Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Home Blog Page 131

De-Dollarization and Internationalization of the Yuan

0

The dominance of the US dollar as the global reserve currency has been the subject of ongoing debate and discussion in recent years. As countries seek to reduce their dependence on the dollar, there has been increasing interest in alternative currencies, particularly the Chinese yuan. The debates around de-dollarization and yuan internationalization are complex and multifaceted, with significant implications for global economic and political relations.

De-dollarization refers to the process of reducing dependence on the US dollar in international trade and finance. There are a number of reasons why countries are seeking to de-dollarize.

De-dollarization refers to the process of reducing dependence on the US dollar in international trade and finance. There are a number of reasons why countries are seeking to de-dollarize. One key reason is the desire to reduce vulnerability to fluctuations in the value of the dollar. Another reason is the desire to reduce dependence on the US financial system and to promote greater financial autonomy.

The rise of China as a global economic power has been a significant driver of debates around de-dollarization. China has been actively promoting the use of the yuan in international trade and finance, in an effort to reduce its dependence on the dollar and to promote greater financial autonomy. This has been reflected in a range of initiatives, including the establishment of offshore yuan centers and the promotion of yuan-denominated bonds.

Yuan internationalization refers to the process of promoting the use of the yuan as a global currency. The Chinese government has been actively promoting yuan internationalization in recent years, in an effort to increase the yuan’s global influence and to reduce dependence on the dollar. The promotion of yuan internationalization has been driven by a range of factors, including the desire to increase China’s global economic and political influence, as well as the desire to promote greater financial autonomy.

There are a number of challenges and debates associated with de-dollarization and yuan internationalization. One of the key challenges is the potential impact on global financial stability.

There are a number of challenges and debates associated with de-dollarization and yuan internationalization. One of the key challenges is the potential impact on global financial stability. The dollar has long been the dominant global reserve currency, and a significant shift away from the dollar could have significant implications for global economic and financial stability. There are concerns that a sudden shift away from the dollar could lead to financial instability, particularly in countries that are heavily dependent on the dollar.

Another challenge is the potential impact on the US economy. The dollar’s status as the global reserve currency has provided significant benefits to the US economy, including access to cheap credit and lower borrowing costs. A significant shift away from the dollar could have significant implications for the US economy, particularly in terms of its ability to fund its national debt.

There are also debates around the potential benefits and risks of yuan internationalization. Proponents of yuan internationalization argue that it could lead to greater financial stability and diversity, as well as increased economic growth and development in China and other emerging economies. However, there are also concerns about the potential risks associated with yuan internationalization, including the potential for financial instability and the risk of political interference in China’s financial system.

The dominance of the dollar as the global reserve currency has provided significant political benefits to the US, including greater influence over global economic and political affairs

Another challenge is the potential impact on global political relations. The dominance of the dollar as the global reserve currency has provided significant political benefits to the US, including greater influence over global economic and political affairs. A significant shift away from the dollar could have significant implications for global political relations, particularly in terms of the balance of power between the US and other major global powers.

One of the key challenges in promoting greater financial stability and diversity is the need to address the underlying structural issues that contribute to financial instability and crises. This includes addressing issues such as income inequality, unsustainable debt levels, and regulatory failures.

In this context, the role of international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will be critical. The IMF has a key role to play in promoting greater financial stability and diversity, as well as in providing support and assistance to countries seeking to reduce their dependence on the dollar and promote greater use of alternative currencies.

In addition to international financial institutions, there is also a need for greater engagement and cooperation between countries in promoting de-dollarization and yuan internationalization. This could include efforts to establish regional financial arrangements and institutions that promote greater use of alternative currencies, as well as efforts to promote greater cooperation on issues such as financial regulation and transparency.

The trade tensions between the US and China have been a significant driver of debates around de-dollarization and yuan internationalization, with some analysts suggesting that the tensions could accelerate the process of de-dollarization.

There are also debates around the potential impact of the ongoing US-China trade tensions on the promotion of de-dollarization and yuan internationalization. The trade tensions between the US and China have been a significant driver of debates around de-dollarization and yuan internationalization, with some analysts suggesting that the tensions could accelerate the process of de-dollarization.

