the major world powers to pressure the Asia-Pacific hegemon and safeguard India’s regional interests.^[9] India’s aspirations are, for this reason, seen in its strategy for developing its naval forces and arming expansion in the Indian Ocean. India, too, has ramped up its naval forces; the Indian Naval Ship Malabar was also initiated with Quad members and other Asian countries to prove a gesture of force in naval ambition and safeguard vital seaways.

Zooming into the Quad mechanism, we see that its essence is in the ability to set up imperialist goals. Firstly, it affects the balance of power in the South Asian region. India’s enhanced position through Quad is compelling the other regional nations, like Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh to make more conclusive decisions, in the changing power dynamics of the region, despite the fact that these countries have struggled to maintain an equilibrium between their relations with India and China for a long time.^[10] Secondly, India, the US and other Quad members have constantly described China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as the most significant geostrategic threat to their interests and have raised pressure on other states to stay away from the project.

Although Quad’s future holds an important security pillar with China, without focusing on infrastructure development, enhanced connectivity, strengthened resilience and diversity of supply chains, and non-traditional security issues, the Quad might not be effective in the region or creating a rules-based multipolar Asia-Pacific in future.

The Quad, with its emergence and transformation from minilateral grouping to a strong security cooperation in the Asia Pacific, holds serious implications for both Pakistan and South Asia. The Quad has proved to be an effective medium for US to empower India militarily in the Indian Ocean for its strategic role to contain China in the Indo-Pacific region.

Eventually, the India, considering itself a hegemon in the region, has left no stone unturned to disturb balance of power in South Asia as justified by some of the key incidents like missile launch in 2022. In this context, Pakistan needs to take a bold step and eradicate the narrative of camp politics and secure national interest in relations with any other state, in this case, Russia and China, and the US. Pakistan, after stabilizing the regional connectivity fostering economic, benefits.

References:

[1] David Scott, “The ‘Indo-Pacific’—New Regional Formulations and New Maritime Frameworks for US-India Strategic Convergence,” Asia-Pacific Review 19, no. 2 (November 2012): 85–109, https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2012.738115.

^[2] Mariya Kanwal, “Issue Brief on ‘The Rise of Minilateralism’ | Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad,” August 21, 2024, https://issi.org.pk/issue-brief-on-the-rise-of-minilateralism/.

^[3] Kei Koga, “Quad 3.0: Japan, Indo-Pacific and Minilateralism,” East Asian Policy 14, no. 01 (January 2022): 20–38, https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793930522000022.

[4] Nick Bisley, “The Quad, AUKUS and Australian Security Minilateralism: China’s Rise and New Approaches to Security Cooperation,” Journal of Contemporary China 0, no. 0 (n.d.): 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2024.2365241.

^[5] Qian Jiayin, “Quad Collective Maritime Defense an Illusion in the 21st Century – Global Times,”, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1296040.shtml.

[6] Ash Rossiter, Yee-Kuang Heng, and Brendon J. Cannon, “Looking under the Hood of Joint Naval Exercises: Motives and Perceived Benefits for Japan,” The Pacific Review 0, no. 0 (n.d.): 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2024.2366791.

^[7] “Malabar Naval Exercises,” https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1696140.

^[8] Soumyodeep Deb, “The Coming of Quad and the Balance of Power in the Indo-Pacific,” Air University (AU), December 13, 2021.

^[9] Harsh V. Pant, ed., New Directions in India’s Foreign Policy: Theory and Praxis (Cambridge New York, NY New Delhi Singapore New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 2019).

[10] Sadia Khanum, “Indian Hegemonic Design Effect on the Neighbors -,” NDU Journal (2021).

Israeli Attack On Iran: Nature, Effects And Response

By

Muhammad Hussain Baqeri

-

November 5, 2024

0

Israeli Air Force — Both exaggerating or downplaying the Israeli airstrikes are incorrect approaches. However, a decision should be made, on one hand, regarding the dimensions along with the human and equipment losses as a result of this act of aggression, and, on the other, determining the right time and position to react to it.

Despite the passage of several days since the Israeli attack on Iran, its dimensions have not yet been clarified.

As far as the scope and details are concerned, Israel says 100 (some put the figures at 140) fighter jets were used in these attacks, as 20 targets had been hit in different parts of Iran. Reports suggest the attack comprised “three waves” and a significant number of American refueling planes participated in the process.

According to Western media, Iran’s defense systems have been disabled after the attack and will be unable to defend the country in future. There also claims that targets were hit in different areas such as Khajir, Parchin, Islamshahr, defense sites in the southwest of Tehran, radar sites in Ilam, and even IRGC facilities in Shahrood.

On the other hand, the Iranian military says four air defense personnel were martyred along with a civilian in Islamshahr as a result of Israeli strikes.

Tactically, the goal of Israel in the first wave was to destroy the defense systems, drone manufacturing facilities in the second, and the facilities related to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) air force in the third.

Meanwhile, the Israeli jets fired missiles at targets in Iran using the space available to the American military in Iraq, 100 kilometers from the Iranian border.

As far as the weapons used are concerned, a review of the published pictures of the remains of two missiles in Iraq shows that the projectile used were either Rocks (ROCKS ALBM) or Black Sparrow, which have similar appearance.

ROCKS is a supersonic air-to-ground missile equipped with a single-stage solid fuel engine produced by Rafael, an Israeli company. It is similar to the technology used in the SPICE series of air-launched bombs. This missile, which entered into service in 2016 with a range of 600 to 800 kilometers, uses GPS/INS systems and has an electro-optical seeker and anti-radar capabilities. Israeli F-35, F15 and F16 fighters can carry this missile.

After being launched from the fighter jet, this missile flies at a higher altitude and then goes to the ground with the same speed and path as a ballistic missile. ROCKS can be equipped with two types of explosive or penetrating warheads to destroy above-ground or below-ground targets.

If Iran’s defense systems have been damaged in the way that the Zionist regime and the Western media claim, why did the 100 fighter jets involved in the attack fail to enter Iran’s airspace?

Israel initially developed the Sparrow series missiles to test the effectiveness of the Arrow air defense system. Black Sparrow is a hypersonic missile simulating maneuverable targets and short-range missiles like Scud.

The Blue and Silver Sparrow missiles were made with greater range and speed to simulate medium-range ballistics.

Although these missiles are considered simulators, they can install a detachable warhead with a three-axis situation control system. Due to their maneuverability and different guidance systems, they are suitable for attacking defense systems or escaping from them with heavy maneuvers.

On the other and, Iran had various defense systems at its disposal. The list includes S 300 PMU2, Bavar 373, Mehran, Khordad 15, and the tactical hunter Arman which uses the Sayad 3F defense missile). The role of Indigenous systems, especially Bawar 373, was significant in this context.

According to some reports, 78 missiles launched from Israeli planes had been destroyed, of which 68 were outside Iran’s borders.

In addition, it is said that micro-drones have been used in Tehran to attack some targets, which have been countered with a unique defense system.

However, six projectiles indeed hit military sites, but considering at least one struck Mahshahr, the number of hits seems to be more.

The question is, if Iran’s defense systems have been damaged in the way that the Zionist regime and the Western media claim, why did the 100 fighter jets involved in the attack fail to enter Iran’s airspace? Another question is why the damage caused to these Iranian defense systems is not reflected in the satellite images that have been shared.

These are vital questions to answer.

Both exaggerating or downplaying the Israeli airstrikes are incorrect approaches. However, a decision should be made, on one hand, regarding the dimensions along with the human and equipment losses as a result of this act of aggression, and, on the other, determining the right time and position to react to it.

Will Iran retaliate and strike back?

My answer is affirmative.

Judicialization Of Politics Will Exacerbate Pakistan’s Existential Crises

By

Yousuf Nazar

-

November 4, 2024

0

Faez Isa — The routine politicization of disputes among Supreme Court judges is setting a dangerous precedent and threatens to further damage the judiciary's reputation, which has historically been problematic. If judges continue to act like politicians in the name of judicial independence, the consequences could be dire.

A controversy erupted recently following Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s release of a strongly worded letter to the media, explaining his reasons for not attending the full-court reference held to honor for former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. One may disagree with the logic of some of Chief Justice Isa’s judgements, but Justice Shah’s letter was sad and unfortunate.