However, there are also concerns that the trade tensions could undermine efforts to promote greater financial stability and diversity, particularly if they lead to a more fragmented and polarized global financial system. This highlights the importance of promoting greater cooperation and engagement between countries, even in the face of significant geopolitical tensions and challenges.

In conclusion, the debates around de-dollarization and yuan internationalization are multifaceted, with significant implications for economic and political relations. While there are potential benefits associated with reducing dependence on the dollar and promoting greater use of alternative currencies, there are also significant challenges and risks associated with these processes. Ultimately, the key to promoting greater financial stability, economic growth, and political autonomy lies in a coordinated and inclusive approach that takes into account the interests and concerns of all stakeholders.

Vietnam In Mekong Regional Cooperation

0
Vietnamese Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh, Prime Ministers Thongsing Thammavong of Laos, Prayuth Chan-ocha of Thailand, Li Keqiang of China, Hun Sen of Cambodia and Myanmar's Vice President Sai Mauk Kham (L-R) hold hands as they pose for pictures during Lancang-Mekong cooperation leaders' meeting in Sanya, Hainan province, China March 23, 2016. REUTERS/China Daily ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. THIS PICTURE IS DISTRIBUTED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS. CHINA OUT. NO COMMERCIAL OR EDITORIAL SALES IN CHINA.

Vietnam plays a key role in the Mekong region, which encompasses six countries in Southeast Asia: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, and China. The region is home to the Mekong River, which is one of the world’s largest river systems and a vital source of water, food, and energy for millions of people. The Mekong region faces a number of challenges, including poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and political instability. Vietnam has been working to address these challenges through its role in Mekong regional cooperation.

The region is home to the Mekong River, which is one of the world’s largest river systems and a vital source of water, food, and energy for millions of people. The Mekong region faces a number of challenges, including poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and political instability.

Mekong regional cooperation refers to the various initiatives and programs aimed at promoting economic integration, sustainable development, and regional stability in the Mekong region. The key players in Mekong regional cooperation are the six countries of the Mekong region, as well as various international organizations, such as the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and the United Nations.

Vietnam has been actively involved in Mekong regional cooperation since the early 1990s, when it first joined the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) program. The GMS program is a regional cooperation initiative that aims to promote economic growth and development in the Mekong region through investments in infrastructure, trade facilitation, and human resource development.

Since joining the GMS program, Vietnam has been actively involved in a number of initiatives aimed at promoting economic integration and regional connectivity. For example, Vietnam has been working to improve the quality of its transport infrastructure, such as the Ho Chi Minh City-Phnom Penh highway, which is part of the East-West Economic Corridor that connects Vietnam with Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand.

Vietnam has also been working to promote sustainable development in the Mekong region. This has included initiatives aimed at reducing poverty and inequality, improving access to education and healthcare, and promoting environmental sustainability. For example, Vietnam has been working with other countries in the region to promote sustainable management of the Mekong River, which is facing significant environmental challenges due to climate change and human activities.

In addition to its role in the GMS program, Vietnam has also been involved in other initiatives aimed at promoting Mekong regional cooperation. For example, Vietnam has been a key player in the Mekong River Commission (MRC), which is an intergovernmental organization that aims to promote sustainable management of the Mekong River. The MRC has been working to address a range of issues, such as flood management, navigation, hydropower development, and environmental sustainability.

Vietnam has been in the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) initiative, which was launched in 2016. The LMC is a cooperation framework that brings together the six countries of the Mekong region and China, with the aim of promoting economic growth, social progress, and environmental sustainability.

Vietnam has also been involved in the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) initiative, which was launched in 2016. The LMC is a cooperation framework that brings together the six countries of the Mekong region and China, with the aim of promoting economic growth, social progress, and environmental sustainability. Vietnam has been actively involved in the LMC, particularly in initiatives aimed at promoting trade, investment, and infrastructure development.

One of the key challenges facing Mekong regional cooperation is the growing influence of China in the region. China has been investing heavily in infrastructure projects in the Mekong region, such as the construction of dams on the Mekong River, which has raised concerns about environmental sustainability and social impacts. China’s growing influence in the region has also raised concerns about political influence and regional stability.