In his letter, Justice Shah criticized Chief Justice Isa, stating, “Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, [he] remained complacent and indifferent to external influences and pressures on the judiciary. Instead of standing as a bulwark against interference, he opened the gates wide, betraying the judiciary’s sacred role as a check and balance on power. He showed neither the courage nor the moral fortitude to defend the judiciary, ceding ground to those who sought to weaken the courts for their own gain, thereby compromising the very foundation of the rule of law.”

The judicialization of politics will only worsen the situation, leading to potentially unintended consequences.

Earlier, Justice Shah had informed Chief Justice Isa that he would not participate in the special committee established under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, for assigning cases. However, making the letter public was inappropriate and served to scandalize the divisions within the Supreme Court. An ordinance is a law that must be followed unless struck down by a competent court. Judges should communicate their positions through their judgments, not through media releases.

The routine politicization of disputes among Supreme Court judges is setting a dangerous precedent and threatens to further damage the judiciary’s reputation, which has historically been problematic. If judges continue to act like politicians in the name of judicial independence, the consequences could be dire.

Labeling the current power struggle as a fight for judicial independence is misleading.

It is unfortunate that Justice Shah, otherwise a competent and qualified judge, has succumbed to the populist virus that has infected Pakistan’s political landscape. While one may disagree with some of Chief Justice Isa’s judgments, such disagreements should be expressed in a professional manner, avoiding character assassination and the language typically used in political debates.

Regrettably, Justice Shah’s letters read more like posts from the PTI troll brigade on social media. I never expected him to violate the time-honored principle that judges speak solely through their judgments. His recent attack Chief Justice Isa — who upheld the text of the Constitution and the law — seems misplaced.

It is a matter of record that Chief Justice Isa stood firm against persecution from Gen Bajwa and Imran Khan, while other judges, such as Munib Akhtar, either remained silent or actively colluded with Bajwa, who sought revenge for the Faizabad case judgment. Let’s not forget that Justice Shah was responsible for the judgment that extended Gen Bajwa’s tenure, paving the way for a compliant parliament to legitimize that extension.

Chief Justice Isa stood firm against persecution from Gen Bajwa and Imran Khan, while other judges, such as Munib Akhtar, either remained silent or actively colluded with Bajwa.

It is naive and historically ignorant to believe there can be a judicial solution to Pakistan’s complex political crisis. The judicialization of politics will only worsen the situation, leading to potentially unintended consequences. When the largest political party insists on negotiating solely with the army chief, repeatedly asserting that the “umpire cannot be neutral” and rejecting the political process, discussing democracy and the rule of law becomes somewhat academic.

The current division within the Supreme Court mirrors fractures within the Punjab-dominated establishment, a reality underscored by the recent arrest of General Faez Hameed.

Labeling the current power struggle as a fight for judicial independence is misleading. Most are aware that the so-called lawyers’ movement of 2007-2009 was largely a covert operation orchestrated by Gen Kayani, with many judges and lawyers unwittingly involved and later glorified by the establishment’s proxies in the media. Iftikhar Chaudhry, one of the most incompetent judges, received backing from Gen Kayani to secure the 19th Amendment. History will likely reveal that the current crisis bears similarities to that spurious movement for judicial independence.

The only sustainable solution to Pakistan’s multiple crises is the establishment of a government of experts for a period of 10 years, given the weakened state of institutions, pervasive incompetence, and the elite’s failure to provide adequate governance.

Above all, Pakistan needs effective governance and stability. Key challenges, including demographics (population growth, illiteracy, and youth), economy, climate change, and extremism, remain unsolved. Regardless of the government system in place, failure to address these issues will not enhance the well-being of the populace.

Pakistan is now the 66th largest exporter despite being the fifth largest by population.

Since the 1990s, three transformative mega trends have emerged. The globalization of trade, highlighted by China’s entry into the WTO in 2001, which resulted in the fastest growth in emerging economies in modern history. Pakistan, however, missed this opportunity while embroiled in internal power struggles, leading to a steady decline in its share of global trade over two decades. Since 2014, the country has been destabilized by incompetent leaders and populists, with the active assistance of its intelligence agencies and Bonapartists. Pakistan is now the 66th largest exporter despite being the fifth largest by population.