Vietnam has been working to address these challenges through its role in Mekong regional cooperation. The country has been advocating for greater transparency and environmental sustainability in infrastructure development, as well as greater cooperation and coordination among the countries of the Mekong region. Vietnam has also been working to promote its own economic and strategic interests in the region, while also ensuring that the benefits of regional cooperation are shared equitably among all the countries of the region Vietnam’s role in Mekong regional cooperation is also important from a geopolitical perspective. Vietnam has been working to promote a rules-based regional order that is based on international law, respect for sovereignty, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. This has been a key element of Vietnam’s foreign policy, as the country seeks to balance its economic and strategic interests with its commitment to regional stability and cooperation.

Vietnam has also been working to promote regional security and stability in the Mekong region. This has included initiatives aimed at promoting cooperation and coordination among the countries of the region on issues such as transnational crime, terrorism, and border management. Vietnam has also been involved in initiatives aimed at promoting regional dialogue and conflict resolution, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM+).

 There are also significant differences in terms of the level of development, which can make it difficult to coordinate policies and programs aimed at promoting regional integration and cooperation.

Despite these efforts, there are still significant challenges to Mekong regional cooperation. One of the key challenges is the lack of coordination and cooperation among the countries of the region. This has been a long-standing issue, as the Mekong region is characterized by diverse political systems, economic structures, and social conditions. There are also significant differences in terms of the level of development, which can make it difficult to coordinate policies and programs aimed at promoting regional integration and cooperation.

Another challenge is the lack of financial resources for Mekong regional cooperation. Many of the initiatives and programs aimed at promoting regional cooperation require significant financial resources, and there is a need for greater investment in the region from both domestic and international sources.

In addition to these challenges, there are also concerns about environmental sustainability and social impacts of infrastructure development in the Mekong region. The construction of dams and other infrastructure projects can have significant social and environmental impacts, particularly on local communities that depend on the Mekong River for their livelihoods.

Despite these challenges, Vietnam’s role in Mekong regional cooperation is critical for promoting economic integration, sustainable development, and regional stability in the Mekong region. Vietnam’s commitment to promoting a rules-based regional order, respect for sovereignty, and the peaceful settlement of disputes is an important contribution to regional security and stability. Vietnam’s experience in balancing economic and strategic interests with its commitment to regional cooperation and stability could also provide valuable lessons for other countries in the region.

In conclusion, Vietnam’s role in Mekong regional cooperation is an important element of the country’s foreign policy, as well as its efforts to promote sustainable development, regional integration, and regional stability. The Mekong region faces significant challenges, including poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and political instability. Vietnam has been working to address these challenges through its role in the Greater Mekong Sub region program, the Mekong River Commission, the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation initiative, and other initiatives aimed at promoting economic integration, sustainable development, and regional stability. While there are still significant challenges to Mekong regional cooperation, Vietnam’s commitment to regional cooperation, stability, and a rules-based regional order is an important contribution to peace and prosperity in the region.

Syria and Iran – Strategic Trade Partnership

0
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi are pictured during the signing of cooperation agreement in Damascus, Syria

Syria and Iran have had a long-standing economic relationship, including trade agreements. In recent years, Iran has provided significant financial and military support to the Syrian government. This support has included oil shipments to Syria, which has been struggling to meet its energy needs due to sanctions and damage to its own oil infrastructure.

The presidents of Iran and Syria have signed a series of long-term cooperation agreements on oil and other sectors to bolster economic ties between the two countries. Iranian delegation with Ebrahim Raisi, leading a large economic and political delegation, met Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad, after landing in Syria for a two-day visit. Iran has been the main backer of al-Assad’s government since 2011 and has played an instrumental role in turning the tide of the conflict in his favor. Reconstruction efforts, Raisi called for reconstruction efforts and for Syrian refugees who fled the country’s war to return home. Economic ties The main purpose of Raisi’s visit is to strengthen economic ties and help rebuild the country after the devastating war.

The two countries recently signed a new agreement aimed at boosting their economic cooperation, including in the areas of trade and investment. The agreement covers a wide range of sectors, including energy, agriculture, and tourism. Under the agreement, Iran has pledged to invest in Syrian infrastructure projects, while Syria has agreed to provide Iran with preferential treatment in a number of economic sectors. The two countries have also reportedly discussed the possibility of establishing a joint bank to facilitate trade and investment.