The rapid spread of the internet and the digital revolution, beginning in the 1990s, has widened the “digital divide” between Pakistan and the rest of Asia and the West. Pakistan ranks 90th out of 134 countries on the network readiness index.

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

According to Kai-Fu Lee, a leading artificial intelligence expert, AI will surpass electricity and the internet in its impact, potentially replacing half of the global workforce. Lee, known for his roles at Apple, Microsoft, and Google, recently reaffirmed his prediction that AI could automate repetitive tasks such as truck driving and telemarketing, coinciding with the rise of Generative AI. It’s worth considering that new technologies could disable Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities through remote operations. Recent incidents, such as Israel’s use of communication devices to trigger explosions, may just be the beginning.

The only sustainable solution to Pakistan’s multiple crises is the establishment of a government of experts for a period of 10 years.

Currently, Pakistan appears to lack any viable path to catch up with the developing world, let alone the developed world, given its over 50% functional illiteracy rate, low intellectual capital, and dire state of education. It is astonishingly ignorant to assert that merely restoring political stability and the so-called rule of law would lead to the country’s development and economic progress. Such perspectives reflect ignorance about global trends and realities.

It would take a miracle to pull Pakistan from its drift toward decline and possible chaos, especially as it continues to regress while the rest of the world, particularly Asia, advances.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

He will probably be the first American president since John F Kennedy who is not a representative of the American security establishment or “Deep State”.

Pakistan can look forward to engage with the United States under the Trump administration which is an opportunity for a ‘reset’ in Pakistan-American relations.

Pakistan’s officialdom also needs to focus on a robust, proactive high gravitas engagement with Washington that include promoting interests of the Pakistan state and the people, not any person, party or a regime alone.

The current relations between Russia and Africa can be traced back to the Soviet Union which supported different African liberation movements.

Africa wants to maintain relations with Russia on the strategic level despite politically and economically complicated relations.

His promise to slash spending on foreign aid, end the Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and finally make America’s interests rather than international responsibility a priority again attracted the voters.

Perhaps, the most obvious winners in the context of a second term for Trump are the American businessmen, especially tech giants, manufacturers, energy providers and agriculturists.

The most salient feature of Trump’s foreign policy template, which may prove decisive for the US allies in Europe, is his position on NATO.

Maintaining his current suspicion towards the region due to the ever-increasing closeness with China, Trump can even make the Pak-US relations strained.

The dream of Woodrow Wilson to preserve global peace through the League of Nations failed with the outbreak of World War II.

The veto power has made the UN powerless, as only the Security Council can authorize intervention to halt a conflict.

The veto power has made the UN powerless, as only the Security Council can authorize intervention to halt a conflict.

As Trump emerged victorious, his pledge to “end all wars” was likely to send shivers through Kyiv.

The Pakistan-US relationship, which had grown more strategic under previous administrations, may now pivot towards a more transactional nature.

Trump’s unyielding support for Netanyahu in the past suggests that his policy towards Gaza will lack the subtlety or balance that a fragile situation like these demands.

Trump’s “America First” trade policy could provoke retaliatory measures from Beijing, intensifying the global economic divide.

The race for dominance in outer space began between the United States and the former USSR during the Cold War period.

President Trump announced the Artemis program in 2017 to put the man and women on Mars again. However, President Biden tilted the program towards more commercial and military initiatives.

Climate refugees, like traditional refugees who target to escape violent events, are also people without legal status and rights.

Governments ought to promote activities that will enable communities to become more climate proof so as to reduce the risk of future displacement.

If Iran’s defense systems have been damaged in the way that the Zionist regime and the Western media claim, why did the 100 fighter jets involved in the attack fail to enter Iran’s airspace?

The judicialization of politics will only worsen the situation, leading to potentially unintended consequences.

Labeling the current power struggle as a fight for judicial independence is misleading.

Chief Justice Isa stood firm against persecution from Gen Bajwa and Imran Khan, while other judges, such as Munib Akhtar, either remained silent or actively colluded with Bajwa.

Pakistan is now the 66th largest exporter despite being the fifth largest by population.

The only sustainable solution to Pakistan’s multiple crises is the establishment of a government of experts for a period of 10 years.

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.