The two countries recently signed a new agreement aimed at boosting their economic cooperation, including in the areas of trade and investment. The agreement covers a wide range of sectors, including energy, agriculture, and tourism

Syria and Iran have been strengthening their economic relationship in recent years through a series of trade agreements. These agreements have been driven by a range of factors, including the need for economic growth and development in both countries, as well as by the strategic and political interests of Iran and Syria in the region. One of the key trade agreements between Syria and Iran is the Memorandum of Understanding on Economic Cooperation, which was signed in 2019. The agreement includes provisions for cooperation in a range of economic sectors, including energy, transportation, agriculture, and industry. The agreement also includes provisions for the establishment of joint ventures and the exchange of technical expertise and knowledge.

Another key agreement is the Preferential Trade Agreement, which was signed in 2020. This agreement reduces tariffs on a range of goods and services between the two countries, and is expected to increase trade between Syria and Iran. The agreement is part of a broader effort to promote economic integration and cooperation between the two countries, as well as to reduce their reliance on external powers for economic growth and development.

The trade agreements between Syria and Iran are significant for a number of reasons. First, they have the potential to promote economic growth and development in both countries. Syria has been struggling with a range of economic challenges, including sanctions, conflict, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Iran, meanwhile, has been struggling with its own economic challenges, including sanctions, inflation, and unemployment. The trade agreements between the two countries have the potential to address some of these challenges by promoting economic cooperation and growth.

Second, the trade agreements between Syria and Iran are significant for their strategic and political implications. Both countries are facing pressure from external powers, including the United States and Israel, which have sought to isolate and weaken them. The trade agreements between the two countries represent a challenge to this pressure, and a statement of their determination to pursue their strategic interests in the region.

Third, the trade agreements between Syria and Iran are significant for their potential impact on regional dynamics. Both countries have been involved in a number of regional conflicts, including the civil war in Syria and the conflict in Yemen. The trade agreements between the two countries have the potential to strengthen their position in these conflicts, as well as to promote greater cooperation and coordination on regional issues.

Despite the potential benefits of the trade agreements between Syria and Iran, there are also a number of challenges and concerns. One of the key challenges is the potential impact of the trade agreements on Syria’s relationship with other regional and global powers, particularly Russia and China. Both Russia and China have been involved in efforts to stabilize the political situation in Syria, and there are concerns that the trade agreements between Syria and Iran could undermine these efforts.

Another challenge is the potential impact of the trade agreements on Syria’s domestic economy. There are concerns that the trade agreements could lead to the influx of Iranian goods and services, which could undermine domestic producers and industries. There are also concerns about the potential for corruption and mismanagement in the implementation of the trade agreements, particularly given the challenges of economic governance in Syria.

There is also a need for greater dialogue and cooperation between Syria and other regional and global powers, particularly Russia and China. This could include efforts to promote greater coordination and cooperation on regional issues, as well as efforts to address concerns about the potential impact of the trade agreements on regional stability and security.

It is worth noting that both Syria and Iran are under international sanctions, which can complicate their ability to engage in foreign trade and investment. However, the two countries have continued to pursue closer economic ties despite these challenges.

Finally, there is a need for a broader discussion about the role of economic integration and cooperation in promoting peace and stability in the region. The trade agreements between Syria and Iran are just one example of the potential for economic cooperation to contribute to regional stability and development. However, there are also challenges and risks associated with economic integration, particularly in conflict-affected regions.

In order to maximize the potential benefits of economic integration and cooperation, there is a need for a coordinated and inclusive approach that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and the needs of all sectors of society. This approach should also take into account the wider regional and global context, including the role of external powers in shaping regional dynamics and the potential for economic cooperation to contribute to greater regional stability and peace.

The trade agreements between Syria and Iran represent a significant development in the economic relationship between the two countries, as well as in their strategic and political relationship in the region.

In conclusion, the trade agreements between Syria and Iran represent a significant development in the economic relationship between the two countries, as well as in their strategic and political relationship in the region. While there are a number of challenges and concerns associated with the trade agreements, there is also potential for economic cooperation to promote greater regional stability and development. The key to realizing this potential is a coordinated and inclusive approach that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and the needs of all sectors of society.

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.